Connect with us

global tepid

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by RichD, Dec 21, 2012.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition
    Pity about that.
    The fallacy is all yours.
    I just did.
    The guilt is perfectly real, and well-established.
    It might be if it were wrong. It isn't.
    Since I've cited specifics from the start, which you were too dim to
    recognise, it's your desperation that's getting on the nose.

    But you don't. And the 0.5 to 6 is way too high these days
    There's no question about the cause of the warming. If you want to
    repeal the laws of physics to open the field to other potential
    causes, feel free to open negotiations with the deity of your choice,
    but don't expect to be taken seriously before you've established
    contact.
    By coincidence, since you don't appear to be remotely sane.
    Sure. We've only had an alternation of ice ages and interglacials for
    the last few million years. The positive feedback it takes to get the
    tiny Milankovitch changes in insolation to flip the average global
    temperature by about 4K are quite dramatic, and self-limiting, since
    the ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere can 't get down to the
    equator, and hasn't vanished entirely (yet).

    It's an interesting story and we've only recently started to get a
    grip on exactly what happened at the end of the most recent ice age.

    <snipped more irrelevant garbage>
     
  2. Guest

    Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
    discussion?
     
  3. there are two main problems that the confirmerists & denierists refuse
    to acknowledge: a)
    the continuous rise of teh two largest ice sheets,
    since the first intl. bipolar year ('57-9), and b)
    the matching lack of a rise in sealevel, viz Morner.
     
  4. that's OK;
    no-one else in these fora is literate enough to bother
    to see that there is no such a thing as "global" warming,
    other than via passage through the lithosphere, anymore than
    there are "holes" in the ozonosphere
    (they are simply phenomena).
     
  5. benj

    benj Guest

    There you go again. The old proof by assertion. You've been caught using
    cheap non-words again and all you do is deny it. I guess that makes you a
    "denier"!
     
  6. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    I did - "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."

    George Monbiot's Guardian article - effectively a chapter from his
    book "Heat" if I've remembered the dates correctly - talks about
    TASSC, and I threw in the SourceWatch detail to flesh out the picture.
    I gave you a specific organisation, and enough detail on that
    organisation to make the point. You've failed to process the data.
    Your reaction is that of a silly goose who doesn't know how to deal
    with actual facts.

    The data is there, but you are too dim, or too dedicated to your
    demented point of view, to be able to process it.
    As you might have worked out by now, if you had a functioning brain.

    You can't even identify the dimensions - units - of the sensitivity
    you are pontificating about, and yet you think you can make credible
    claims about the current level of scientific knowledge about whatever
    it is you think you are talking about.
    Weather is chaotic. Climate isn't. We've been pointing this out to
    John Larkin here for years. We've even pointed out that this
    particular insight goes back to John von Neumann, not much after the
    crucial computer modelling fiasco that drew everybody's attention to
    the fact that weather is chaotic. John Larkin's yet to take it on
    board, and you don't promise to be a quick study either.

    <snipped the rest of your incompetent pretensions>
     
  7. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It's not a problem. The top of the ice sheet is fresh snow, which
    contains a lot of air. Local warming puts more water vapour in the air
    over the oceans, which means more snow falling on the ice sheets.

    The ice sheets become more voluminous, but not more massive - the
    GRACE satellites are measuring the mass of the ice sheets, and they
    are all shrinking. The consequent corresponding rise in sea level is
    fairly small, and not inconsistent with what we are measuring.

    Sea level rise probably won't become a problem until the ice starts
    sliding off into the ocean rather faster than it's doing at the
    moment. When the Laurentian ice sheet (over most of Canada) slid off
    into the North Atlantic at the end of the last ice age, it did so in
    big chunks, which apparently turned off the Gulf Stream twice. This is
    one of the interesting possible consequences of further anthropogenic
    global warming, but one which is not easy to model or predict.
     
  8. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It's standard newspaper over-dramatisation, nothing more. English
    language science journalism is rubbish - the journalists who do it see
    it as one step up from covering the local flower shows, and a stepping
    stone on the way to covering local politics, and haven't got a clue
    about the science they purport to report.

    Dutch science journalism was much better. They still make occasional
    mistakes, but they were rare enough that when I found one I'd point it
    out to my wife.
     
  9. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It's been done. IIRR you can download the suite of software that lets
    you run it on your computer. You've got to register, and it takes
    about ten days before they'll get around to recognising your
    registration and letting you download the software (which is why I
    never bothered).

    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

    People have been doing it for a while now.

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650017692_1965017692.pdf
    At ground level. Which means that the IR radiation is still moving up
    the atmosphere, but in small steps, and the energy is being
    redistributed across the spectrum as the atmosphere gets cooler as you
    go up, until you get to the effective radiating altitude.

    It's only direct radiation to the rest of the universe that is blocked
    - at ground level. Radiation is still one of the mechanisms of energy
    transfer that gets the energy up to the various effective radiating
    altitudes.

    The fact that you don't seem to have heard of the effective radiating
    altitude, and have completely failed to understand it's significance
    when the concept was explained to you does make you something of a
    dunce. Most of the climate experts made the same mistake before about
    1960, but the penny dropped back then, so you'd be fifty years behind
    the times.
    Right. But since most of the energy input from the sun comes in at
    shorter wavelengths than CO2 absorbs, changes in CO2 level in the
    atmosphere don't have much - if any effect - on the energy absorbed,
    while the CO2 spectrum sits rather more centrally in the range of
    wavelengths emitted.
    Wrong. The mis-perception is entirely yours, and it's a pretty comical
    one.
    And you are the butt of the joke.
     
  10. Guest

    Slowman's nylons.
     
  11. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    The George Monbiot piece is a straightforward newspaper article,
    printed in the Guardian newspaper. It's tolerably long as newspaper
    articles go - the Guardian is an up-market UK newspaper which can
    expect it's readers to have an adult attention span. All you had to do
    was clikc on the web-site and read it - there was no chasing involved.
    George Monbiot may be an adequate approximation to the kind of deity.
    There are a few other investigative journalists around who deserve
    similar respect.
    It would be, if there was any chance that you could understand
    anything technical enough to be interesting, let alone form and
    opinion on whether I understood it.
    That some of the people busy denying the reality and/or importance of
    anthropogenic global warming were busy denying the reality and
    importance of the health dangers of cigarette smoking some twenty
    years ago.
    I had thought that the point was obvious. I seem to have over-
    estimated your intelligence, or perhaps your willingness to understand
    any point of view that differs from your own.
    There's nothing vague about my accusations about the denialist
    propaganda machine, and the "chasing" you are objecting to was
    clicking on a web-site and reading a newspaper article.
    You aren't exactly promising student material, and even less
    promising as interlocutor material, since you are treating this forum
    as a soap box rather than an area of debate.
    You are claiming to be human? A hominid perhaps, but well short of
    sapient.
    I know what I'm talking about. I've got no evidence that you do, and
    your unwillingness to run the risk of specifying what your
    "sensitivity" parameter means in terms of SI units isn't making me any
    less sceptical.
    The forcing aren't chaotic. The atmosphere churns around ore or less
    randomly, as do the individual molecules that compose the atmosphere,
    but that doesn't make climate chaotic.
    Farmers have a shorter attention span, and they don't find it chaotic
    in any meaningful way.
    It's not immune to the effects of the North Atlantic multidecadal
    oscillation and the El Nino/La Nina alternation, and we don't know
    enough about them (and similar stuff that may be going on in less
    obvious patches of ocean) to yet say whether they are chaotic or
    merely complicated
    Cloud cover isn't a forcing, it's just part of the system being
    modelled.
    Lindzen had ideas about this, but they were exploded at least a decade
    ago.
    Identify what you imagine "forcings" to be. It won't make you look
    anything less like an idiot, but it will probably give us a good
    laugh.
    Meanwhile, claiming that a system that you don't understand is chaotic
    is yet more evidence that you haven't a clue.

    <snipped the rest of the empty rhetoric>
     
  12. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    I got unemployment benefit in the Netherlands from 2003 to 2007. It
    might have been welfare in the US, but in the Netherlands it was
    funded out of contributions collected from people who were in work as
    a sort of collective insurance policy. It probably paid my living
    expenses but we lived on my wife's much larger income, and still saved
    a significant proportion of that.

    I don't whine about the Dutch attitude to hiring elderly workers. I
    don't think much of it - like everybody else who comments on it, I
    think it is stupid, and I certainly found it inconvenient, but it's
    their country and they are free to screw it up any way they like.
    Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is the only regular poster who
    admits to it, and he kill-files everybody who shows him up as the
    ignorant red-neck that he is.
    Really? As far as I know it's been something like nine years since I
    intentionally posted as anything other than .
     
  13. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Bill Sloman" wrote in message
    It seems that Michael Terrell has become increasingly deluded lately, as
    evidenced by these two off-hand statements of obvious fiction presented as
    fact. Perhaps he believes this, which seriously undermines his credibility
    in general. A similar malady seems to have afflicted Jim Thompson lately as
    well.

    As I have heard others say, these are examples of people "typing themselves
    smart", or trying to build their own version of reality and "truth" by sheer
    volume of words, or childish accusations, threats, and obscenities. It seems
    to be a desperate attempt to derail an otherwise rational and polite
    discussion, when their POV has become seriously and effectively challenged
    and refuted.

    It is interesting and educational to debate issues here other than
    electronics, and I respect and appreciate alternate opinions and factual or
    at least rational ideas and information. But it still amazes me how people
    with obvious technical and scientific backgrounds can continue to argue on
    the basis of emotion and wishful thinking, or even hatred and rejection of
    anything which might infringe upon their limited and selfish beliefs.

    Paul
     
  14. matt_sykes

    matt_sykes Guest


    "you'd identify - and quantity - the variable that was
    going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a
    doubling
    of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm"

    You are completely wrong. CO2 itself will give about 1 to 1.2C for a
    doubling. THe additional warming comes from WV according to the IPCC,
    which thay suppose is a positive feedback.

    Given that rain is a massive negative feedback their stance is highly
    suspect.


    So, please apraise yourself of the actualy science, it is crucial
    because if WV is not a positive feedback CO2 will be beneficial to the
    planet. That IS scientific fact.
     
  15. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    You've already told us that you are a 12-year-old. Don't bother
    reminding us again.
     
  16. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

     
  17. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Here's the most recent report that I know about.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/26/greenland-ice-sheet-borrowed-time

    250 billion tons of ice per year is a tolerably gigantic bucket of
    fresh water, but if the Greenland ice sheet is kind enough to melt in
    place, rather than sliding off into the ocean as large chunks, as the
    Laurentian ice sheet did at the end of the most recent ice age, the
    Gulf Stream is unlikely to be much affected. The Gulf Stream has
    slowed down a bit in recent decades, but nothing to get excited about.

    The more interesting question about this year's extensive surface
    melting is what it's going at the interface between the bottom of the
    ice-cap and the rock underneath, Liquid water acts as a lubricant, and
    can speed up glacier flow.
     
  18. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Water vapour levels in the atmosphere are pretty much purely dependent
    on the ocean surface temperatures. The extra warming that you get from
    the extra CO2 in the atmosphere adds more H2O, which provides some
    additional warming, and that's always figured into the sensitivity.
    Water vapour levels equilibrate within a about three weeks, so it
    makes sense to treat it as a dependent variable.
    And why would you think that rain was a massive negative feedback?
    Nobody who knows anything about the subject does.
    I'm well aware that H20 vapour is a greenhouse gas, and have already
    mentioned the fact in this thread. The fact that water vapour adds a
    positive feedback is one of those little wrinkles that was needed to
    get enough positive feedback to make the Milankovitch explanation of
    the ice ages work. Your idea of a "scientific fact" doesn't have much
    relationship to reality.
     
  19. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Mike Terrell's incontinence pads might give him an unfair advantage in
    any such competition.
     
  20. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    As evidenced by the existence of the denialist propaganda machine.
    You've got one thing wrong though - Mickey Langan hasn't nailed
    anything, except perhaps any reputation he might have had for being
    able think straight.

    The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is that CO2 is a
    greenhouse gas, our burning significant amounts of fossil carbon for
    fuel is putting more of that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, thus
    is making the average surface temperature of the earth higher, and
    that if we keep on doing it, it's going to make the surface
    temperatures even higher.

    It's a perfectly testable hypothesis, and has additional implications
    that we can test against the geological record. So far the hypothesis
    has passed all every test.

    If you don't know enough to realise this, you really should do a bit
    more reading.

    Since the only AGW frauds around are actually the people working for
    the denialist propaganda machine, you may in fact be right, but not in
    the way you seem to have had in what passes for your mind.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-