Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

For a bit of balance

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

kin

-in...

nd I

I am not wrong. After applying the appropriate proprietary, undocumented corrections to Joerg's lat/lon, I have yet another irrefutable proof--which I just deleted off my hard drive--that Joerg lives _in_ Oregon, and in the very cone of a volcano.

Joerg, be afraid, very afraid.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Bill, you make this too easy!

Jan rightly said modern civilization was founded on fossil fuel. Which it was, and still is, and which I tallied.

Here, I'll fetch Jan's quote for your continued amusement--

s,

as origin=3D

You responded:

Okay, fine, you stated the obvious--we all knew fossil fuels aren't the only way to make power. But it doesn't answer Jan's point at all, does it?

So you brought up France's nuclear ability as either diversion or proof of I-don't-know-what, and I just tallied the numbers to show that France does indeed depend heavily on fossil fuels, and it would likely be a cold, hungry, internet-free place without them. Which is what Jan said to start with.

(Oh, and of course we could always point to the "and the other energy companies" clause of Jan's statement, but that starts getting as silly, doesn't it?)

Bill, you're a goof! 1.29 is exactly 80% of 1.61 because that's how I got 1.29--by guesstimating 80% of the 1.61 as nuke[1], then multiplying!

-- Cheers, James Arthur

in

in...

d I

After applying the appropriate correction factors, I too find that Joerg lives in Oregon.

So, now we have independent confirmation.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it must be true.)

I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the future GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but IIRC they gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months in advance. Not accurate, but enough.

And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically, are completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less the decades-to-centuries they're being used for.

Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are, how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth.

Or look at how well the climate models predicted the current cooling transient--they didn't. In fact they predicted more and more heat and hurricanes, didn't they? And we were supposed to brace ourselves for those, to spend money and prepare, but they never came. The models were wrong.

Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to

And yet you'd tell me you know for a fact that man-made CO2 is beyond any doubt the one, most important, overriding factor?

Yes, you would.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

The only way one can predict the desired dire consequences of CO2 is to conjecture a number of positive feedback mechanisms. Those same positive feedbacks make the models unstable.

John

For an alternative, for only one GHG, a lower side figure for CO2 is

Assuming that effect of CO2 is reasonably close to logarhythmic (linear would be worse for an increase), and recent roughly 385 PPMV is 37.5% increase over 280 PPMV "best-determination" of pre-industrial-revolution baseline:

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

panies,

You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer. He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that

a) when Bill cited the impressive French nuclear capability as a retort to Jan's statement, that b) he meant it as some sort of rebuttal to Jan's statement.

Otherwise it's hard to see why he would've offered that as a response to what Jan said.

So, I was not fact-checking French nuclear claims, but the importance of "...the [fossile] energy companies..." to modern civilization, taking France as the example.

Naturally both are true: I understood Bill to be asserting, in his ambiguous, ill-formed way, that power-generation needn't release carbon, and, further, that France was an example of how civilization could use nuclear power instead of fossil fuels.

Jan took it the same way, if you read his follow-ups.

One flows from the other, obviously. To see whether France exemplifies fossil-fuel independence requires adding up their fossil fuel use, and comparing it to non-fossil fuel energy sources.

Because Jan and Bill are both free to talk about whatever they want, naturally. And I have no interest in or opinion on CO2 stores.

You snipped the comment you made which I was responding to. I've re- inserted it.

I stand by my description.

As far as being thread controller, that's silly. Obviously anyone in a conversation makes points, and sometimes presses those points when they've not been answered.

I was fact-checking whether France could exist without fossil fuels, since Jan said civilization depends on them, and Bill brought up France as a counter-example.

Alternatively, Bill's just blabbering incoherently about something that's irrelevant, and which has no bearing on what Jan said. So I gave Bill the benefit of the doubt.

the

der

er

I think you've just understood and taken Bill's statement-of-fact (on France having nukes) as being a true statement all by itself.

Obviously it's true--we all know France has nukes.

But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

I love pressure cookers. I'm glad you like yours. I thunk it up, and S stole me thunder!

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Sloman

energy=3D

s, the=3D

er man=3D

Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We already know how much fuel we burn and the residual amount staying in the atmosphere is around 60% from Keelings original work at Mauna Lau. Now refined by NOAA with global monitoring. You can even watch the fossil fuel CO2 emitted by the northern hemisphere industrial nations move to the southern hemisphere with a suitable time lag.

AND you can tell it isn't coming out of the oceans because the changing isotopic signature matches the fossil fuel that we burnt.

Be careful what you wish for...today volcanic activity contributes about

Climate change around the time of the Deccan traps vulcanism 65 Million years ago was one of the worst periods of global extinction the Earth has seen. Do you really want to go the way of the dinosaurs?

are bad for the world,

He has a point at least where methane emissions are concerned.

CH4 though short lived is a more potent GHG in the atmosphere than CO2. And it could be a real menace if we release the huge volumes trapped in permafrost and oceanic seabed clathrates.

And it would improve the health of the US population to eat a bit less meat. Japans high life expectancy is in part due to a much better diet.

Regards, Martin Brown

/com...

tas

to

ither of

em out

erature

ink

th?

ng

Any

east

ew

He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992.

This is the usual reference

which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil

is more comprehensive, and

points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

America,

Global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and more snow falling on places high enough - and cold enough - that the snow can settle. Most glaciers are retreating, but with the right topography, extra snow can overwhelm a rising snow line.

Mount Shastra is a dormat volcano

For the last 4500 years it has erupted roughly once every 600 years, and the last eruption was a bit over 200 years ago.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

arkin

of

ger

rs-in...

And I

James Arthur never admits that he is wrong, so this statement doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

That's odd. Denialists usually go in for the selective deletion of calibration data to get the result that they want.

But of a different volcano.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

in

in...

d I

Granting John's feeble grasp of scientific argument, there is - in fact - room for more doubt than he likes to think.

-- Bill Sloman. Nijmegen

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

America,

Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year and a half ago more closely:

Jon

oman

The Siberian Traps erupted some 250 to 251 millions years ago, and the Deccan Traps erupted some 60 to 68 million years ago. That they did inject CO2 into the atmosphere in the past doesn't say anything about where the current rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from

- we can deduce that from the quantities of oil, natural gas and coal being burnt around the planet.

he =3D

that are bad for the world,

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is a lot less of it in the atmosphere, so domesticated animals can make a significant contribution to methane levels in the atmosphere though termites and rice paddies are also important. Since you were asking about CO2 levels, this does not seem to be irrelevant.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen