Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:32:44 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore wrote in :

You, like Billy the Slowman, seem to be manipulting reality. This is how the *real* conversation went:

Me:

Slowman:

Enjoy your windmails.

Bye

SNIP

And another question is how much of the AGW is down to CO2, rather than deforestation, changes in land use, growing urban areas, other gases, etc.

ies,

Let's dig through and re-create that conversation, shall we?

Here's Bill, quoting Jan:

ies,

To which Jan replied, reiterating his point that civilization was founded and still largely dependent on fossil fuels:

"Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy, as your car does not run on electricity (yet). Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants. Been there."

Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our dependence on fossil fuels. As much as I admire France's nuclear power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to know how dependent. So I added it up. ~82% from fossil fuel.

But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic-- that's like herding fish.

The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so forth. Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else. Standard operating procedure.

Probably true--I _wish_ I had some herring, but had to settle for roasted sardines mixed in with steamed brown rice last night, and I enjoyed it very much!

(Alas, the can's labeled "Product of Canada," and I fear it might've been caught in non-nuclear powered boats, then transported thousands of miles using more of the same fossil-fuel technology. The rice too, for that matter.)

Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of ammo, and sure could use the help.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

..

I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

ll Sloman

Perhaps you should try to develop slightly more realistic perceptions of risk. There are potentially active volcanoes in Northern California too.

Joke. When I was involved, most of the "potential risks" were based on "research" carried out by medicos who had never heard of double blind experiments and didn't know how to test the statistical significance of their results. Your approach to evaluating potential risks doesn't suggest that the situation has improved in recent years.

are the first two google hits. The second mentions that CO2 injection is a well-established technique for sweeping the last natural gas or oil out of a nearly depleted field.

"CO2-EOR is commercially proven. It is used extensively in the USA, where 74 projects are now operating, injecting some 33 million tonnes of CO2 annually."

It may be going on in an oil field near you, but I'd still pay mre attention to the volcanoes. They are much more likely to let loose unexpectedly and on a large scale.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On the contrary, it just failed peer-review. If this were a peer- reviewed journal, it wouldn't have been published.

In fact, Jeorg lives close enough to Oregon to still have a potentially active volcanoe or two in the vicinity

so the point I was making remains valid.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

n...

It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

st

mo

What is it that prevent Rich Grise from appreciating that they don't absorb enough?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

Sl=3D

cy=3D

co=3D

st.

Rather, none that satisifies you. In fact, it is very easy to create a model earth that doesn't have any water or CO2 in its atmosphere, and show that its average surface temperature would -18C, some 32C colder than our current 14C.

CO2 is being subducted - as carbonate rock - all the time. The carbonate is unstable once it gets into the outer mantle and comes out again in volcanic eruptions. The spectacular volcanic eruptions that created the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps released a lot of CO2 in a relatively short time - geologically speaking.

The fact that some of the laval flow came up through coal fields meant that they burnt a fair bit of fossil carbon in the process.

warmer climate

It isn't. there aren't enough animals around to to have much direct effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere - if they don't go in for digging up and burning fossil carbon on an industrial scale.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sloman wrote > >>> On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBil=

st

om?

However if you dig up a lot of coal or oil and burn it - as we have done - you can get the CO2 level in the atmosphere to rise before the positive feedbacks kick in to really push up the surface temperature

Rich is igorant enough to think that this botched propaganda piece represents a fact.

The idiot reporter involved is dim enough to think that he can claim that Al Gore would say the CO2 is only responsible for 40% of the greenhouse warming, when it is well known that it only contributes between 9% and 26% of the warming, while water contributes between 36% and 72%.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

ori=3D

re would be no civilisation

ufacturers have their own power plants.

And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these nice things will go away again.

An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.

ands... atolls...

Not necessary. We can generate all the energy we need without burning fossil carbon.

And if you had read your newspaper this morning you would have learned that your electricity and gas bills are going to go up to help pay for the capital investment that is going to make this happen in the Netherlands over the next couple of decades.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon.

There can be no more doubt.

John

Sloman

s ori=3D

gy,

here would be no civilisation

anufacturers have their own power plants.

Typical right-wing paranoia - because right-winger are always conspiring to maintain their power over the rest of the population, they can't conceive of any other motive for acquiring politcal power of any sort.

The depth of James Arthur's insight into the issue can be seen from his confident assertion that climate models can't predict more than two weeks ahead, which would be true if he were talking about weather models, which are susceptible to the butterfly effect.

This is such a comical misapprehension that it miakes it difficult to take him seriously on any subject.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Good, so it does not come from us burning stuff.

Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pigs that are bad for the world, and need to be more taxed.

l Sloman

Bill Sl=3D

imed

oes

her

origin=3D

But the claim was "The French generate most of their electric power from nuclear reactors" so the the relevant part of the clown's calculation is

ELECTRICAL

I must say he's wasted quite a lot of time and bandwidth demonstating that he doesn't bother to engage his brain before applying his fingers to the keyboard.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

If only we could get the total...

However, there are figures of some sort for CO2 and for other GHGs:

W/m^2 (presumably out of 492 W/m^2 Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget) change due to increase of GHGs since the Industrial Revolution:

CO2: 1.46 Methane: .48 CFC-12: .17 N2O: .15 CFC-11: .07 CFC-113: .03 HCFC-22: .03 Carbon Tet: .01

It appears to me that of these, only CO2 and N2O are on the increase. Methane is stabilized for now, but I am not sure it will remain so. The carbon-chlorine compounds all look to me to be stabilized to being slightly reduced now.

It looks to me like the total from increase of GHGs is 2.4 W/m^2, of which .79 W/m^2 is from GHGs currently no longer increasing,

and of that .79, .31 W/m^2 is from carbon-chlorine compounds whose increase is known to be fairly permanently turned back.

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

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists?

Well, I read almost no paper newspapers, really, but I have a much faster internet news feed, of a much broader spectrum from many different countries, and Netherlands too. That energy prices will go up is no news, it is the way the system works. That taxes will go up, exactly the same. All that said, a good thing I did not sign on some years ago for a fixed (high) energy price, just got some Euros back on my yearly electricity bill, man was I right. But it also helped that I have the computer control all energy here. And I wrote the programs myself. Capital investment, well there are windmills here up the road, and a lot more further on. Now they want to build some in the sea. Have you calculated how much percentage those will supply? They still have not got the strength to build some nuke plants here... But this morning I was thinking that the best nuke plant location would probably be Nijmegen. A great place for CO2 storage too ;-) So they build coal and natural gas plants... Fine with me, next they will import the coal from China, where >100 miners die each year. But those death are far away, do not weight on the political agenda I guess. And I think the same is happening with uranium mining, I have seen movies where all those guys had was a paper face mask... here is our society, taxes, profit, and lip service to reality. We are still a devouring animal type, really. Nature, we are part of it, and as we are part of it we need to accept the climate cycles unless we develop technology like terra forming that _really_ can change the climate, maybe it will happen one day. But hiding CO2 under your bed won't work.