Crispin Roche 1 December 2006 13:52:41 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:32:58 -0600, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message>news:1164831078.220270.177910@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...><snip>>* It is certain that human activities have>increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide in>the atmosphere above levels in the geologically>recent historical record, which has led to the>recent global climate change. Carbon dioxide>levels remained constant from the period>1000-1750, then increased more than 25% in the>last 150 years.1,2 This had caused average global>surface temperatures to rise approximately 0.6 F;>global average sea level to rise 0.1-0.2 meters;>and ice extent in the Arctic to decrease by about 40%.2, 3>
Am I the only one who thinks that 0.6 degrees over 150 years is incredibly>stable?>
Howard Brazee 1 December 2006 16:03:06 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:50:34 GMT, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
I agree. Of the options visible today, fusion is the best bet and some >big money is already in play but far more will be needed.
Yep. But even if we replace all our power sources with environmentally friendly power sources - our use of energy, our need for roads, buildings, and farms, and simply our dominance of the environment will continue to effect the world's ecology and climate.
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message news:60a0n25q5k7g4v63grcutdau9vkl6b01oi@4ax.com...> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:50:34 GMT, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org>> wrote:>
I agree. Of the options visible today, fusion is the best bet and some>>big money is already in play but far more will be needed.>
Yep. But even if we replace all our power sources with> environmentally friendly power sources - our use of energy, our need> for roads, buildings, and farms, and simply our dominance of the> environment will continue to effect the world's ecology and climate.
No question there. Although the big environmental question of the day is mostly associated with the use of dirty energy, it must be remembered that switching over to clean sources could make things worse. It would solve the problem of carbon emissions, but how it would affect human behavior to have a clean and bottomless source of energy is an open question.
On 30 Nov 2006 18:46:06 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
There are theories that address the issue. Those theories say there is>great risk associated with continued production of greenhouse gasses.>Theories are well substantiated scientific explanations.
Some are and some aren't. The theory that increased CO2 levels caused by humans are what's causing the current rise in temperature is a theory only. This theory has very little scientific evidence to support it, because this is the first time in the history of our planet that humans are contributing to an increase in CO2. There's simply not enough data to support the claim.
My guess would be that human activity has some effect, but not very much. Perhaps this is wishful thinking because human CO2 emissions will continue to rise and there's nothing that's going to stop it. Of course, there may arise some technology that will allow us to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That's the only hope.
On 30-Nov-2006, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
S McFarlane wrote:> > "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message> > news:YLIbh.39816$Fw5.15525@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...> >
That was opinion, not fact. Based on my opinion, I would urge that the> >>major economies establish serious joint ventures to develop new and> >>innovative energy production systems. The right solution may not even> >>be> >>a SWAG right this minute but there is one out there. Do I expect> >>something like this to happen? Not in my lifetime or my children's> >>lifetime. Hopefully they will be surprised.> >
If you aren't already familiar with the topic, you should look at what's> >
being done in the area of high-energy physics and plasma science.> > Relatively benign and abundant energy production is out there. The only> >
question is whether we will make it to the finish line in time.> >
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with ITER and some related fusion> projects but I just don't think that this effort will be the long term> solution. While this effort may provide power for the grid, something> needs to be done to create small scale power sources for aircraft, local> surface transport, third world economies, etc. Battery technology will> improve but I doubt that it will reach the charge density needed.>
As I said, the answer is out there but invisible at the moment. The> next real breakthrough is never foreseen.
I missed this message earlier. I was having system / network problems this morning.
Very interesting artical and site. What I found really cool was this article from the same source. Look like we may have a way to recycle old drivers. Actual golf content.
Howard Brazee 6 December 2006 00:49:16 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:39 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
I agree. It is bad enough when people unthinkingly preach dogma as fact >> but when a Chief Acolyte threatens a non believer with the power of the >> state things have gone too far.>>
Jay Rockerfeller's behavior not any different than that of the senior >> clerics in Iran. Believe or Die!>>
More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Yeah, but that same disorder is apparent on other parts of the political spectrum.
Bobby Knight 6 December 2006 05:08:09 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:00:30 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
Bobby Knight wrote:
Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.>>>
In my 70 years, I've heard a lot of things. Some of them don't mean>> much.>
At least you are not disputing the fact that conservatives are more >generous with their money when it comes to charity than liberals. Kind >of brings new meaning to I got my now you get yours.>
As usual you misconstrued my statement. Some conservatives are more generous, some liberals are more generous. It certainly doesn't change the "I got mine" of either area. Try not generalizing.
John B. wrote:> If so, it's because they have more.
When it comes to social programs; Americans should be allowed to vote on whether or not they should be created or terminated. Further; the more taxes you pay, the more votes you should get. Someone who has never paid taxes should not get to vote to increase my taxes to give them more freebies.
Bert Robbins wrote:> Head Shot wrote:>> John B. wrote:>>> If so, it's because they have more.>>
When it comes to social programs; Americans should be allowed to>> vote on whether or not they should be created or terminated. Further; >> the more taxes you pay, the more votes you should get. Someone who has >> never paid taxes should not get to vote to increase>> my taxes to give them more freebies.>
I would give everyone a single vote to start with but, depending upon> your contributions to society, the more money you pay in taxes, the> more additional votes you get.
On 5 Dec 2006 18:41:19 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm disputing it. Generosity is best measured not in raw dollars, but>in the percentage of one's income. Gross giving by conservatives is>probably higher than by liberals because conservatives generally have>more to give. That's why they're conservative. Also, liberals tend to>be more giving of their time to charity than conservatives. Whom do you>admire more - a rich conservative housewife who organizes a charity>ball or a middle-class liberal one who donates her time to the charity?
Wrong. The study shows that conservatives give more to charities across all income groups and they also donate more time to charity and give more blood.
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message news:m0qdn2dcu4g1b3l15mepih2g194k4ss86j@4ax.com...> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:20:45 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>> wrote:>
Bobby Knight wrote:>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:50:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>>>> wrote:>>>
John B. wrote:>>>>> Bert Robbins wrote:>>>
Have you heard that conservatives donate more to charity than >>>>>> liberals.>>>>> If so, it's because they have more.>>>>>
Why would they have more? Initiative, drive, ...>>>
Inheritance.>>
The side of my family that has the money lives to their 90's and and in>>come cases to 100. I'll be getting SS by the time I inherit any money.>
My sib and I didn't have an inheritance.. Ergo, well...figure it out> for yourself.>
So only conservatives get inheritances? None here either Bobby, figgure it out.
Bert Robbins wrote:> Bobby Knight wrote:>> My sib and I didn't have an inheritance.. Ergo, well...figure it>> out for yourself.>
Make wiser parental choices next time.
He stopped sleeping with them as soon as he found out they were poor.
-- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson
Yup... exactly like my back deck. Just got back in from shovelling... the wife was out first doing our sidewalk and walkway. so I had to get out and show my face to the neighbours.
"Chuck Gould" <chuckgould.chuck@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176049651.141473.16440@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If this problem proves to be as serious as some predict, we are all at
risk of being regulated right out of our boats, cars, RV's, etc.
That's why I advocate keeping an open mind and being prepared to take
some small steps now if that means we won't have to take drastic steps
in the future.
If the scientific and other communities of alarmists who focus on man made global warming influences are correct, they also agree on something else that isn't talked about much.
It's too late, even according to them. Whatever bad things that are predicted to happen are going to happen regardless of how much or quickly mankind changes their habits.
Which kinda makes you wonder how much influence mankind had on it in the first place.
Short Wave Sportfishing 8 April 2007 23:25:25 [ permanent link ]
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould" <chuckgould.chuck@gmail.com> wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.
Here's the thing about global warming.
There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is meaningless because of the temperature extremes from climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. Not to mention night and day.
From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add them together then divide by the number of data sets used. While that is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for variations in climate. And as far as I know, and I could be wrong, that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove anything.
The general average method does not account for climate. If you take a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40 that averages to 25.
If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different. You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.
In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.
I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming. One is real, one is a myth.
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:25:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing <email@swsports.org> wrote:
In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.
There seems to be plenty of evidence that we are in a warming cycle of some sort. The questions are, what is causing it, and can anything be done about it? There's lots of honest controversy on those points.
Does anyone remember the sunspot maximum of 1957 and 1958? It was a block buster. The whole thing could have started then as far as anyone knows.
I thought I saw that photo in a link posted here. The link had a bunch of snow pictures taken in upstate NY last winter when they were buried with snow. But I can't find the link. What's the who/what/when/where on this photo? And who is on first?
Short Wave Sportfishing 9 April 2007 04:10:22 [ permanent link ]
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:16:51 -0400, Wayne.B <waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone remember the sunspot maximum of 1957 and 1958? It was a
block buster. The whole thing could have started then as far as
anyone knows.
I just pulled out my SWL logs from that time and the QSL cards are from all over the planet.
Several of my favorites are small, 1k AM stations on nightime low power. I also have SWL QSL cards from France, Ireland, West Germany and a couple of other countries - all AM stuff.
The funniest one was from Liechtenstein. The engineer of the station was a former Armed Forces Radio type and he wrote a three page letter about living in a country the size of a postage stamp.
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:10:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing <email@swsports.org> wrote:
I just pulled out my SWL logs from that time and the QSL cards are
from all over the planet.
I got my ham license in 1957 when I was 12 years old. I remember coming home from school at lunch time in 1958 and hearing west coast and european stations on the 6 meter band as loud as the locals, all due to high sun spot levels of course.
Here's another datapoint for the greate climate debate of 2007, this one from a professor at MIT:
What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?<<
I'm really on the fence WRT this global warming stuff. But, to play devil's advocate, what if this were the beginning of the end of the "ice age" when most of the continents were covered in glaciers. Then the glaciers began their retreat to the poles. We'd probably be screaming global warming then as well. Could this not be a continuation of that trend?
If so, whose to say that the massive climate change that might occur, begins another "ice age" to start the process all over again? Since no one was around to take CO2 and methane measurements from the dinos, perhaps it's similar to what man is doing?
I have NO scientific evidence or theories to back this up... just thinking out loud here, and trying to introduce some food for thought.
--Mike
"Chuck Gould" <chuckgould.chuck@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176093269.537353.11350@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On Apr 8, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <e...@swsports.org> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
<chuckgould.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.
Here's the thing about global warming.
There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. Not to
mention night and day.
From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.
The general average method does not account for climate. If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.
If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.
In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.
I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.
Then riddle me this, Shortwave;
What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?
I think you'd find plenty of company among people who aren't quite ready to blame it all on man's activities; but there are darn few people who insist it isn't happening at all.
Short Wave Sportfishing 9 April 2007 15:12:02 [ permanent link ]
On 8 Apr 2007 21:34:29 -0700, "Chuck Gould" <chuckgould.chuck@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 8, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <e...@swsports.org> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
<chuckgould.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.
Here's the thing about global warming.
There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. ot to
mention night and day.
From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. hile that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate.
nd as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.
The general average method does not account for climate. f you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.
If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.
In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.
I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.
Then riddle me this, Shortwave;
What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?
I'm not sure that they are "melting" - it may be part of a long term cycle which some scientists are now beginning to think happens on a 600 to 700 year cycle. And it's not like it hasn't happened before - remember Greenland? You know - the Vikings who discovered China, India and colonized Kansas? And it's Spring - ice melts in the Spring.
Why are the inner and nearer outer planets warming up? Why is Pluto (or whatever it's called now) brighter? Think it might have anything to do with the sun?
I think you'd find plenty of company among people who aren't quite
ready to blame it all on man's activities; but there are darn few
people who insist it isn't happening at all.
I'm firmly in the camp of it may have some effect, but it is not a total cause. I'm also noticing that this scientific "consensus" that the members of the Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod claim to enjoy is seemingly falling apart as more scientists are beginning to jump off the wagon and listen to those who never climbed on.
And I still think that the whole pollution fight, one that needs to be fought, has been co-opted by the global warming crowd.
I might also point out that these kinds of popular crisis predictions have been around for a long time. Anybody remember Global Cooling because of all the pollution would increase the albedo of the atmosphere resulting in lower temperatures and a new Ice Age? Or the population crisis ZPG maniacs who predicted, quite logically and with mathematical certainty that we'd all be standing hip deep in people by now with no room to move or breathe?
Apocalyptic visions of the future are as old as man. Global Warming is just another version of the same old same old.
Given the lack of knowledge re: the 'amount' of human influence, and given that trillions of dollars will, at best, have a small overall effect, wouldn't it be better to use a few billion to eradicate HIV-AIDS? -- *****Have a Spectacular Day!*****
Only a complete imbicile would acertain that because of a late season
snow storm, global warming doesn't exist.
And if there's anybody who knows about being a complete imbecile (note the correct spelling - you knocked the irony meter right off the charts, dipshit), it's asslicker.
Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists.
Mike Jacoubowsky 30 October 2007 07:08:53 [ permanent link ]
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com...
Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved
leftists.
So the idea is that this frees up huge amounts of working capital that can now be used to sponsor Pro-Tour teams?
But seriously, forget about "Global Warming" as an issue. If we just act like decent human beings, which, for sure, can be a bit of a stretch at times, we'd be doing most of the things your "beloved leftists" would want anyway. It's funny how we don't think twice about making the smallest impact possible in wilderness areas, but when it comes to the rest of the planet, watch out, I don't care where that sewage flows or how much of that pesticide goes into the food chain or how many areas we might be saving huge amounts of $$$ if we thought a bit and figured out how to do things with a bit less packaging. And the amount we drive our cars... once again, forget about global warming, just look at the smog some days. Doesn't it seem like something we'd be better off with a bit less of?
We can be better caretakers of this planet without having western civilization grind to a halt. Right now, I'm going to go turn some lights off in the house. There's no reason for so many to be on; there's nobody in the entry hall, or the main hall, or the kitchen right now... all areas I can see from where I am, all lit up. Even the light in the back yard was on, and I'll be the dog could care less.
So I've just lengthened the time before I have to replace more lights (eventually with those fluorescent lights that look sorta like a soft ice cream cone), I'll save a few pennies on the electric bill, and somehow it even seems like a house with fewer lights on is a bit less stressful to be in.
Now, about that computer farm in the living room... kids computer, mom's computer, file server, and my main computer in the family room... sigh. At least when I replaced the kids computer last week, I made choices that resulted in a far-quieter & faster machine that uses less than half as much power as their older one. Probably spent about $30 more than I might have otherwise.
Little things that aren't going to make even the tiniest little dent by themselves, but just make sense in a being-nice-to-the-planet sort of way.
Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
beloved leftists.
Hurricanes will trend up in frequency. That does not predict anything specific for a particular year.
The issue isn't global climate change. That's a fact. The question is how much man can affect it. It's a tough call, but cutting back on our carbon emissions will have benefits even if it doesn't affect climate in any way.
Howard Kveck 30 October 2007 09:49:36 [ permanent link ]
In article <13id5eodm5f7g97@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming was
going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought
to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely
nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists.
The weather is never consistent from year to year. Some years have more hurricanes, some less. One thing that we can sure will be consistent is that you'll find a way to say something inane about a topic you don't understand so you can criticise the demon "Liberals."
-- tanx, Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
William Asher 30 October 2007 21:14:13 [ permanent link ]
Tom Kunich wrote:
Everyone remember those moronic leftists screaming that global warming
was going to cause the worst hurricane seasons on record?
I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild
ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is -
absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their
beloved leftists.
Doubting Thomas:
Here is a link to Emmanuel's Nature paper on the relationship between hurricane *intensity* and a warming planet. Note that the link is not in storm frequency, but on storm intensity. In other words, what the model says is that of the storms that do occur, more will be bigger.
Now, cut to the 2007 hurricane season. There were two cat 5 hurricanes out of a total of 4 storms, which is a fraction of 0.5 (not to mention that both cat 5's followed essentially the same track, which is unprecedented in the history of observations (plus you had Humberto, which intensified faster than any storm even so close to landfall (go to the NHC website archives and find the forecasters comments on Humberto if you don't believe me, which you don't, but you won't check, but you should, because I am right and it will save you from looking foolish when you call me names and I then provide the link from the NHC website))). If you go back through the archives and calculate the fraction of major hurricanes to total hurricanes each season back to 1980 or so, you will find a fairly steady increase in this fraction. This is Emmanuel's point, in a warming climate, the total number of cyclones that form is still a function of vertical shear and tropospheric forcing, but *if* you form a cyclone, it has a better chance of turning into a major storm.
Interestingly, if you do the same exercise for typhoons, you find the same thing. Total typhoon number from 1980 through 2006 is highly variable, with frequency not really correlating from year to year. However, the fraction of all typhoons that become super typhoons (equivalent to a cat 3 or bigger hurricane) increases steadily from about 0.2 in 1980 to double that 0.4 in 2006. Again, maybe not more storms, but of the storms that do form, more are bigger.
I am not surprised you think this season was exceptionally mild. The two cat 5's, which made landfall as cat 5's (also unusual), killed brown people so they didn't get much coverage here. However, I had the distinct pleasure of flying into the outer fringes of Dean and it was intensely cool. There was this huge container ship, at least 250 m long, sitting there in the Gulf of Mexico. At that location, it was maybe 200 miles from the storm's eye after it crossed the Yucatan and was in the Bay of Campeche. We looked down and thought it odd that the ship had no wake. We realized it was hove to, making no headway and treading water, just trying to survive in the wave field kicked off by Dean.
This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the ones there were didn't kill white people.
Steven Bornfeld 30 October 2007 23:43:57 [ permanent link ]
Donald Munro wrote:
Howard Kveck wrote:
The weather is never consistent from year to year. Some years have more
hurricanes, some less. One thing that we can sure will be consistent is that you'll
find a way to say something inane about a topic you don't understand so you can
criticise the demon "Liberals."
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
Howard, you're a good egg
I bet Kunich would like to make an omelet out of him.
I don't see Tom as violent. Neither are us lefties. But we ain't going away. Frankly, I don't know which leftists made absurd claims about global warming. While scientists can be political, science ain't. It is what it is. I don't argue with the flat earth society.
The first column is the year starting with 1986. The second column is total number of typhoons in that year. The third column is the number of super typhoons, the fourth column is the fraction of the all typhoons that became super typhoons, the fifth column is a 3-yr running average of the fraction. Note how the values in the 5th column, which is the average super-typhoon count divided by the typhoon count, increases from 1986 to 2007? This is what Emmanuel says will happen, that of the typhoons that do develop, more will grow to super-typhoon category. The frequency of storm occurrence is not the key parameter, it is storm intensity.
As always, I remain in awe of your ability to evade all form of rational debate.
(As a side note, the first reference in that document is Bosart and Bartlo, Bartlo being *the* Bartlo of sci.geo.meteorology and other usenet weather groups.)
"Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MmQVi.14542$xP1.13743@newsfe11.phx...
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
<snip>
What is the most pressing problem of our times?
Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that
eventually, right?
You've that right. I figure that by 2050 or so the new generation is going to be damned fed up with supporting all you old jackasses in the manner you've demanded to become accustomed - at someone else's expense. At that point there is going to be another night of the long knives and a whole new government will dawn. Hopefully one that is able to move on after totally evening the score.
Greg, just curious, is there a country in the world that has a government
that even comes close to your ideals?
BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.
Singapore and Thailand are in practice good government though in detail pretty creepy.
Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting
back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
The resultant technology of not burning fossil fuels for various purposes will allow us to exist at current levels of civilization after the fossil fuels run out.
Oil is much to valuable as natural resource to burn up. It's the basis of an entire family of useful materials but it sure isn't too useful after being expelled in an oxidized form out of your tailpipe.
"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
than a small fortune.
They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
able to cope with rising tides!
That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been decommissioned.
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1193795958.956027.126210@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the
storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.
Dumbass - maybe you ought to go give Asher that blowjob you've always wanted to give him. That still won't change the fact that weather is and always has been cyclical and the supremely ignorant claim that looking at a 20 year period of the earth's history and proclaiming you've found a pattern demonstrates the sort of intellectualism we've come to expect from Asher and his ideals.
William Asher 31 October 2007 08:32:54 [ permanent link ]
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in news:1193789111.232540.241000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 30, 11:14 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This season wasn't mild, there just weren't a lot of storms and the
ones there were didn't kill white people.
In your own defense, I suppose that was funnier before you wrote it,
since it wasn't funny when you did.
It wasn't meant to be funny, why on earth did you think it was supposed to be? That seems sort of weird to me that you would be offended, I mean, you being the paragon of non-political correctness and all. The point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007. But there were. Dean came ashore as a Cat 5, so did Felix. We just didn't hear about them in the media because Trent Lott's home wasn't damaged. Or does that offend you as well?
Howard Kveck 31 October 2007 09:48:24 [ permanent link ]
In article <1193777493.059955.272650@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I don't see Tom as violent.
I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head
against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and
wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit
him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.
Hmm, so are all the threats of "disconnecting [someone] from reality", lynching fantasies and other threats you've made just empty chest beating? Or are you sort of forgetting about a few other events, like smacking your girlfriend or knocking down members of your "Toms" club?
-- tanx, Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
Howard Kveck 31 October 2007 09:48:30 [ permanent link ]
In article <13if7gvqp1broc2@corp.supernews.com>, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote:
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I don't see Tom as violent.
I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head
against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and
wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit
him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.
Neither are us lefties. But we ain't going away.
Wanna bet? The younger generation has gone through the schools with
all of the super leftists teaching in them. My guess is that sooner or
later they'll come into power and there'll be a pogrom. Let's remember
that Jack Kennedy would be declared an extreme right wing nut these
days.
That's pretty funny.
Tom is one of those people who thinks Kennedy's views would be static if he was alive (er, if JFK was alive, not if , oh you know what I mean). I laugh at the idea of a "pogrom" here. That gets back to good old "Two Guns" and TK's assertion that if "Liberals get power they'll have their own Final Solution." Wee bit of catastrophising there, no?
-- tanx, Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
in 556897 20071031 030322 "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5oou1rFkh3lvU1@mid.individual.net...
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep
out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple
of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more
than a small fortune.
They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be
able to cope with rising tides!
That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that
the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been
decommissioned.
Wherever you read that, it was totally wrong. The barrier is working well and is closed more and more frequently. However it is not expected to be able to meet future water levels and planning for a larger version is already well-advanced.
"Before 1990, the number of barrier closures was one to two per year on average. Since 1990, the number of barrier closures has increased to an average of about four per year. In 2003 the Barrier was closed on 14 consecutive tides."
William Asher 31 October 2007 17:02:45 [ permanent link ]
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150 @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The
point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there
were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort
to lies.
Tom:
You said:
"I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists."
Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay Area, it seemed mild"?
* "Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com> a crit profondement: | | Over my expected lifetime, the world population will triple, from ~3 billion | to ~9 billion. That just blows me away. We're pooping too much in our petri | dish to sustain it. |
Mike Jacoubowsky 31 October 2007 19:22:56 [ permanent link ]
Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on
the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal
flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take
some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!).
Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the
barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide
flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change
yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the
(rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you
notice this pretty quickly.
Pete-
Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.
Tom, you screwed up. You thought you were reading a conservative-friendly publication, but should have known better. ALL the media is owned by the liberal establishment. What you read was a deliberate plant, an article penned by an environmentalist wanting to discredit the conservatives by feeding information that he knew would make the reader look foolish when regurgitating the claims.
ALL the media is run by the liberal environmentalist establishment, even Rush is a shill for them. You think he's actually made some of his embarrassing remarks out of stupidity? C'mon. The Michael J Fox stuff? Deliberate. The Vince Foster debacle? Carefully planned. His constant attacks on homosexuals? An attempt by the far-left to force their brethren out of the closet and take action.
Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
cost.
That would be tough. In all seriousness, I'm sure some will try to crunch the numbers. But because there are so many potential causes of lung disease, only the most egregious (smoking) is not refutable (not that they don't try). It is tough to point at one factor responsible for the significant increase in asthma and related diseases in the population. Also, the variable distribution of pollutants would likely make a meaningful prospective study difficult. This doesn't mean that products of petroleum combustion--both carbon based as well as sulfur and nitrogen oxides associated with their combustion haven't been demonstrated to be toxic--just that it would be tough to generate the statistics in the general population that would convince people disinclined to draw the (to me obvious) conclusions.
* "Mark Fennell" <marco_fennelli@yahoo.com> a crit profondement: | > | > You possibly might be a tad off there Mark. | > | > http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop | | You're right, it'll be more than 9 billion since I plan to live beyond year | 2028, which I certainly will because I always ride my bike wearing a helmet. |
Sheesh, are you ever lucky
At my age I count my blessings every morning I wake up, but never could get used to wearing a helmet
You're right, it'll be more than 9 billion since I plan to live beyond year 2028, which I certainly will because I always ride my bike wearing a helmet.
"Pete" <petersr1088@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1193853653.943494.79320@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 31 Oct, 14:02, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of
the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail
about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of
them sticking when the barrier was tested.
This is true: it doesn't work first time very often, and some gates
have to be given a kick (not literally!). But that is not a difficult
or very slow thing to do, and it gets done.
Pete, what is the reason that they are closing the Thames off from the sea? I notice that the government is now declaring that there is another "danger" from flooding and they're going to have to build some bigger and better gates. That would make me terribly suspicious.
Because the inhabitants of certain areas (Richmond, for starters)
don't like it when a spring tide goes over the banks and floods their
houses and cars. Apparently this never used to happen, now the tide
occasionally (every few months) gets that high. Closing the barrier
I saw a picture of an Icelandic shorefront the other day. I had forgotten how pronounced the machair was on northern shores. "Never used to happen" = "In living memory".
I saw a picture of an Icelandic shorefront the other day. I had
forgotten how pronounced the machair was on northern shores. "Never
used to happen" = "In living memory".
I was just in the Outer Hebrides a few weeks ago. The machair there (on the West coasts)is still very strong, and the sand dunes very impressive. But some storms are getting so bad it is not stopping sea spray getting right into the centre of islands like Benbecula. My aged aunt of 90 odd years says she has never known anything like "but they don't have the winter cold" they used to.
So while I wouldn't go so far as to say that Reagan was right, his old quote
isn't far off base.
Interesting stuff--but it's hard to believe there is a net increase in trees as all the suburbs have expanded into previously rural areas. It does say this applies in "some parts of the country".
In response to your last paragraph, it seems (I could be wrong) that
you may be one of those "if it saves even one life" types.
No, I'm not. And while I spent 4 months ferrying my father to Memorial Hospital last month to ultimately have the upper lobe of his right lung removed (he did have a smoking history), I heard of more and more emphysema, lung cancer and pulmonary fibrosis cases in patients with no known risk factors. Clearly this isn't all from burning of petroleum and coal-based fuels (radon gas is supposed to be a significant contributor, as is chemical pollution not directly tied to the petroleum industry), I suspect that if it were possible to do a controlled study it would be a very significant contributor. Unfortunately, the world is likely filled with bad things you can't prove, so people wind up acting on what they want to believe. I don't think I'm necessarily any smarter than anyone else on this issue, and I still drive my car.
Steve
I'm not
convinced by that argument and if the best folks can come up with is
that its obvious that burning fossil fuels is bad, but we can tell you
how bad or how much better it will be if we quit, I'm not persuaded.
On the other hand, the argument that cutting down on carbon emissions
is good IF it involves cutting back on Middle East oil consumption,
I'm for it. Unless, of course, it cripples our economy to do so AND
the Chinese and others, who haven't cut back, are still polluting AND
still growing their economies. Then, I'm not so much for it anymore.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld 1 November 2007 19:09:36 [ permanent link ]
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
By all means tell me how we could do better? By doing what YOU think
is correct? By doing what I think is correct? Here's a clue - there is
a vast population out there all doing the BEST that they can and the
leftist forcing them to do otherwise will only have one final outcome
- a pogrom.
I'm not the guy with all the answers Tom. Yeah, we do the best we can. Take a deep breath and relax. Nice touch though, lecturing a Jewish guy about pogroms.
William Asher 1 November 2007 20:02:44 [ permanent link ]
wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:02 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
cyclin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1193838578.761582.81150
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The
point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that
there were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side
resort to lies.
Tom:
You said:
"I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally
mild ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs.
That is - absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of
their beloved leftists."
Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total
of 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in
the Bay Area, it seemed mild"?
You really don't understand what you're talking about do you?
No Tom, I don't. That's why the things I said are basically in agreement with what a world-renowned expert in hurricane intensification from MIT said. You, on the other hand, are in agreement with NewsMax and the guys from on the usenet group alt.I.Gave.Rush.A.HandJob.and.He.Came.In.My.Hair.
William Asher 1 November 2007 23:17:16 [ permanent link ]
wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:58 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
wrote:
You're both assuming that the global energy system will always have
excess capacity to produce BTUs at low cost, which I think is likely
not true.
And of course it's your responsibility to know all about that and to
tell the rest of us what we should be doing. You still haven't gotten
what my argument is yet have you?
Of course not. Truthfully, I barely read your posts, mainly skim them enough to write a response sure to push your buttons (although, that really isn't hard to do). Isn't that what everybody does?
Howard Kveck 2 November 2007 02:31:18 [ permanent link ]
In article <1193928371.214631.148130@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
These morons don't understand this mostly because they can't
understand anything that isn't fed to them like pablum by their
Liberal masters.
Imagine anyone believing that living in a heated and cooled home with
all the comforts is somehow inferior to living in a dirt hovel in the
middle of a savanna? Imagine anyone believing that eating a steak is
inferior to digging up roots and crapping 12 lbs of "fiber" every
single day. Imgaine the minds of those who try to keep primative
tribes primative apparently in the belief that they're better off that
way?
Oh yes, do let's imagine that. Because that's exactly where it happens - in your imagination.
The mental illness of the left is what really needs to be addressed.
"Oh, there's going to be a pogrom and they'll send me to a re-education camp! They'll have a Final Solution! Hillary will be the last president this country will ever have!"
Mental illness, huh? Hmmmmmmmm...
-- tanx, Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message news:1193951729.592781.291670@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
In that case the problem will take care of itself. (Meaning fossil
fuels will become scare, with no substitutes, and thus more expensive,
and thus conservative style usage.) You don't need to fix it, and you
can't anyway.
The implication behind all of these people's arguments is that they're going to force you to do what they think is "right".
Of course, substitutes do exist. To the extent the substitutes come
into play, fossil fuels will remain sitting in the ground at the end
of the oil age like stones from the stone age, copper from the bronze
age, iron from the iron age, and information from the information
age. Oh wait, strike that last one. All human history is the
information age. It started before Al Gore was born -- imagine that!
The funniest thing is that these people can look at human history and learn absolutely nothing except that "man will always start wars." Too bad they never learned there was a great deal more to history.
"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1193939780.812104.233990@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 8:05 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cleaner air would be one of the 'environmental' benefits.
Without reasonable forecasts for the reduction in the number of
respiratory illnesses, I'm not sure its a benefit that is worth the
cost.
Scott, with all of these horrible pollutions all around us why do you
suppose the average age of death has never been higher? Do you really
believe that without energy production which allows us an industrial
and scientific base, that we would live longer?
I often wonder what goes on in the minds of people who think that
African natives or Aborigines are healthier and live longer.
I think you've completely misread my post and you've misread where I
was going in my logic. I didn't say diddly about living longer
without an industrial base or energy production, or whatever. MY
point was that if you can't show significant measurable health
improvements from cutting back on carbon emissions, then you can't use
the notion of health improvements as a basis for cutting back.
Stop looking for an argument in every message and read what's written
so as to get the meaning.
Scott, I wasn't arguing with you, I was commenting on your subject.
We're fighting this crazy idea that somehow industrialism is bad and aboriginism is good. Nothing could be farther from the truth and yet it keeps popping up as a motivation behind a lot of the arguments against the first world.
What do you suppose is behind this looney idea that we should force people to use less energy? Even though most of the people on this group operate inside the economic laws and have bank accounts, apparently a substantial percentage don't understand the basic tenets of capitalism and instead ascribe evil intent to it all. Even though it is BY FAR the most effective economic system ever developed people are still fighting it tooth and nail to force themselves to be worse off.
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message news:1193961736.498484.86150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Last time I checked we're working through all the
reasonably cheap oil resources. Now the Alberta oil sands have become
viable due to rising per barrel prices but how many more sources are
commercially viable in the future?
There's something that is seldom noted - if it looks like some other source of energy is going to become economically feasible the oil producers simply overproduce for awhile making oil cheaper and putting the alternate sources in the hole.
Regardless of what you've been hearing, there is still a whole lot of oil out there.
On the subject of the Barrier - it's closed now against a forecast
tidal surge. So, there you go.
Judging by the warnings I just saw on TV it looks like 1953 all over again. Storms & high tide combining. Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex look like being hit.
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message news:1194748665.327859.244280@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
BTW, we probably did have manmade climate forcing in
1929, because we were already burning enough coal to have
an effect. But of course, it takes time for the
forcing to show up in the temperature record, and very
few people were trying to look at the temp. record
in 1929 anyway.
Psst - we didn't put enough CO2 or coal ash into the air to have the slightest effect until the late 50's. But you may be the Global Warming alarmist you always wanted to be. The rest of us will simply smile and nod.
Howard Brazee 7 January 2008 19:46:03 [ permanent link ]
I find the Global Warming alarmists to include people as irrational as the Global Warming deniers. And I don't believe Kyoto is about accomplishing anything non-political.
It's fun to read the first chapter of the book _An Inconvenient Book_ by someone poking fun at the alarmists.
Mike Jacoubowsky 3 April 2008 03:12:52 [ permanent link ]
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.com...
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
Over the short term, the only periodic fluctuations in sun activity that I'm aware of involve sunspots, and that's what, a 7 or 14-year cycle? Too short to be a contributing factor to a moderately long-term climate trend. For sun "cooling" to be a factor, regarding global warming as currently discussed, I'd think we'd be discussing cycles of maybe 50-500 years. Was that the case?
Or was it even a "cycle" they were talking about? If it's just a gradual cooling trend, how does that fit in with "normal cyclic variations?"
Have you discussed any of this with Andre Jute?
Thanks-
--Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING
again?
Can you say, normal cyclic variations?
Tom: What was the length of the cooling sun cycle Nova spoke of? As in, is
this something we have to worry about in the next 500 years, or 5,000?
Ted Turner was on TV this morning saying that within 40 years people will be eating each other in a world turned into a horror story of global warming with nature destroyed utterly.
This doesn't happen according to Howard though. This must have been
perjury.
Just so there's no mistake - Turner really DID say that the world average temperature would be 8 degrees hotter and people in the United States would be eating each other in about 40 years. He also implied that we ought to kill off a lot of people because it is the population density which is the problem....
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message news:ab982595-04e9-4633-a9a2-d476b72d6aa7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
And continually
assigning opinions to other people (Howard in
this case) is similar to the Kunichian "So you think
that ..." mode of argument. Hang people by quoting
their own words, not those of others.
What's funny about this is the practice of little cowards such as yourself to not actually say what you mean. Then complain when someone asks you if you really meant what you almost said.
Where is Ted fucking Turner's name in that, Bill??????????? How about
MoveOn?
Because I MUST HAVE FUCKING MISSED IT.
Oy lets get this thread back on topic - we're supposed to be a global warming group and if we start going off on a tangent the TOM9000 series is going to have a segmentation fault trying to interpret the input.
According to the TOM9000 logic Asher should have responded with a repudiation of the pseudo science in the link in the bots attempted troll.
John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all plan on doing
something to reduce carbon emissions.
And just exactly what would that be? Presidents don't make laws, Congress does.
Any international treaty must be approved by the Senate. When the Senate got wind that Clinton wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty it passed a resolution condemning the treaty 95-0. Clinton, sent Al Gore to sign the treaty, which he did, but Clinton never sent it to the Senate for ratification.
<Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message news:52otv31ajstmheukvft0etgtg365dm384v@4ax.com...
Been up against stupid fads before and swatted 'em down before. Nothing
new.
What is really surprising is the age of the extremist Liberals here. You'd think that 50 years of massive disappointment from their leaders might have clued them in, but no.
I am very relieved you didn't ask me if I drove Tom hard and put him away wet. We've had enough of that sort of humor and I want to be the first not to resort to base jokes like that. I don't believe in holding others to a standard that I myself won't follow.
My initial response was that I drove a Lemond a lot but it was starting to whine and squeal so I was thinking of replacing it and did he have any recommendations. That seemed contentious though, and not likely to lead to a thread where I could use a variant of the phrase "rode hard and put away wet," which for some reason has been a meme floating stuck in my head lately. The idea being that if I use the word "rode" sometimes, I can at least believe I am not totally off-topic.
A post like this deserves an awful pun: Does Tom use hybrid fool cells?
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:06595ff9-5f9e-4ac2-a775-8098a0a8c675@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Apr 11, 6:52 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
wind energy and all that.
The real comedy is that you're so slow that no one here can slow their minds enough to comprehend what you're thinking. My brother used to work for Windpower, I've worked on alternative energy resources for companies in a commercial sense and as far back as 1974 I was having these same arguments in newspaper editorials that Solar and Wind wouldn't become practical until the AVAILABILITY of oil started becoming a problem. And gee, I was right and all those big-mouthed fools such a yourself were wrong. Yet again.
If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
American companies and American workers. The oil?
Do you even understand what the hell you're talking about?
Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.
What happens to those places when the oil runs out?
Here's a hint to jackasses such as yourself - let's run THEM out of oil before we use up all of our own.
It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see the light'.
1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher levels in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past 800,000 yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical high of 270 ppm)
2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.
3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.
4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their smallest sizes ever.
5. The argument that H2O vapor is also a greenhouse gas doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't have an effect. CO2 causes 10% of our greenhouse effect, and climate models show pretty much the expected T change due to observed increases in CO2. In fact, the latest news is that the climate models under-predict T changes.
6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating. A negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening (which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.
Stop listening to "scientists" who are on the fringe and are capitalizing on the issues of global warming because it has become such a hot political debate!
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:5LednZ8iDoTtnmnanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@earthlink.com...
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling
off. I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?
"JS" <mcgyver66REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ftohhc$efm$1@aioe.org...
It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and
unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political
inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see the
light'.
Not nearly as sad as seeing people with no knowledge of how the world around them operates being led around by the nose by people with an agenda.
1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much
IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher levels
in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past 800,000
yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical high of 270
ppm)
As I pointed out before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that maxes out in the neighborhood of 200 ppm. But by all means try to believe that somehow it behaves differently than science has shown it does.
2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.
We most certainly have to be concerned about increasing levels of CO2. The problem is that man is only the tiniest portion of that increase and the other 97% is natural.
3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.
The leftists have been quoting CO2 levels from tests performed on bubbles obtained from ice in glaciers. It has since been shown that the CO2 in these bubbles IS NOT stable and CO2 slowly filters out of the bubbles into and through the surrounding ice and that the _supposed_ level of 280 ppm was completely wrong and suspected to vary around the same neighborhood it is today.
4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
smallest sizes ever.
Yet strangely after they spent all that time decrying how those glaciers in Austria had been there for millions of years, as they melted away there were HOUSES and VILLAGES under them. Funny thing about stupid people - they tend to believe anything someone they believe to be an authority tells them.
6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then
the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the
oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating. A
negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening
(which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.
Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.
Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.
Maxed out already??????? Please enlighten me as to how you've come to that conclusion.
Actually I do know how CO2 warming works and unfortunately you haven't a clue and you continue to argue with your narrow-minded, finger-pointing and branding me a "leftist". Whether I am or not is not the issue here.
FYI: The reason CO2 affects T is because it can absorb IR (I'm assuming that's what you meant by a "VERY" small segment of the light band). And it does so, because the wavelength of IR is about the right value to interact with the O-C-O bonds. A carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms in a linear array, with C in the middle. When IR radiation hits the CO2 molecule, the C atoms move back and forth, vibrating back to something that is more linear. That's how CO2 traps heat.
The experiments showing the heat absorbing effect of CO2 go back to the 19th century, when John Tyndall, in attempting to explain the ice ages, examined the "heat blocking" effect of certain gases. He discovered that CO2, water vapor and methane were all very effective at blocking (absorbing) heat. This is what I was trying to point out regarding the feedback effects when CO2 values become elevated in the atmosphere.
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:K-ydndbnSM4HRWLanZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
"JS" <mcgyver66REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftohhc$efm$1@aioe.org...
It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and
unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political
inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see
the light'.
Not nearly as sad as seeing people with no knowledge of how the world
around them operates being led around by the nose by people with an
agenda.
1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much
IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher
levels in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past
800,000 yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical
high of 270 ppm)
As I pointed out before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that maxes out in the
neighborhood of 200 ppm. But by all means try to believe that somehow it
behaves differently than science has shown it does.
2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.
We most certainly have to be concerned about increasing levels of CO2. The
problem is that man is only the tiniest portion of that increase and the
other 97% is natural.
3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.
The leftists have been quoting CO2 levels from tests performed on bubbles
obtained from ice in glaciers. It has since been shown that the CO2 in
these bubbles IS NOT stable and CO2 slowly filters out of the bubbles into
and through the surrounding ice and that the _supposed_ level of 280 ppm
was completely wrong and suspected to vary around the same neighborhood it
is today.
4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
smallest sizes ever.
Yet strangely after they spent all that time decrying how those glaciers
in Austria had been there for millions of years, as they melted away there
were HOUSES and VILLAGES under them. Funny thing about stupid people -
they tend to believe anything someone they believe to be an authority
tells them.
6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then
the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the
oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating.
A negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening
(which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.
Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.
What you say is true, but the reason that CO2 has an impact on longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere in the presence of so much water vapor is that the mixing ratio of water vapor isn't constant through the troposphere whereas CO2 is uniformly mixed. Go to:
" An organization called the Ruckus Society was started by another Earth First! co-founder named Mike Roselle. This group was largely responsible for the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle, which ended in mass rioting and the destruction of Starbucks and McDonald's restaurants. The Ruckus Society trains young activists in the techniques of "monkeywrenching" which, when applied, result in property crimes of enormous financial cost.
The Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network (another outfit founded by Mr. Roselle) are tax-exempt organization that have enjoyed contributions from such mainstream sources as Ted Turner and Ben & Jerry's. When will this breeding ground for environmental criminals be held accountable?"
What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....
What's more they have a small population on an island with a large volcanic nature. Absolutely nothing like conditions in the USA and only someone without the capacity to think would have suggested such a comparison.
Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot be
like France because???? Anyone??
We could be like France. All we'd have to do is build a hundred nuclear power plants and allow oil drilling anywhere within US territories.
Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on
very
undependable wind power?!?!
I work in a state with the largest investment in alternate energy per capita and the return on the dollar is tiny.
However, Kunich's programmer informs me that upper management is more
willing to fund work on the invective module than the new-evidence-
and-argument module, so we'll be stuck with this old argument at least
until after the 2009 TdF.
The evidence-and-argument module core dumps all the time which has lead to the old dining philosophers sample being re-programmed as a dumping philosophers problem with the TOM9000 getting a permanent lock on the pot mutex.
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message news:7943e5bd-d95f-4d96-8a17-6952f14472b4@m1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
We've already explained to him several times that
CO2 absorption is not saturated because much of
it is in the upper atmosphere at low temp and
pressure:
Just because the literature says that the vast majority of CO2 is in the lower atmosphere doesn't seem to impact on the ideas of BJ in the least. Can't say that I'm surprised.
It's sort of like having a knock-up by yourself in a squash court. It's great for working out the kinks in your strokes, running drills, or loosening up before a match, but completely futile in a sense of achieving anything if you hope to win since the wall will return anything you hit at it.
I wrote this post only to be able to use the phrase "having a knock-up by yourself in a squash court."
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f821866c-670b-4322-89cb-a6b010a4cb6c@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Of course wind isn't constant, but you're wrong - output doesn't vary
much year to year.
Henry, I wish that I could talk to you. But you only sign on here to argue. The fact is that the TOTAL wind power available from year to year varies a great deal IN MOST PLACES. There are a few areas in which the wind is more predictable and you can make better estimates in those areas. The problem is that they are few and far between.
What do you propose that the world do when fossil fuels begin to get
used up? We're using 85 million barrels of oil/day right now. It may
not be "peak oil" - production may still increase, but eventually it's
going to peak. That's a given. The cultures that are prepared for that
day will fare better than the ones who don't plan ahead.
Tell me something Henry, why are you asking me a question pertinent to a time that's like a century in the future?
Finally, why do you support policies which result in paying the Saudis/
Iraqis/Iranians $100/barrel instead of $30/barrel? If world demand
were 5 or 10% less, the price would be where it was 5 years ago.
Look, the oil problem started with NIXON who allowed the Arabs to dump on the companies that made the investment in middle east and steal their rights. After that it was difficult to do much of anything about it without taking military actions. And that's not exactly a great idea in a land that's practically one gigantic oil field.
Maybe I'm thick, but I'm having trouble figuring out the coordinates on
these graphs. Could you briefly explain?
Year runs from 1958 to 2007.
Temp is the global mean surface temp (in C) from the GISS adjusted Jan-
Dec annual average.
CO2 are the annual average concentrations measured at Mauna Loa.
Sunspots are the annual averages of the monthly means from the NOAA
NGDC.
Tom started this whole thread off by claiming that global warming was
determined by solar cycles. Sunspots are a proxy for total solar
irradiance, and you can see that sunspots vary up and down while the
temperature mostly just goes up. In fact, before the last few decades,
the link between solar activity and global temperature was much
stronger -- that the relationship now appears to be de-linked is
evidence that something other than solar cycles is at play.
I didn't know that sunspots were used as a proxy for irradience. I seem to remember as a kid that sunspot incidence occurred in a more-or-less predictable 11-year cycle. I could still be remembering wrong. Bear with me--looking at the plots on this page, columns and rows, the plot in second column first row is temp. vs. CO2 conc; third column first row is temperature vs. sunspot activity. OK, I think I've figured it out. Second column fourth row is same as 4th column second row, just flipped. Sorry to be so thick. BTW, why would Mauna Loa be considered a representative place to measure CO2 concentration?
I assumed you were able to detect the difference between actual measurements and this guessing but I see you can't.
has plenty of reasonable information and a few plots
which show the recent rise in CO2, which is linked to
human activity.
There has never been a LINK proven between the very NARROW band of IR absorbed by CO2 which is only a tiny percentage of the incident sunlight and the warming trend. There HAS been a link shown between the output of the sun and global temperatures.
And strangely enough no one seems to want to discuss the fact that CO2 only concerns about 3% of the heat trapping and man only effects less than 5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere MAXIMUM. What's more, there hasn't been a good connection made between the wavelengths trapped by CO2 and the warming trend which seems to be actually connected to the output of the Sun and not CO2 in the atmosphere which is growing NOT because of man but because with the ending of the last ice age the CO2 trapped in the ice sheets is slowly being released into the atmosphere.
Strangely enough there's now talk of global cooling due to - yes - the cyclic reduction in output from the Sun. Seems as how it's been happening for several years now. But that won't stop you will it?
I already explained several times why you are wrong
about this, because CO2 at lower temperature and
pressure in the upper atmosphere has a different
absorption pattern, and because the properties of the
outer layer which is free to radiate into space are the
"In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible."
There you go - absolute proof of man-made global warming.
By the way, if you like that argument of Weart's that's your position. Pretending that it is the correct version of reality is a little silly though.
which is what I learned programming with. In fact, I still have it and it
works on AC power, although the battery pack is long dead. Hmm, maybe
I'll rebuild the battery pack. Jesus, this thing is almost as old as my
most-ancient bicycle.
I started on my fathers HP and then got my own TI58 and then graduated to a Sharp calculalor (I forget the model) which was programmable in Rudimentary Basic and then got a Commodore 64 and devolved into 6502 assembler.
Ted van de Weteringe 16 April 2008 16:27:35 [ permanent link ]
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part.
Just a guess; really? I thought that even here in Holland, water from the hinterland was established as the main threat to flooding, more so than the sea.
I'll put my evil-brain cards on the table: I have been to several places
in the world that are already under water.
Amsterdam and Richmond, BC, are doing okay.
To put it another way, I think we have a way better chance of making
Bangladesh rich than we do of changing the weather 100 years from now.
And I'm virtually certain the fiscal and social returns will be better.
There's a lot of coastline in the world. And just
because we can defend Amsterdam now doesn't mean
it will be equally practical later. By the time
this problem gets more pressing, the first world
countries will be so busy keeping the Connecticut
River out of Bill's ground floor and keeping the
Atlantic out of Myrtle Beach that alleviating the
Bangladeshis' problem by lifting them out of poverty
will take a back seat.
To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff up.
Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part. In any case,
trying to continue with emissions-as-usual and
figuring we can grow economies to pay our way out
of it is hoping to cure the disease by palliating
the symptoms.
You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying, that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.
There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.
Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.
As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like more strong flooding
in various places) will be a big problem well before actual sea level
rise is, but this is just a guess on my part.
Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
Just a guess; really? I thought that even here in Holland, water from the
hinterland was established as the main threat to flooding, more so than
the sea.
Don't worry, unlike BillC you at least have a boat. Perhaps you can outfit it like one of those pedalling boat contraptions and pedal and row at the same time.
Cost overruns and cheaper fossil fuel alternatives
made it unattractive to start new nuke plants even
before Three Mile Island. The countries that
continued with nuke power (like France, Taiwan,
South Korea, Spain) either were short of local
fossil fuels or the govmint subsidized nuke
construction or both. Cheap fossil fuels make
pursuit of any alternatives (nuclear, solar, wind,
reclaimed Usenet flamewars) uneconomical until the
fossil fuels start to run out. Then, it's panic
time.
The US still has domestic civilian nuke expertise
because we've been helping Spain, Korea, Taiwan etc
build their plants (IOW, our industry subsidized by
their govmints). Let us hope that our industry has
learned something in the interim so that if we start
nuke construction, we don't make as big a hash of it
as we did in the 70s. I have a relative in the
business (which is how I am familiar with this stuff)
and although I'd guess that our engineering is fine,
the management is as Dilbert-esque as the mgmt at any
large technology company, which doesn't totally
set my mind at ease.
The scheme had been to design each plant from the ground up. What is called for is a single design, with options. Remember the late nineteenth century? Drummers crossed the land selling (yes!) bridges. Single design, pre-fabricated, modular iron bridges. Order it from Pittsburgh; in a few weeks or less it shows up at your station platform. Puzzle over the instructions, then put it up.
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message news:6a568b40-e285-4015-ab2e-e66045487cbd@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
It ("custom") was apparently what was actually occuring. This is
another reason costs were higher than they would have been otherwise.
(A moving regulatory environment sure wouldn't help matters, and are
perhaps a partial cause in this.)
Here's the underscoring -
1) A large installation such as a nuclear power plant costs nearly the same designed from scratch or "mass produced". These are huge buildings with equipment that is so large that it must be produced at the time or order anyway. Since you can't mass produce it there's no savings from mass production which is where MOST volume savings occur. Why do you think that skyscrapers are all different? Because it doesn't cost any more.
2) The equipment inside the plant is pretty much designed already because you have to use stuff already tested. So while scale might change somewhat, it isn't really "custom" core, heat transmission stuff, etc.
3) Each site is different from every other site. This demands that changes be made to each design to fit such sites. You can't use a seaside design in the desert.
I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.
In article <414b8d40-9649-4f0d-8095-02ead8c360ab@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.
I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.
It's Tom's life story: a guy who doesn't understand (name the subject) is always discussing it as if it was so simple. And calling those who do understand it "fools."
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
Yikes! I just remembered. Pawed through the pile and came up with a TI-59.
Plug in ROM problem solvers and a magnetic strip read-write head.
I remember those. They used to have Romberg integration and matrix determinants etc. I seem to recall attempting to write a Gaussian elimination program myself.
I'll put my evil-brain cards on the table: I have been to several places
in the world that are already under water.
Amsterdam and Richmond, BC, are doing okay.
To put it another way, I think we have a way better chance of making
Bangladesh rich than we do of changing the weather 100 years from now.
And I'm virtually certain the fiscal and social returns will be better.
There's a lot of coastline in the world. And just
because we can defend Amsterdam now doesn't mean
it will be equally practical later. By the time
this problem gets more pressing, the first world
countries will be so busy keeping the Connecticut
River out of Bill's ground floor and keeping the
Atlantic out of Myrtle Beach that alleviating the
Bangladeshis' problem by lifting them out of poverty
will take a back seat.
To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.
Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part. In any case,
trying to continue with emissions-as-usual and
figuring we can grow economies to pay our way out
of it is hoping to cure the disease by palliating
the symptoms.
You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.
There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.
Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.
But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.
PWhat is the estimated amount of sea level rise? Bangladesh has a very specific problem because half the country is less than 3' ASL. I live considerably less than a mile from the coastline, and my house is 50' ASL.
Doomsayers seem to be reaching a consensus estimate of 28-34 cm on sea level rise. That's about a foot.
I'll put my evil-brain cards on the table: I have been to several places
in the world that are already under water.
Amsterdam and Richmond, BC, are doing okay.
To put it another way, I think we have a way better chance of making
Bangladesh rich than we do of changing the weather 100 years from now.
And I'm virtually certain the fiscal and social returns will be better.
There's a lot of coastline in the world. And just
because we can defend Amsterdam now doesn't mean
it will be equally practical later. By the time
this problem gets more pressing, the first world
countries will be so busy keeping the Connecticut
River out of Bill's ground floor and keeping the
Atlantic out of Myrtle Beach that alleviating the
Bangladeshis' problem by lifting them out of poverty
will take a back seat.
To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.
Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part. In any case,
trying to continue with emissions-as-usual and
figuring we can grow economies to pay our way out
of it is hoping to cure the disease by palliating
the symptoms.
You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.
There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.
Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.
But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.
As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!
Now you're just making stuff up.
Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've seen it. Or at least I have.
Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact they were highly beneficial.
Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done so with no contribution from humans. Deal.
Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.
I agree! Since there is little heavy industrial production in the New York area anymore, air and water quality have improved markedly. Still some rather serious problems, such as the Superfund cleanup site centered in Newtown Creek from the old refineries, but once we begin importing cars from China I'm sure the formerly-industrial midwest will also reap even more of the economic and environmental benefits of outsourcing.
You betcha. Fargo would have been a different movie if they did it in bikinis.
Steve
Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.
Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
"Kyoto is insufficient and has many faults, But at least there is a basis for moving forward."
Tell me that isn't emblematic of the Kyoto Accord's general reception. Admittedly, none of the doomsayers suggest Kyoto would be the full solution, but the Kyoto protocol, in practice, seems mentioned in the breach more than the observance.
As for more probable, I'll concede I'm too lazy to back that one up. But that graph that looks like a hockey stick is extraordinarily compelling:
Those claiming this curve is about to go S-shaped had better have some pretty good arguments.
My essential sense of things is along the lines of the Evil Economist model of problem-fixing, which is essentially that it will cost less (economically speaking, this is practically synonymous with "be easier") to create prosperity in Bangladesh and start selling them houses on stilts than it will to make the kinds of changes to human civilization that will result in a dramatic and relatively rapid change in CO2 emissions, which is the sort of thing that will pay major dividends 100 years from now.
Also, I'll bet the Bangladeshis will like my "you guys have to start getting rich" plan better than your "blame this weather on China and America" plan.
Well, maybe they won't, but their kids will have Playstation 9s and whine to their parents about not being allowed to borrow the family flying car. So it works out.
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Ryan Cousineau 19 April 2008 05:12:36 [ permanent link ]
In article <7cddcb11-6c4d-47bf-8d19-87357c21ee5c@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Admittedly, none of the doomsayers suggest Kyoto would be the full
solution, but the Kyoto protocol, in practice, seems mentioned in the
breach more than the observance.
Bingo. Kyoto was always intended only as a first step, and you were
comparing long run economic growth to a first step.
As for more probable, I'll concede I'm too lazy to back that one up.
Yup. You were making stuff up.
My essential sense of things is along the lines of the Evil Economist
model of problem-fixing, which is essentially that it will cost less
(economically speaking, this is practically synonymous with "be easier")
to create prosperity in Bangladesh and start selling them houses on
stilts than it will to make the kinds of changes to human civilization
that will result in a dramatic and relatively rapid change in CO2
emissions, which is the sort of thing that will pay major dividends 100
years from now.
So why hasn't generalized world economic progress already resulted in
prosperity in Bangladesh? Put another way, your example of cleaner
cities and higher GDP now than 100 years ago in the developed world
could (and should) actually be viewed as an example that a cleaner
environment needn't result in a decrease in the standard of living.
Which is what many denialists always swear up and down will happen
from any form of environmental regulation (I made that last part up,
just in case you were wondering).
This is an excellent question with a follow-up that does rather put the gears to me. Fortunately, I'm really smart!
No, not really, but I do glibly know the answer as to why Bangladesh is the breadbasket-case of the subcontinent.
Never mind that Bangladesh has a short, unpleasant history of coups or worse, and that it's had something like three properly contested national elections since independence (the last one in 2001). Bad politics and corruption are bad for countries, but that was merely a start.
What really got Bangladesh in the crapper was jute.
The Reader's Digest version is that jute was the primary cash crop in Bangladesh, and the government has mishandled the economics of jute in almost every conceivable fashion.
-78% of the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of jute is state-owned
-global demand for jute went into the crapper as synthetics took over the market (yes, this problem dates back to the widespread availability of nylon rope).
-the government responded with industry subsidies. To this day, the jute industry is a monstrous money-loser, and most of it is owned by the government. The
That jute reform paper there is from 1993 or so, here's a 21st century update:
The private-sector portion of the jute industry is a ray of hope in a screwed-up system.
In other words, Bangladesh has a jute policy that makes US farm-subsidy policy look thoughtful, but without the economic base of the richest country on the planet to pay for it.
Bangladesh is one of many Asian nations with similar sorts of challenges: a marginal commitment to democracy, bad neighbours, and a history of civil and international strife.
Despite that, the economy is still growing at 5% per annum.
It's not rocket science to make a poor country grow and prosper these days. The basic recipe is to not have too many coups, and to avoid, as much as possible, poisoning the economic wells.
On these matters, my sentiments are almost entirely in line with those of your employer, Greg.
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.
Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.
Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.
Some of the cleaner environment came from bad old
govmint regulation too. Like on cars, and steel plants.
It's a question of timescale. People, animals and
plants can adapt to changes that occur on 20,000
year timescales. Put the same change on a 50-100 year
timescale and there will be a lot of dislocation.
It's not that we'd all go extinct (though some of
the plants and animals will) it's that the quality
of life will be substantially affected. Think of it
as a lifestyle issue.
Look at the actual history. While we don't have thermometer readings from the past we have records of what crops were grown where and in what quantity.
The medieval period was warm enough for the British vinyards. We are nowhere close to seeing that happen again.
Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime,
we've
seen it. Or at least I have.
Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic
warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts.
In fact
they were highly beneficial.
Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It
has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.
Some of the cleaner environment came from bad old
govmint regulation too. Like on cars, and steel plants.
It's a question of timescale. People, animals and
plants can adapt to changes that occur on 20,000
year timescales. Put the same change on a 50-100 year
timescale and there will be a lot of dislocation.
It's not that we'd all go extinct (though some of
the plants and animals will) it's that the quality
of life will be substantially affected. Think of it
as a lifestyle issue.
Look at the actual history. While we don't have thermometer readings from
the
past we have records of what crops were grown where and in what quantity.
The medieval period was warm enough for the British vinyards. We are
nowhere
close to seeing that happen again.
You're arguing with someone who wishes the world to be on the way to disaster. He won't admit that changes are always occurring and that the world has existed through them without his help, forever. The fact is that most of the Global Warming crowd will not accept the Medieval Warm Period having occurred.
Thanks for the demonstration that you haven't a single clue what the hell
is going on around you.
Please tell SchwartzSoft to update your insult generator to something less repetive like:
[Thou art] as fat as butter.
You clueless swamp of incredible pimple pus
Thou venomed dismal-dreaming death-token!
You crude swamp of psychotic ape puke
Thou] hath more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth than faults.
Thou cockered unchin-snouted varlot!
Hence, horrible villain, or I'll spurn thine eyes like balls before me; I'll unhair thy head, Thou shalt be whipp'd with wire, and stew'd'in brine, smarting in lingering pickle.
The most recent research demonstrates it wasn't a hemispheric synchronous warming like we are experiencing and have experienced over the last 100 years.
What in the basic physics do you disagree with in order for it to be possible for you to think anthropogenic CO2 has no impact on longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere?
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:480a0f4b$0$2847$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
Tom Kunich wrote:
Thanks for the demonstration that you haven't a single clue what the hell
is going on around you.
Please tell SchwartzSoft to update your insult generator to something
less repetive like:
What is humorous is your inability to think outside of your narrow-minded job. But that's OK, I do get a laugh out of your slow reactions and demonstrable idiocy. Maybe you ought to point to some white grapes/wine again and imply that was what they were talking about when they talked about vineyards in Great Britain.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:17:44 +0200, Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jack Hollis wrote:
Thank God. The idea of drinking English wine is revolting.
How about some English beer.
Actually, I'll take German or Dutch beer, but I'm partial to larger.
When I'm in the UK or Ireland, I drink Guinness, which is a pleasure I'm denied in the US. They do have it on tap in some Irish pubs in NYC, but it's not the same.
I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they
say.
I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
someone recently told you this had occurred.
Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists. But it doesn't count without a published paper by a high school student.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:28:15 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
wrote:
I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
someone recently told you this had occurred.
Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and
the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was
ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists. But it
doesn't count without a published paper by a high school student.
You have to understand that the global warming dogmatists are plugged into a multi-billion dollar industry. Anything that threatens that money stream has to be discredited.
In article <012n04t5agf6qntq9slnqhkurkk8d798kc@4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:28:15 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
wrote:
I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
someone recently told you this had occurred.
Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and
the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was
ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists. But it
doesn't count without a published paper by a high school student.
You have to understand that the global warming dogmatists are plugged
into a multi-billion dollar industry. Anything that threatens that
money stream has to be discredited.
You have to understand that the anti-global warming dogmatists are plugged into a multi-trillion dollar industry. Anything that threatens that money stream has to be discredited.
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A86B1DCCD49BFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
What I love about you skeptics
Yet you have no skepticism about the earth being effected by CO2 build up that: 1) Isn't much of a build up at all since the CO2 levels have been massively misjudged since recent studies show that CO2 levels in air bubbles in glacier ice have been badly misjudged since they found that CO2 DOES leak out of these bubbles into the surrounding ice and so shows much lower CO2 content than was actually the case. 2) CO2 from human content is a tiny portion of that put there naturally and a great deal lower if you count the huge increases put there in highly volcanic times. 3) CO2 is only a tiny, tiny portion of the greenhouse effect.
But then the only thing you're really interested in is end-of-times idiocy that you can push on people.
is that absolutely no amount of objective evidence
What is truly humorous is your stupid attempt to avoid objective evidence and proclaim other very sketchy studies as "objective evidence".
I could go on but none of that would matter. You want a doomsday scenario and you'd follow Bozo the Clown if he was spouting one.
Ryan Cousineau 21 April 2008 08:49:24 [ permanent link ]
In article <8b8c065d-b38a-4ef2-bf33-42439ef51c59@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 18, 6:12 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
So why hasn't generalized world economic progress already resulted in
prosperity in Bangladesh? Put another way, your example of cleaner
cities and higher GDP now than 100 years ago in the developed world
could (and should) actually be viewed as an example that a cleaner
environment needn't result in a decrease in the standard of living.
Which is what many denialists always swear up and down will happen
from any form of environmental regulation (I made that last part up,
just in case you were wondering).
This is an excellent question with a follow-up that does rather put the
gears to me. Fortunately, I'm really smart!
No, not really, but I do glibly know the answer as to why Bangladesh is
the breadbasket-case of the subcontinent.
[...Bangladesh suffered from the insanest management of their cash crop that was possible]
I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order, but here's my best shot.
That's pretty glib--and pretty flexible: any failure, by definition,
is a failure caused by government intervention. Two things:
Yes, but Bangladesh managed to use almost every poor economic tactic possible. I suspect we can agree that subsidizing the production of cash crops is not a well thought out plan. I suspect we can agree that state ownership of important national industries rarely ends well.
I also think that there consensus among experts has generally ended with avoiding such schemes. The new hotness is Grameen Bank, and well, I'm all down with the Yunus.
1. Market equilibria aren't independent of initial conditions. Think
about that for a while.
I am dense, and have had too little to drink. I can neither disagree nor determine what initial condition Bangladesh had in 1950 that did not apply to Taipei, Hong Kong, or South Korea.
2. You skipped entirely the latter part of my question. Don't think I
didn't notice.
Heh. I think that the question of the "cost" of serious environmental cleaning, CO2-wise (or every-other-pollutant-wise, regarding the last 100 years) is that the costs of environmental regulations (or any other initiative) are unknown and nearly unknowable.
What we can ask is what could have been (or could be) accomplished for the same price.
One might as well ask what the cost of World War 1 was.
That said, I think that embarking on an enterprise as expensive as serious global CO2 reductions must at least be seriously priced against two things:
2) the other public goods we could purchase for the same price.
I think this even before I remember that I live in a country which could seriously use some warming, and which has a lot more cold interior than shallow coastline.
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:oaip04de1t38mvnuekptj0ge0eo06ic5gd@4ax.com...
On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I love about you skeptics is that absolutely no amount of objective
evidence, no appeal to logic, no presentation of basic facts, will budge
you one inch from your position.
There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.
Yet people where who have absolutely NOTHING to do with such things are more than happy to make these claims despite things like the UN "committee" did - the MANAGEMENT changed the actual papers and wrote a summary making all sorts of false claims. They also claimed a lot of scientists "agreed" with them who later had to post their own papers saying that they greatly disagreed with these project managers.
Not that it makes the slightest difference to the US haters here.
Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are not
scientists but money grubbing bastards who will say anything in order to
gain another grant?
And the so called sceptics getting and conservative "stink tanks" getting money from Exxon are as pure as a driven ice age glacier.
Scientists in the 70's were much too professional to claim that 30 years
of accurate temperature recording would give you a clue to ice ages or
global warming.
Make up your mini-core CPU. You just wrote: "Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists."
On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I love about you skeptics is that absolutely no amount of objective
evidence, no appeal to logic, no presentation of basic facts, will budge
you one inch from your position.
There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.
If I could publish this somewhere as a shining example of the skeptic mindset, and their complete lack of understanding how science works, specifically that proof of a theory is impossible, and instead what is done is to objectively assess data in terms of the predictions from theories and models, I would. It's simply the quintessential post from a skeptic.
On 21 Apr 2008 19:42:59 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.
And you remember those seven papers and not the 44 others stating that
warming would occur?
Did you read any of the 44 papers. How many of them specifically said that global warming was due to human activity? More likely they said that the forty year cooling trend seen from the 1940s to the 1970s was not an indication that the warming trend that has lasted 10,000 years was over.
In any case, you asked for one peer reviewed scientific paper and you yourself have provided evidence of at least seven.
All this point there are two things that haven't changed. First, the media always writes about the most sensational material. Second, in the 1970s, and today, there was/is no scientific consensus on what causes climate change.
Science isn't about saying that because 44 papers say one thing and 7 say another, then the 44 papers are correct. Science is full of instances when the prevailing opinion was wrong. Fact is that science is incapable of determining exactly what effect humans are having on the climate.
I'm not saying that humans are having no effect on the earth's temperature. I'm just saying that science is unable to determine what that effect is.
So when it comes to human and global warming, I'm an agnostic. It's the only sensible way to look at it.
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message news:8f09d8f2-f318-4e9e-a835-9c7198e1945a@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
If all you are saying is that it is and always will be
impossible to establish that humans are having any
effect on temperature, no matter what evidence we have
now or collect in the future, then you aren't a skeptic,
you're a denialist. This is sort of like Kunich's position,
or rather Kunich's positions, since he has several of them.
You're a real comedian aren't you? I'm still waiting for you to explain how CO2 is estimated to be less than 5% of the greenhouse effect and human additions to CO2 are less than 5% of the CO2 and you telling us that it is human contributions that are causing "global warming" at a time when we are reaching the natural end of a warm period when ice ages tend to come on and at those points weather becomes more variable.
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:3v0s04plkgs0bj0bej2v2tdi9srbuuau9k@4ax.com...
On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are simply repeating what
you were told today by paid climate skeptics who play people like you like
cheap fiddles. They say, you parrot, and it gives you some measure of
reassurance to continue on with your lifestyle.
Complete rubbish.
What is really funny is this sort of crap coming from someone touting "reports" from the UN in which the "study" directors REWROTE sections of other scientists reports and made absolutely false claims concerning the opinions of those other scientists.
Are you using that graph to show that paleo climate is really complicated? If you are, one of the things you should focus on is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) section, and the explanation below on that page. Note how this very large positive temperature excursion is thought to be due to forcing from methane (a greenhouse gas) due to destabilization of methane hydrates. Did you know that one predicted effect of global warming is destabilization of methane hydrates? So yeah, duh, climate is variable, but even within the "natural" variability there are more than enough signs that it is rarely a good idea to dumps a lot of excess radiatively active gas into the atmosphere.
Precisely what were you getting at with this figure? That Jack's "only sensible way to look at it" is basically an ostrich-like approach to the problem or are you simply reaffirming my core belief that both you and Jack know diddly about climate physics?
On 22 Apr 2008 19:05:00 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now I find that instead of you remembering what climatologists said, you
are in fact remembering what the media said climatologists said. That is
very different, and, as has been demonstrated by the climatologists at
RealClimate.org, what the media were reporting was not in fact what the
climatologists were saying.
The media was right that climate scientists were predicting that the earth was heading for an ice age. That fact has been proven.
I'm not even ready to say that they were wrong, because for all we know the earth might be heading for an ice age.
This is becoming tedious. The fact that science is unable to prove how much human are contributing to the current warming trend, if at all, is undisputable. And anyone who thinks that science can, doesn't understand science.
The media was right that climate scientists were predicting that the earth
was heading for an ice age. That fact has been proven.
If you take the view that a small minority represents all climate scientists then the "fact" is "proven". You might even find a few biologists who "believe" in intelligent design
Given the fact that there were no super computers able to provide climate models in the 1970's its hardly surprising that some got it wrong.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
