Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446724 > unrolled thread

OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress.

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 17:53 -0800
    Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-07 18:14 -0800
      Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 19:06 -0800
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-09 12:34 -0800
          Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 18:49 -0800
      Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 22:11 -0500
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 19:40 -0800
      Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-07 22:22 -0500
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. "David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> - 2017-02-08 13:39 +1000
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 19:44 -0800
      Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 19:30 -0800
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-07 20:39 -0700
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 21:13 -0800
          Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 14:14 -0800
            Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 17:06 -0800
            Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 17:34 -0800
      Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-08 10:18 +0530
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 21:20 -0800
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-08 07:58 -0700
        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 09:07 -0800
          Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 15:19 -0800
          Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 15:27 -0800
            Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 18:46 -0800
            Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-10 06:35 -0800
              Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-10 10:38 -0500
                Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 08:57 -0700
                  Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-10 11:17 -0500
                    Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 10:25 -0700
                      Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-10 12:02 -0800
                Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 08:35 -0800
                  Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-10 11:43 -0500
                    Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 11:42 -0800
                      Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-10 22:36 -0500
                        Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-13 10:29 -0800
                Re: OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress. George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-10 08:38 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#446724 — OT: More spectacular downpours as global warming progress.

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full

talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.

We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#446727

On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
>
> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
>
> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.
>

A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more 
droughts and a drier atmosphere.

http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts

Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more 
like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see 
fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!

John

CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets 
weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.

The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446733

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 1:14:48 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
> >
> > talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
> >
> > We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.
> 
> A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more 
> droughts and a drier atmosphere.
> 
> http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp

Actually it is talking about the effects that create specific desert areas, and how global warming will make these effects more dramatic in the specific areas affected by them.
 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts

" The general view is that areas which are currently wet will become wetter; areas that are currently dry will become drier."

> Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more 
> like any weather that happens confirms their bias.

If you don't read what you cite, you can look remarkably stupid.

> If you expect to see  fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!

The fact that you took a superficial look at what has been posted, and found that it confirmed your - false - expectations does provide an unfortunate example of this human weakness.

> CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets 
> weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. Unfortunately, they don't get weaker fast enough that the extra warming doesn't happen or is negligibly small.

> The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!

Sure, but it doesn't usually change as fast as it is changing at the moment.

The last time it came remotely close was some 55 millions ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

It looks as if there was a massive release of methane - a greenhouse gas - as documented by a drop in the C-13 isotope ratio in the carbon laid down around then. Where the methane came from is a subject of debate. 

Once the methane hit the atmosphere it oxidised to CO2 and water - the half-life of a methane molecule in the atmosphere is about seven years - so that episode of global warming may be a reasonable model of how ours will play out. 

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447069

On 2017/02/07 7:06 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 1:14:48 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
>> On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
>>>
>>> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
>>>
>>> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.
>>
>> A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more
>> droughts and a drier atmosphere.
>>
>> http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
>
> Actually it is talking about the effects that create specific desert areas, and how global warming will make these effects more dramatic in the specific areas affected by them.
>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
>
> " The general view is that areas which are currently wet will become wetter; areas that are currently dry will become drier."
>
>> Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more
>> like any weather that happens confirms their bias.
>
> If you don't read what you cite, you can look remarkably stupid.

Yes, I have to agree my example did not seem to support my position. 
Happens to all of us.

>
>> If you expect to see  fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!
>
> The fact that you took a superficial look at what has been posted, and found that it confirmed your - false - expectations does provide an unfortunate example of this human weakness.

Ah, yes, we humans make errors, unlike computer models(?).

>
>> CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets
>> weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.
>
> Nobody is arguing otherwise. Unfortunately, they don't get weaker fast enough that the extra warming doesn't happen or is negligibly small.
>

How do you warmists explain the temperature rise since the end of the 
Little Ice Age? I'm seeing some recent claims that the industrial 
revolution is being blamed for the temperature rise since then, but 
really, isn't that a bit farcical?

>> The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!
>
> Sure, but it doesn't usually change as fast as it is changing at the moment.

Really? You think that the world has run on an even keel since time 
immemorial and only now are we seeing large changes? How do you explain 
the Little Ice Age then? Perhaps it was caused by the Black Death wiping 
out too many Europeans and thus the temperatures fell? How do you 
explain the temperature rise in the early 1900s, same slope as the late 
1900s, and then it pretty much leveled off, yet CO2 is continuing to 
pour into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

>
> The last time it came remotely close was some 55 millions ago
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

That doesn't explain the massive sea level falls and rises since the 
last ice age went into hiatus. We aren't finished with ice ages, you 
know...warmth (up to a point, let us define that point) is always 
preferred over cold.

So, now Wikipedia is the bible of climate change theory?

Check out a glacier in Alaska that are uncovering forests that existed 
about 1000 years ago. How can you explain forests getting covered by 
glaciers round about the time of the end of the Medieval Warm Period?

>
> It looks as if there was a massive release of methane - a greenhouse gas - as documented by a drop in the C-13 isotope ratio in the carbon laid down around then. Where the methane came from is a subject of debate.
>
> Once the methane hit the atmosphere it oxidised to CO2 and water - the half-life of a methane molecule in the atmosphere is about seven years - so that episode of global warming may be a reasonable model of how ours will play out.
>

We both can find 'evidence' to support our suppositions, but neither of 
us are climate scientists (and they only seem to work from models that 
never match reality), just well meaning amateurs. I don't see the point 
of keeping the developing world from using energy to gain a decent 
standard of living and perhaps you do.

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447135

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:34:54 AM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2017/02/07 7:06 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 1:14:48 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
> >> On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> >>> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
> >>>
> >>> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
> >>>
> >>> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.
> >>
> >> A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more
> >> droughts and a drier atmosphere.
> >>
> >> http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
> >
> > Actually it is talking about the effects that create specific desert areas, and how global warming will make these effects more dramatic in the specific areas affected by them.
> >
> >> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
> >
> > " The general view is that areas which are currently wet will become wetter; areas that are currently dry will become drier."
> >
> >> Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more
> >> like any weather that happens confirms their bias.
> >
> > If you don't read what you cite, you can look remarkably stupid.
> 
> Yes, I have to agree my example did not seem to support my position. 
> Happens to all of us.

And we get jeered at when it happens.

> >> If you expect to see  fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!
> >
> > The fact that you took a superficial look at what has been posted, and found that it confirmed your - false - expectations does provide an unfortunate example of this human weakness.
> 
> Ah, yes, we humans make errors, unlike computer models(?).

Computer models don't make errors, they incorporate errors. The real error lies in not appreciating what these errors are and how the people who use the models cope with them.

> >> CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets
> >> weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.
> >
> > Nobody is arguing otherwise. Unfortunately, they don't get weaker fast enough that the extra warming doesn't happen or is negligibly small.
> 
> How do you warmists explain the temperature rise since the end of the 
> Little Ice Age?

The Little Ice Age was an essentially Atlantic-centred local effect, rather like the Younger Dryas (if a lot less dramatic). Globally speaking, there's not a lot to explain.

> I'm seeing some recent claims that the industrial 
> revolution is being blamed for the temperature rise since then, but 
> really, isn't that a bit farcical?

Why?
 
> >> The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!
> >
> > Sure, but it doesn't usually change as fast as it is changing at the moment.
> 
> Really? You think that the world has run on an even keel since time 
> immemorial and only now are we seeing large changes? How do you explain 
> the Little Ice Age then? Perhaps it was caused by the Black Death wiping 
> out too many Europeans and thus the temperatures fell? How do you 
> explain the temperature rise in the early 1900s, same slope as the late 
> 1900s, and then it pretty much leveled off, yet CO2 is continuing to 
> pour into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which works like the El Nino/La Nine oscillation, but slower. Calling it an oscillation tends to make people think that it is regular which it isn't.

We'll need a lot more data on deep ocean currents from the Argo buoys before we get a good handle on what's going on.

The global temperature signal is noisy, but the rising CO2 level in the atmosphere is imposing a fairly obvious long term trend.

Atmospheric CO2 levels went up from 180ppm to 270ppm at the start of the current interglacial, and stayed that way to the start of the industrial revolution - about 1750.

When Keeling started measuring atmospheric CO2 in 1958, it was up to 315ppm, 16% above the interglacial norm. People started believing in anthropogenic global warming around 1990, when it had got up to about 350ppm, about 30% up, when the rise in global average temperature started showing above the noise on the temperature signal.  It's now up to 400ppm, 50% higher than the interglacial norm. 

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

> > The last time it came remotely close was some 55 millions ago
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
> 
> That doesn't explain the massive sea level falls and rises since the 
> last ice age went into hiatus. We aren't finished with ice ages, you 
> know...warmth (up to a point, let us define that point) is always 
> preferred over cold.

We probably are finished with ice ages for a while. It would be hard to get back to an ice age from 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. One of the bonuses of the current attention to climate science is that we now know the tiny Milankovitch effect triggered the switch between ice ages
 
> So, now Wikipedia is the bible of climate change theory?

Nobody claims that it has been dictated by God, so no. Wikipedia does aim to put together reliable digests of what is known, but they also like to be as non-controversial as possible.

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

is more aimed at detailing what has gone on, and has less of an obligation to keep denialists propagandists happy.

My own knowledge is more broadly based.
 
> Check out a glacier in Alaska that are uncovering forests that existed 
> about 1000 years ago. How can you explain forests getting covered by 
> glaciers round about the time of the end of the Medieval Warm Period?

I don't have to explain regional variations when I'm talking about global warming.

> > It looks as if there was a massive release of methane - a greenhouse gas - as documented by a drop in the C-13 isotope ratio in the carbon laid down around then. Where the methane came from is a subject of debate.
> >
> > Once the methane hit the atmosphere it oxidised to CO2 and water - the half-life of a methane molecule in the atmosphere is about seven years - so that episode of global warming may be a reasonable model of how ours will play out.
> 
> We both can find 'evidence' to support our suppositions, but neither of 
> us are climate scientists (and they only seem to work from models that 
> never match reality), just well meaning amateurs.

I don't get paid for my efforts, but I do know a lot more about the subject than you and John Larkin. Julia Slingo - who works for the UK Met office - has a climate model that fits the last thousand years of Chinese monsoon data, which is a pretty good fit to reality. Getting that model to replicate the Madden-Julian oscillation is trickier, but they seem to be making progress. 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C0345%3ASOTMJO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

> I don't see the point 
> of keeping the developing world from using energy to gain a decent 
> standard of living and perhaps you do.

There's nothing stopping the developing world from using renewable energy to get a decent standard of living. There's quite a strong argument against burning even more fossil carbon as fuel to generate energy.

Even if you can't be bothered to do the reading that explains how and why burning more fossil carbon is a bad idea, you need to think about the fact that there's only a finite amount of fossil carbon to be extracted, and that we've already extracted all the stuff that's easy to extract. There's plenty of harder to extract stuff out there, but extracting it is getting progressively more expensive, Renewable energy - solar and wind - is now no more expensive per kilowatt hour than energy generated by burning fossil carbon, and if we ramp the manufacturing volume by another factor of ten we'll halve the price again - it's already happened a couple of times.

Developing countries love wind and solar generation because they are distributed. You don't have to build a power grid  to distribute power from a few huge central generating plants to get the local advantages of electric power. It's still a good idea to build a power grid, but it is cheaper if it is decentralised.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446734

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:14:37 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

>On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
>>
>> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
>>
>> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.
>>
>
>A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more 
>droughts and a drier atmosphere.
>
>http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
>
>Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more 
>like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see 
>fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!

Why would anyone think it strange to see a fairy in Slowman's garden?
>
>John
>
>CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets 
>weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.
>
>The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446745

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:11:27 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:14:37 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> >> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
> >>
> >> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
> >>
> >> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.
> >>
> >
> >A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more 
> >droughts and a drier atmosphere.
> >
> >http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
> >
> >https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
> >
> >Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more 
> >like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see 
> >fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!
> 
> Why would anyone think it strange to see a fairy in Sloman's garden?

Eighth floor apartments don't have gardens ... seeing a non-existent fairy in a non-existent garden would be what you'd expect of krw.

In fact John Robertson cited two articles that explicitly contradicted what he wanted to say, so the fairies were in the bottom of his garden, not mine, but krw wouldn't have been able to see that.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446737

On 02/07/2017 09:14 PM, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
>>
>> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a
>> warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
>>
>> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme
>> weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does
>> suggest that it's going to get worse.
>>
>
> A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more
> droughts and a drier atmosphere.
>
> http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
>
>
> Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more
> like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see
> fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!

lol you didn't even read the article

> CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets
> weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.

I anxiously await the publication of this exciting discovery!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446743

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:22:30 +1000, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>  
wrote:

> On 02/07/2017 09:14 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>> On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
>>>
>>> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a
>>> warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
>>>
>>> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme
>>> weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does
>>> suggest that it's going to get worse.
>>>
>>
>> A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more
>> droughts and a drier atmosphere.
>>
>> http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
>>
>>
>> Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more
>> like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see
>> fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!
>
> lol you didn't even read the article
>
>> CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets
>> weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.
>
> I anxiously await the publication of this exciting discovery!


I still think he would do better looking at the antarctic ice. It has been  
discovered and proved why it is disappearing - the proof is very recent.  
The ice is melting from the bottom up - the sea temperature has risen.

-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446746

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:22:34 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
> On 02/07/2017 09:14 PM, John Robertson wrote:
> > On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> >> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
> >>
> >> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a
> >> warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
> >>
> >> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme
> >> weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does
> >> suggest that it's going to get worse.
> >>
> >
> > A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more
> > droughts and a drier atmosphere.
> >
> > http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
> >
> >
> > Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more
> > like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see
> > fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!
> 
> lol you didn't even read the article
> 
> > CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets
> > weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.
> 
> I anxiously await the publication of this exciting discovery!

There's nothing new or exciting about it. I think it is dealt with on American Institute of Physics web-site

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

The fact that it doesn't mean what John Robertson would like it mean comes as no surprise.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446740

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:14:37 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

>On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
>>
>> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
>>
>> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.
>>
>
>A few years ago they were talking about how more CO2 would lead to more 
>droughts and a drier atmosphere.
>
>http://www.unep.org/geo/gdoutlook/045.asp
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts
>
>Now others say it will be wetter. Great predictive ability, sounds more 
>like any weather that happens confirms their bias. If you expect to see 
>fairies in the garden then you WILL see fairies in the garden!
>
>John
>
>CO2 warming Skeptic. Inverse log rules that the CO2 warming effect gets 
>weaker as the concentration increases - do the math.
>

Heck, even the sign is uncertain.

>The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!

We're having a crazy wet year so far in California, contrary to past
predictions of enduring drought. The snowpack in the Sierras is 170%
of normal, and the ski areas are reporting base in feet. But the
long-term precipitation record, from about 1880, has no obvious trend.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Climate/Sierra_Snowpack.jpg

What's amazing here is that, after a week of rain, and predictions of
lots more, about a quarter of the people walking around in San
Francisco have no rain gear, no hats, no umbrellas. They walk in the
cold rain and get soaked.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446744

On 2/7/2017 8:30 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> What's amazing here is that, after a week of rain, and predictions of
> lots more, about a quarter of the people walking around in San
> Francisco have no rain gear, no hats, no umbrellas. They walk in the
> cold rain and get soaked.

Maybe they aren't afraid of the water?  I can't remember the last time
I wore rain gear, a hat or an umbrella in the shower!

Come to think of it, I don't *own* any of those things -- despite taking
my daily neighborhood walks regardless of the weather!

(I will, however, insist on removing eyeglasses as there's little worse
than trying to see out of WET glasses!)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446751

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:30:23 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:14:37 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
> wrote: 
> >On 2017/02/07 5:53 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> >> http://www.pnas.org/content/114/6/1258.full
> >>
> >> talks about the factors that limit spectacular downpours, and how a warmer atmosphere isn't going to limit them as strongly as it does now.
> >>
> >> We've already had had statistics on the increased frequency of extreme weather with the global warming we've had so far, and this paper does suggest that it's going to get worse.

<snip>

> Heck, even the sign is uncertain.

Only to somebody who has as thoroughly suckered by denialist propaganda as John Larkin.
  
> We're having a crazy wet year so far in California, contrary to past
> predictions of enduring drought. 

It's weather, not climate. John Larkin can't tell the difference.

> The snowpack in the Sierras is 170%
> of normal, and the ski areas are reporting base in feet. But the
> long-term precipitation record, from about 1880, has no obvious trend.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Climate/Sierra_Snowpack.jpg

You'd have to take out the short term noise before you could see any long term trend. Michael Mann worked out a way of doing that, but the denialists complained it wasn't giving the results they wanted. 
 
> What's amazing here is that, after a week of rain, and predictions of
> lots more, about a quarter of the people walking around in San
> Francisco have no rain gear, no hats, no umbrellas. They walk in the
> cold rain and get soaked.

Maybe they just like being wet, after all those years of drought.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447598

>"Only to somebody who has as thoroughly suckered by denialist propaganda as John Larkin. "

Hey motherfucker, though I usually do not respond to your stupid fucking ass, those are called opposing viewpoints. 

Look asshole, Albert Einstein had one and changed the history of the world. Science is not a fucking democracy. It is not so many years ago they put PCBs in big transformers, used DDT alll over the place, and put cyclamates in your food instead of the newer aspartame, which "they" say is safe but is proven unsafe. they take any out of the mainstream treatment for cancer offline by continuous heckling which is mainly to sell their fucking chemo n shit. 

And you are stupid eough to trust them ? they have a fucking profit motive. The people whgo want to move the rest of the manufacturing out of the US to China have a profit motive to support the AGW theory. 

And I do not dispute it. but there is not much you can do about it right now. I am in a country that was bui9lt on productivity and making real things. You never had the manufacturing base we had here. You cannot talk from experience and I doubt you ever even saw the inside of a REAL machine shop, with horizontal boring mills as big as your apartment and pulling more power than your whole household does. Down there, you have zero knowledge of these things. Yet you think you know what is best for us.

Trump is it, fuck the ecology, that is what the countries say who flood our arket with cheap goods. The time is over for fighting with both hands tied behind our back. Why don't you take your ultrasickening liberal ass over to China and talk to them about their carbon emissions ? Because they would ride you out on a rail because they do not want to experience the decline the US has. And if you get your numbers about the US economy from Wall street or the government you know less than nothing. 

Stay the fuck away from me and my country.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447603

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 9:14:21 AM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >"Only to somebody who has as thoroughly suckered by denialist propaganda as John Larkin. "
> 
> Hey motherfucker, though I usually do not respond to your stupid fucking ass, those are called opposing viewpoints. 

That's what you and John Larkin like to think. Denialist propaganda does like to present itself as an "opposing viewpoint" but in fact it's puerile lies purely aimed at letting the fossil carbon extraction industry keep on making money for a few more years. You've got to be decidedly ill-informed to fall for it.

<snip>

> The time is over for fighting with both hands tied behind our back.

This fight is fought with facts rather than fists, and you don't have much of an armoury.

> Why don't you take your ultrasickening liberal ass over to China and talk to them about their carbon emissions? 

Don't have to. They are spending a lot increasing their renewable energy output. Admittedly, they are more motivated by the fact that windmills and solar farms don't contribute the sort of air pollution that makes it difficult to breath, but they do seem to be conscious of the fact that climate change is also going to make it difficult for them to feed their population in the longer term. China doesn't have the kind of agricultural surplus that the US has (at the moment).

>Because they would ride you out on a rail because they do not want to experience the decline the US has.

The US isn't in actual decline. Pretty much everybody else is doing better, but that's another story. China can see where potential and actual problems are coming from, and it doing what it can to anticipate them - which is more than can be said for the US (who just elected an actual problem as president).

> And if you get your numbers about the US economy from Wall street or the government you know less than nothing.
 
And your superior source of information is what - Trump's tweets?
 
> Stay the fuck away from me and my country.

I'm happy to avoid pathological psychopaths. The parts of the US that I have visited haven't been heavily infected with that species, but the bit of the US that you call "your country" may be less salubrious.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447608

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-8, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >"Only to somebody who has as thoroughly suckered by denialist propaganda as John Larkin. "
> 
> Hey motherfucker, though I usually do not respond to your stupid fucking ass, those are called opposing viewpoints. 

If your hypocrisy alarm didn't sound on reading that sentence, recalibrate it.

So, opposition is OK?  Why the  namecalling, then?   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446750

On 2/8/2017 7:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>
> The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!
>
I've always refrained from forming strong opinions about AGW, 
simply because I don't know enough about it.

FWIW, so far, we've been having the driest winter in recent times 
here, and one of the mildest weathers over the past 12 months. 
According to my own irregular measurements, the temperature in my 
front yard seldom exceeded 30°C last summer, and hasn't dropped 
below 9°C this winter. That range is narrower than usual by a few 
degrees. (The official figures, as usual, are more extreme 
because the sensors are placed at the airport which is 30km 
outside and 2000ft lower than the city).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446752

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:49:00 PM UTC+11, Pimpom wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 7:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
> >
> > The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!
> >
> I've always refrained from forming strong opinions about AGW, 
> simply because I don't know enough about it.
> 
> FWIW, so far, we've been having the driest winter in recent times 
> here, and one of the mildest weathers over the past 12 months. 
> According to my own irregular measurements, the temperature in my 
> front yard seldom exceeded 30°C last summer, and hasn't dropped 
> below 9°C this winter. That range is narrower than usual by a few 
> degrees. (The official figures, as usual, are more extreme 
> because the sensors are placed at the airport which is 30km 
> outside and 2000ft lower than the city).

Local measurements don't say all that much about global warming, for fairly obvious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

If you been living in North America or Europe while that was going on, you would have taken some persuasion before you could believe that the ice age that had prevailed for the previous 100,000 years was ending and that the global climate was switching to an interglacial.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446775

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:18:53 +0530, Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 2/8/2017 7:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>>
>> The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!
>>
>I've always refrained from forming strong opinions about AGW, 
>simply because I don't know enough about it.
>
>FWIW, so far, we've been having the driest winter in recent times 
>here, and one of the mildest weathers over the past 12 months. 
>According to my own irregular measurements, the temperature in my 
>front yard seldom exceeded 30°C last summer, and hasn't dropped 
>below 9°C this winter. That range is narrower than usual by a few 
>degrees. (The official figures, as usual, are more extreme 
>because the sensors are placed at the airport which is 30km 
>outside and 2000ft lower than the city).

The validity of my reasoning to black-list John Robertson has been
confirmed >:-}
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446796

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:18:53 +0530, Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 2/8/2017 7:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>>
>> The global climate is always changing - just ask the Mayans!
>>
>I've always refrained from forming strong opinions about AGW, 
>simply because I don't know enough about it.

Don't feel bad; nobody does.

>
>FWIW, so far, we've been having the driest winter in recent times 
>here, and one of the mildest weathers over the past 12 months. 

We are having an epic wet, warmish winter. We have floods, mudslides,
reservoirs overflowing, a fresh foot or two of snow in the mountains
on a good day. 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Cab_Feb_8_2017.JPG

We had a gigantic rainfall Thursday night. Our business has a flat
roof and the water drains into the city sewer system, except when it
doesn't. Something clogged, and the ground floor flooded. Luckily, it
was all nice clean rain water. The giant pick-and-place machine was
sitting in the middle of a small lake.

The old classic Bridgeport mill looked like it was walking on water.

>According to my own irregular measurements, the temperature in my 
>front yard seldom exceeded 30°C last summer, and hasn't dropped 
>below 9°C this winter. That range is narrower than usual by a few 
>degrees. (The official figures, as usual, are more extreme 
>because the sensors are placed at the airport which is 30km 
>outside and 2000ft lower than the city).

I used to live in New Orleans, where the temperature and humidity
would both hit the high 90's. When I achieved the Age Of Reason (32,
in my case) I moved to California.

Temp sensors at airports tend to report more extreme numbers than
nearby ones. Runways (and airplanes!) make it hot in the daytime, and
the big bare expanses make for lots of radiation cooling at night.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Temps_Jan_15.jpg

That outlier -2F is at the airport, in a big flat meadow.





-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web