Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

un/com...

There you go, thinking that anthropogenic global warming is a religion, rather than a well-established scientific theory.

Presumably Al Gore has done the rational calculation that says his energy slurping life-style allows him to persuade more people that anthropogenic global warming is real than he could reach if he confined himself to lectuing only to venues that he could reach on a bicycle, and that his influence on this larger audiece will more than compensate for the extra CO2 emissions that he has generated in getting to them.

It makes sense to me.

If you knew a little bit more about the subject you'd be aware that the resistance wasn't to "reasonable criticism" but to politically motivated harassment. The fuss about the recent e-mails is essentially another steaming heap of denialist propaganda, designed to appeal to lunatic conspiracy theory fans like Ravinghorde.

We hear a great deal about how the editor of Climate Research got the boot for publishing a scandalously bad paper that the denialsists happen to like. We don't hear that Lindzen was publishing his rather better, if evnetually falsified, sceptical papers in other journals at the same time without generating any kind of fuss.

The quality is a lot better than "the usual witch hunt". They cite their sources, and Exxon-Mobil hasn't bothered to try to sue them or even smear them. You don't seem to have noticed that some of the people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as the scientific community claims, were telling you - a decade or so ago - that smoking wasn't as damaging to your health as those medical alarmists were telling you back then.

It is all a little transparent when you take the time to look.

I did. You couldn't be bothered to understand it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Now all you need is to understand climate cycles a bit betetr.

hehe. Joerg, I'm Swedish. Transparent skin, freckles, starkly blonde hair (lightly golden, I'm told), and I develop 2nd degree blisters after 20 minutes in the LA sun. As you can imagine, I __love__ overcast skies!!! (Which I may still keep a lot of, up here.)

Proof is not to be had in science. It's something you learn to live with and even embrace with understanding.

I think you must be referring to those letters I recently downloaded (cripes, that was a lot to wade through) when saying "tricks." I've used the exact same term in my own work, though. And I think you may have in yours, as well. And neither of us meant it in a bad way or a disingenuous one. I use the term, not infrequently, when talking to other mathematicians about some approach to solving a problem. In short, I saw nothing particularly sinister on that point. I did find some aspects of what I read objectionable, though. But none of it affected my opinion about the broader science conclusions. Just of people. Oh, well.

I have watched as the science has gone from fits and starts (for example, with R&S 1971 paper on CO2 and aerosols) and uncertainty everywhere to a re-alignment and a course that has gradually improved over time. You probably have NOT (but you may have) have spent as much time as I have, reading early papers, reading criticisms of them, seeing how certain initial impressions were challenged, fixed, rechallenged, etc. I have watched and read. And I've seen the transitions as new ideas, better quality minds were injected into the field, and science tools were applied, and watched the overall quality of the work product improve over time. I've been following all this since about 1987, when I was first got involved in Dobson meters and had all manner of science reports tossed at me. I now frequently write lead researchers, directly, and ask for copies of their work and some discussions, at times. I don't even waste a moment doing that when I want to know more, now. And that experience has been generally good, as well, though not always.

In short, it's not a matter of entirely looking from the sidelines or entirely just placing my "trust" somewhere. That trust has been earned by hard work, both on my end and theirs. I am still nothing more than an amateur, here. And I still interpret science work product incorrectly because I don't fully grasp all the ideas. And I get my face slapped, at times, by those scientists who feel a need to let me know when I mis-state their work product or the overall arch of some area they are working within. And I have learned the hard way, by trying my own hand at the physics and deduction to specifics, that their work (where it is better understood and I have a chance at taking my own pot-shot at it because I don't need to worry so much about whether or not it is well-grounded and can find a variety of sources which agree) is applied appropriately. So it is a little more than simple acceptance of their authority. I've questioned things at times when the knowledge was less-certain, gotten the fuller taste of their opinions at the time, tried my own hand at it, and then watched over time as the data and experimental results gradually came in over time... and saw just how well they had informed me at the outset about not only what they felt they knew, but also what they felt they didn't know. Their scores, by my measure, were remarkable. So it's been earned.

This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution, itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant observation.

If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also _know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how to abate the problem, based upon those theories.

Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have to consider that, as well.

If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder, let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and 'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case, we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So we are just stuck, looking on.

In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see, then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't, unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them.

Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough to work for their own opinion.)

Well, I think that is your political choice to make. As it is, others. I've been involved both directly (in developing and testing instrumentation) and indirectly (as a hobbyist looking on from the outside) for many years now. And I've completely disagreed with the central thrust of active climate scientists beforehand and was, slowly over time, forced piecemeal to change my opinion. It's been a long, hard path for me and it took many years to gradually come around through hard work and effort __ON MY PART__.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. In the end, the only way to know yourself is to apply your skills and talents directly to some aspect or facet and see where it takes you. And I mean, seriously and fully engage yourself. I've done that. It was painful and a damn lot of time and effort on my part. Sometimes, I wish I'd just accepted things and not wasted that time. But I did and in the process I have earned my thick callouses.

Like playing guitar, you don't get the callouses just standing on the sidelines and kibitzing about it. Or complaining about the music you hear. You get the scars and callouses by working out, yourself. Making it personal and paying the price.

Been there, done that, learned my lessons.

That wasn't it's purpose. It's a summary designed to fold in new information. You need to go back to the IPCC AR4, in particular Working Group I's work. And even then, all you get is a summary as the IPCC AR4 doesn't do the actual observation and theoretical work. All they do is interpret and summarize the actually work. For the actual knowledge, you have to go find all the relevant source materials and read each and every one of them and then sit down and try your own hand at it.

You are asking a cat to act like a dog. The report (nor any of climate science) attempts to "prove" anything. But you are totally wrong to say "all assumptions." That is obviously over-reaching, and I am pretty sure you know it is, too. Even if you were right on the broader point (which you aren't), you must know that is going overboard. (There is no need to make absolute statements to make your point -- all it shows me is that you feel the need to speak more loudly, to shout, in order to make your argument seem stronger.)

Proof isn't to be had. You know that. And "it" isn't "all assumptions" and you know that, too.

Hehe. I've no idea what it says!! I assume you are right and that it will show growth. It's just that I wasted my time finding that damned stuff so I was darned well going to pass it on to someone!!

The point I was making isn't the above thread of thought. I would have imagined that you'd have remembered where I went. But it seems you've lost your way in all these details. My apologies.

My point doesn't depend on whether or not ONE particular glacier is growing or shrinking or whether or not someone can offer a specific explanation about it, either way. Climate is averages. You point to a specific glacier (or set of glaciers) and point out that they are growing, as though that is meaningful. My point is that an isolated data point, whether that data point covers 1 year or 30 years, has no importance whatsoever when discussing 30-year _global_ averages. You need to be comprehensive in your view. You weren't. That was my point. End of story.

I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation.

I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. And so far as I've seen, not only have you not done that but you haven't indicated to me a willingness to do it in the future, either. I don't know anything about this, except one or two summaries I've glimpsed. I know I don't know anything here. And I'm quite willing to walk this path with you, if you are serious about it. I've no idea where it would take us. Perhaps we'd wind up exactly where you predict we would, largely ignorant right now. Perhaps somewhere entirely different. I don't know. But without supplying our intellects and hard work, we never will now for ourselves, either. And my point is that unless and until you (or I) do the work at hand, our opinions on this subject really aren't worth the electrons with which they are written.

You and I look at similar things and reach different conclusions. I will argue that the reason has nothing to do with differences in life perspectives -- because you and I, I think, have already tested enough of that and I believe that while we would disagree about some things I think you and I would agree about a lot more. And I know enough to trust your intuition, experience, and general background. I believe that it is because you simply haven't put in enough personal sweat here. And I think that is all it is.

On the subject of the exchanges, I've read a lot of them myself. And in a couple of cases, can say that I 'kind of' know the individuals involved and enough of what was meant. As I wrote, there are two things that bothered me after going through years of such exchanges. But none of it affects the actual _work_ I've done or the understandings I've earned in the process or the opinions of my own I've changed as I've learned over time. That is all personally my own sweat and effort and no one can take that away from me -- least of all two things I find unprofessional in tone, but otherwise not affecting what I've learned and done. And as I said, I'm not going to divert a discussion and have to deal with your emotions, my emotions, and the emotions of others in some free-for-all -- few of whom have actually spent any significant part of their own life's blood on the subject. I know what I'd wish a few had had better sense than... but I live with the good and bad in all of us, so I can take a longer view here.

Jon

te:

penedBill Sloman

edia, no energy=3D

port goods, the=3D

some paper man=3D

ll these

esn't know

cientists?

e who

y quite

field

tor?

at.

you

oved_

nyone

The deceit I practice? Perhaps you'd like to identify a specific deceit. I've certainly told you things that you don't believe, but it would have been deceitful to tell you what you wanted to hear.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

This is pretty much my understanding of the climate cycles up to now

Since our injecting loads of CO2 into the atmosphere - enough to cause enough heating already to substatially decrease the ice-cover within the Arctic Circle - seems to be over-riding the positive feedbacks that amplifed the the small forcing from the Milankovitch Effect enough to let it explain the ice age to interglacial oscillation, this is of strictly historical interest.

I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't happening any more.

Idiot conservatives do keep on acting as if the world hasn't changed right up to the moment that the change overwhelms them, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea to acquire you "understanding" of natural cycles, or your total ignorance of the physics that drove them.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Careful. A friend of Swedish descent with similar skin complexion died from melanoma about three years ago :-(

Nope, I haven't. And won't. Don't ever use that word in anything that is to be submitted to agencies such as FDA or FAA ;-)

I don't mind the word but in the context it sure sounded like an attempt to "somehow" paper over the recent cooling trend. Because it doesn't fit into their grand scheme I guess.

Mine has not been so good. Upon very polite requests I was at times basically told to go away. I have published stuff myself and every single inquiry was answered to the best of what I could do. I consider that a matter of decency but some scientists nowadays seem not to. This was back in the 90's when it required much more work, copying, buying stamps, writing envelopes, trudging down to the mailbox (in Europe they don't pick up at the house mailboxes). Nowadays all they'd have to do is send a link.

Anyhow, a refusal to disclose underlying data makes me extremely suspicious and distrustful of scientific "work".

Ok, great that you had such experience. I often didn't. What I do not like is that people who aren't climate scientists and have not put a lot of work into it are sometimes brushed aside. I would never ever do that to a novice or a casual requester. It's against my moral principles.

To say it arrogantly I believe I have a better handle on that noise stuff than many climate guys on the climate :-)

Exactly. And that (considering others) is one of my points of contention with IPCC.

Meantime we are missing the boat in so many more important areas. Like developing safe and efficient nuclear power generation. Everyone wants electric cars to be the future, wants it carbon-free, and nobody has the foggiest idea where the juice shall come from. Instead we are pushed towards wasting our time and energy with carbon credits, taxes and whatnot. That's what I am squarely against. If we are concerned about the environment, and I am, then we've got to roll up our sleeves and find technical solutions for the real issues at hand. Like what our energy sources will be in the future.

We do have alternatives. Nuclear power is just one example but it ain't ready yet. If we'd only be willing to invest in the research again instead of imposing some carbon tax that just feeds yet another fat bureaucracy.

Agree. But nevertheless every one of us has to build their opinion about it (along with a gazillion other issues) because eventually we'll be asked to make some decisions. Be that at the ballot box or elsewhere. And not everyone has the time or intellectual wherewithall to delve deep into the matter. Therefore, many of us must rely on being fed the "condensed version". That version must be credible to the people and I think many climate scientists have done themselves a great disservice by their behavior, and I don't just mean the recent emails.

But is was sure written in that style, along the lines "you've got questions, we've got the answers". While they don't have them.

There is no proof. But there is clear evidence of some past things, like the stuff I pointed out. For example, the notion that many glaciers have been mostly free of ice not too long ago is fact. There is proof. Roman coins have no ability to "tunnel themselves" through thick ice and land at just the right spot.

I wasn't meaning you but the thought process of many other AGW prononents including some in this NG.

It ain't end of story for me. For example I am not a proponent of simply papering over the recent cooling trend. That is not just an isolated event. A trend that obviously has even some bigshot climate scientists from the AGW party concerned, as evidenced in the leaked emails.

I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful. If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.

But I believe the skepticisim towards some conclusions is worth it, because they may be premature. That's my whole point.

That's where we differ a bit and I think that's ok. My position is that it is not always necessary to put tons of sweat into an issue to develop an opinion on it. There are only about 700,000 hours in the average person's life and that's a limit. Sometimes we must trust experts. To me that trust is very important.

Good points.

It was meant as an example. A pastor who cruises around in a Rolls Royce and preaches modesty will not find a lot of followers.

He needs all these gigantic mansions to "deliver his message"? ROFL! Now that really takes the cake ...

Ah yes, critical voices are political harrassment. Where have I heard that before? No, we really don't want to go there ...

Because they were not proof. Not a single speck of evidence in there where they were caught _fudging_ science. Just the usual propaganda that less and less people believe.

Oh dear, the fact you've reached that conclusion reinforces my original view. Your comprehension abilities are woefully lacking. Don't bother to explain how you reached that conclusion.

Grin. The company of those who post erroneous information about the status of an author.

And you could have just written "Although France gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear energy, its total energy..." That would have been clear writing. No need for a "fact check".

That you didn't write clearly (and surely you don't expect others to use a higher level of clarity than you're prepared to express yourself) reinforces my original view that you misread Bill's statement as refering to France's total energy use.

It was only misleading for those who missed the word "electric".

So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check."

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

The poorest countries don't burn enough fossil carbon that serious CO2 reduction would involve them, and the human costs of not reducing our CO2 are also very likely to be immense, especially in poorer countries, which are already having trouble growing enough food to feed their people.

Climate researchers are entirely aware of their obligations to be honest and keep and open mind - particularly when they are all aware that if they did find a convincing alternative explanation for the last century's worth of of global warming, they'd become media stars and be catapulted to the top of their profession.

The denialist web-sites that you seem to patronise are under no such obligation to be honest, and they'd lose their subsidies if they admitted that the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming was actually rather solid - as it is.

And don't take James Arthur's word for it - he has now twice demonstrated that he doesn't know what he is talking about, despite his claims of high-placed friends in climatological circles and intimate acquaintance with their computer code.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This is one more of James Arthur's fatuous opinions. There are sceptcal senior scientists around - albeit not many of them, and their sceptical papers regularly get falsified - but they aren't being lynched.

Very possibly. But nobody has produced any evidence to show that any climate scientist has actually been intimidated. It is frequently claimed by the denialist propaganda machine, who have to find some way of explaining why the vast majority of climate scientists regard anthropogenic global warming as a well-established theory, but they have yet to find a convincing example of actual intimidation.

Lindzen did claim that Hendrik Tennekes was fired from his job as the head of Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute because of his sceptical views, but in fact he retired at 65 - he might have been able to continue working if he been working for an American or Australian institution, but the Dutch are still depressingly age-ist.

Inspiring stuff, if totally irrelevant.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

te:

ve

te a

ple who

or

John Field's self-image is healthily positive, but regrettably unrealistic.

No need to pretend.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ote:

ave

ate a

ople who

for

mb

to

is

now

Sure, and you KNOW that the moon is made of green cheese.

More like the dregs of the usenet'svast collection of kooks.

Fine. I've been posting for more than decade now, so I really ought to be a by-word.

lways had

What do you want to know about? I'm not going to get a job as a climate scientist, but at least I know enough to be able to demonstrate that James Arthur doesn't know what he is talking about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

le

Sure. I've seen it happen. I once inadvertently provoked a Ph.D. researcher at Texas Instruments (U.K.) into doing it to himself.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The circuit that squegged in real life used bipolar transistors.

The LTSpice model with MOSFETs didn't squeq either, but I'll get worried about that when I've got around to building an real example. It's taking longer than it should.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

at

The weaknesses of the Gummel-Poon model are well known - thats why the VBIC model was developed. My current suspicion is that failure of the Gummel-Poon model to replicate the avalanch break-down of the reversed biased base-emitter junction may have something to do with it.

It isn't a Royer oscillator, but a Baxandall Class-D oscillator - the Royer inverter produces a square wave, the Baxandall a tolerably good sine wave. And the real circuit that squegged used bipolar transistors.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Presumably you mean Viscount Christoher Monckton, despite the fact that he isn't a climatologist

He does fancy himself as a climatologist, but he isn't all tha convincing in the role

He's actually an enthusiastic self-publicist, which probably explains why he made the challenge.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen