Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Sloman

that are bad for the world,

What could be more real than building things that work?

John

oman

l S=3D

ove=3D

sou=3D

nergy AT ALL.

Any single windmill is unrliable in this sense. Build enough of them over a sufficiently large geographical area and hook them up to grid, and the statistics are a lot more attractive.

tly possible

Weeks?

ndmills because of 'horizon pollution',

Too true. And they get upset about CO2 being sequestered under thier beds.

and cloudy for weeks,

Direct sunlight is a lot better scattered light, but you still get useful power if the sun is up.

tor radio, at low volume that is.

A larger solar panel with a better dc-to-dc inverter might have done better.

talk,

city will make it all the way here

Happily, the Germans are more enthusiastic about the idea than you are.

hat not.

It wouldn't run the car I've got at the moment, but it can run a car and a building machine. Ships are trickier, and aircraft very tricky indeed. But we do need to keep on emitting some carbon dioxide to stave off the next ice age, so we may be able to work somethig out.

se.

Shooting it into the sun might not be a good idea - we've only got one sun, and an unexpected interactions could make life difficult or impossible.

g I=3D

ver you

At lot of what I post comes from "Physics Today", and "New Scientist" and I fill in gaps by digging around on the web. Melbourne University's mailings are perfectly useless.

Your "wider view" seems to pick up a great deal of utter nonsense. You'd be well advised to become a little more discriminating.

on of the masses and real science.

Since you don't seem to notice when you a regurgitating Exxon-Mobil's denialist propaganda, I'd say that you've got some learning of your own to do before you start lecturing other people about "political manipulation".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

In , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in part:

HadCRUT-3 by year for the most recent 10 full years, from Hadley Centre:

UAH TLT V. 5.2, average of 12 monthly figures:

I would not go so far as to call this a 10 year cooling trend.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Clear perhaps, but also prolix.

Since Jan's claim - that the infrastructure we now use was built with energy derived by burning fossil carbon - has zero relevance to the question of whether we should continue to generate the bulk of our energy by burning fossil fuel - I was not all that interested in addressing Jan's claim.

Which is totally irrelevant to the important question, which is where we can and should get our energy in the future.

The way things are is only interesting in as far as it dictates the route we follow towards the way things ought to be - or, in the context of anthropogenic global warming the way things need to be, if we don't want to have to set aside our interest in generating energy in favour of frantic efforts to grow enough food.

Jan, of course, ignores this line of thought on the basis that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening, claiming that the people who worry about it want us to stop using energy at all (over an above what we get from food) and rehouse ourselves into unheated grass huts. This is a remarkably flagrant strawman but he seems very attached to it.

Your own approach is less extravagant - you don't actively deny anthropogenic global warming, but claim that its progression is too unpredictable to justify any serious investment in cutting down our CO2 emissions.

You don't actually specify how precise a prediction would be needed to justify such an investment, but since you seem to think that the past ten years of relatively limited warming should have been predicted back in the 1990's, you do seem to think that a precison of a tenth of a degree or so is necessary, which isn't actually a rational requirement.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Yes weeks.

Personally I never voted against windmills, I quit the political party the moment they did that. But I also know windmills will not provide all our power needs. They are also noisy, I know, I can hear them here, other then you in Nijmegen hidden deep in the city. Chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp, all night long.

Define 'Useful power', lemme guess: 1W / m^2?

Yea, like a whole football field, and a converter designed by Bill Slowman.

Actually it is an international project, but enthusiasm alone does not really do anything.

See, here you do it again, and show your big mis-conception: 'stave off the next ice age'. Forget it, it will come! No matter what you do.

Next loony concept revealed: Do you know the mass of the sun? You clearly suffer from a lack of grasp of the size of nature, and nature's forces!

Really Bill, you make no longer sense, and are here for the sake of the discussion only. That does explain why you cannot change viewpoint, as it would end all reactions of people pointing out your errors. Let's talk about other things OK?

BTW thank you for praising my language abilities, calling me 'bilingual', in fact I speak German, French, Dutch, English, and a little Portuguese. And learning some more. You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too. Many Dutch also speak English....

Sloman

energy=

goods, the=

paper man=

I do, because I do not like winters :-)

You are right. But there is also no proof that humans do.

Ok, I accept your opinion. But on the same token I have not been convinced that this is not normal. I would have hoped that there'd be some link about that increased hydrologic cycle, like an article from reputable scientists and none that use "tricks".

See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not.

Better get in line for the coming winter clothes sales :-)

Jon, I assume you know by know that I (and a lot of other) don't give much of a hoot what the IPCC writes. Let alone believe it.

See above: cannot be proven, current studies suggest. All assumptions.

All I got there was "view database", didn't go to a database. Then "view catalog", and only the name of scientists came up. What does it say? That the Shasta glaciers shrink?

No pun intended but so far this discussio took the usual route of deviation:

a. Notion that a particular glacier grows.

b. Answer that this is due to increased precipitation.

c. I bring link where the precip data is in there since 1948, such trend not obvious at all.

d. Deviation to other things, no proof that my assumption "c" is clearly wrong (and it might be).

I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email revelations.

All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven.

Just like nearly all other people, I have to rely on work by scientists because I either can't do it, don't want to do it or simply don't have the time to do it. It is the same in business where micro-management spells doom. You have to trust others or you go under together with the whole company. Because you haven't done it all by yourself does not mean you can't have and voice an opinion.

When looking at the behavior of a substantial number of climate scientists over the last few years I found lots of red flags. The latest emails are by far the biggest. IMHO a respectable scientists never ever thinks that way, let alone write it. I find that highly unprofessional and it has now thoroughly undermined whatever trust was left for me in their scientific "evidence". Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

What I do not want is hip-shot actions such as CO2 taxes or dangerous and untested stuff like CO2 sequestration underneath areas where people live, all based on science that I now highly question. And believe me, I am not alone, the number of people around here that believe the IPCC has dwindled drastically.

What is much more important for me is what each and every one of us is _personally_ doing to reduce their carbon, smog and other footprints. I am ready to go to the mat about that at any time.

te:

ote:

edBill Sloman

a, no energy=3D

t goods, the=3D

me paper man=3D

these

't know

ntists?

ho

uite

ld

d_

ne

And I'd suddenly become a "scientist" if I started wasting my time on experiments that told me nothing I didn't already know, about a subject in which I wasn't interested?

If you want to waste your time playing silly games, nobody is going to stand in your way - in so far as it keeps you out of our hair, I'd actively welcome it. Getting other people to take you seriously is rather more demanding.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

But you used mosfets.

John

No, warmingists have to prove that CO2 _is_ causing trouble for us.

No, it means that you didn't even look at my links.

A preacher that doesn't live by his teachings? We oughta, coulda, shoulda, but not me?

So? Quote "In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change"

That is propaganda in my eyes. If the IPCC says that others "misrepresent" the science that doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. At least not right now.

Quote "... sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work'"

Remember the recently leaked emails? If that isn't enough proof of "resistant to reasonable criticism" of scientists to you then I can't help you.

Ah yes, the usual witch hunt. By a "union of concerned scientists".

I've asked for _proof_ where Exxon _fudged_ science. Sorry, but you did not deliver that.

that are bad for the world,

S*it for brains Neocons like you obviously find that diet appetising!

"Fat Ugly Americans for a Dead Planet" should be your tag line.

Regards, Martin Brown

oman

This isn't an answer.

If a country was to rely on windmills alone for its energy, you might need several days worth of storage to keep the country running. A period of tatl calm extending over an enture country - even one as smal as the Netherlands - is remarkably improbable.

It's also irrelevant to any discussion of the way we'd get our energy if we were to stop burning fossil carbon, because we wouldn't rely on windmills alone, but on a mix of windpower, solar power, hydrolelectric power and probably the osmotic pressure generator that are now showing up as prototypes, as well as the occasional nuclear power station and probably a few residual fossil-carbon-fueled power stations that sequestered their CO2 output into under-ground or undersea storage

Our current grid could survive without storage with up to 20% of our power coming from windmills.

There are small-scale installations - on islands for example - where a day's worth of storage is enough to let the system tolerate a much higher windmill contribution

And every clean kilojoule that we generate from wnd at the moment is saves us the CO2 emission from the fossil-carbon we didn't have to burn.

wi=3D

e moment they did that.

egen hidden deep in the city.

ng =3D

sis=3D

n.

Rather more than you'd need to charge a NiCad.

re =3D

tri=3D

ally do anything.

It translates into money, and high voltage DC transmission liks.

Or so your masculine intuition tells you. Science would tell you different if you understood it.

Useful web-sites. It is a pity that you lack the knowledge necessary to understand them.

hou=3D

Ever heard of poisoning or catalysis?

's forces!

You clearly suffer from a lack of grasp of nature's capacity to make life complicated.

iscussion only.

Really Jan, from you that is truly comical.

actions of people

And you think you have found one?

I should have said multilingual

Dutch too.

I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to get rid of the minor grammatical errors.

Almost everybody. This meant that everybody could read my reports, and minutes of meetings (in Dutch) in English, while many of the customers didn't speak or read Dutch. Had I written my reports in Dutch, they would have had to be translated back into English for all the overseas customers who don't know Dutch and don't have any compelling reason to learn it.

And I have learned other languages - French, German, and a little Russian. I've never used any of them enough to be truly fluent, and learning Dutch compleltely destroyed my capacity to speak German, though I now understand it a bit better than I used to.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

there

that

The human cost of serious CO2 reduction would be immense, especially in the poorest countries. Climate researchers have an overpowering moral obligation to be honest and keep an open mind.

John

happenedBill Sloman

no energy=

goods, the=

paper man=

know

scientists?

Dutch too.