Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced and
hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..

Bertie

People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.

But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
Climate Change:

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
(about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica. {6.4}

And again:
Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
(°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
1980-1999)
Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
Constant Year 2000
concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59

And again:
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
grow linearly with global average temperature change,
the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
rise. {10.6}

If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
ocean.

The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

See again the word "Millenia"



Dan

On Mar 10, 4:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:6ed4470d-2dd8-4335-a052-
:





On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
engine
failures.

Not yet -- you offering?

If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing
and
need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
lashed
to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)

My dad once did a masonry job for a guy who had a (hope I remember
this right) Wright Cyclone 1934 vintage he offered to sell for $200
(1978 dollars).

He said the thing was a piece of art, but he had no use for it.

'rents -- oy!

Well, they can still be got pretty cheap. Rebuiding is also reasonable
for a lot of round engines. Some are at a premium, like the Warners, for
instance, but the rest are still pretty cheap and practiacal A Cyclone
would be pretty thirsty though. Mine is a little one. A Le Blond. 265
c.i. The later ones had enclosed valve gear lubed by engine oil. Nice
little engine. Should make the airplane go and sound, very well.

BTW, the guy who claimed the urpcup was the most efficent is obviously
unaware of the LeBond powered Bellanca Junior, which did about 100 knots
on about 70 HP, Rearwins also used this engine and topped 85 knots with
it. The 90 HP Rearwin Sportster would cruise at 95 knots plus, and all
this years before the Ercoupe

bertie

It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.

Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
materials, and perhaps..?

Dan

On Mar 10, 4:47 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced and
hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..

Bertie

People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.

But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
Climate Change:

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
(about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica. {6.4}

And again:
Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
(°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
1980-1999)
Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
Constant Year 2000
concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59

And again:
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
grow linearly with global average temperature change,
the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
rise. {10.6}

If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
ocean.

The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

See again the word "Millenia"

Dan

The above were extracted from "IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers.
In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA."

Dan wrote in news:19208192-d0a1-4249-a6a8-
:

On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced
and
hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..

Bertie

People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.

But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
Climate Change:

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
(about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica. {6.4}

And again:
Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
(°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
1980-1999)
Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
Constant Year 2000
concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59

And again:
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
grow linearly with global average temperature change,
the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
rise. {10.6}

If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
ocean.

The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

See again the word "Millenia"



It's moving and moving fast now. The greater worry for the greenalnd ice
sheet is the dilution of the gulf stream there is considerable evidence
that it's salinity is already on the wane and it has been known to shut
down very quickly in the past.
It's not going to do much for the tourist trade..



Bertie

Dan wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
:



It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.

Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
materials, and perhaps..?

Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively easy to
manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more people. The old
Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm strongly tempted to get on as
they are still very cheap. the old 150 Franklin powered Cruisair will do a
genuine 150 mph with four up.
And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that did an honest
135 mph on 145 HP...

Bertie

Dan wrote:


Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?


Only from the tears of the environmental wackos when the science doesn't
pan out.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:2ac83c1d-1830-4501-a1b3-
:

On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
:





On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:e1f9b3d6-a318-45e1-9085-
:
On Mar 10, 10:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
engine
failures.
Not yet -- you offering?
If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one
thing
and
need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
lashed
to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose
them!
Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of
your
eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)
But -- in spite of all this damage -- deer and owls and
coyotes
and
beaver and weasels and fishers and bluebirds and tens of
thousands
of
otehr creatures inhabit the woods that have slowly taken over
the
once
empty acres. I now hunt and fish places once used as train
rail
yards.
he said as he passed the fiftieth flooor.
Hunh?
The guy falling from the empire state building? "so far, so good"
as
he
passed the fiftieth floor.
As I type I'm looking out at two grazing horses, a few trees
that
need
trimming, and the hill where I got a deer last season.
Now all you have to do is build an air conditioned bubble around
it
and
you're set.
Bertie
Hmm..not a bad idea...
Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to get
in
can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....

Bertie
Point 1: Already done.

Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like mad.


Now all you have to do is invent the technology to power all of your
toys and your house on one.


You'll have to raise enough to give the poor power too.


The wind is free so we should all get free power right?

On Mar 10, 4:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:19208192-d0a1-4249-a6a8-
:





On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey, displaced
and
hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..

Bertie

People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.

But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
Climate Change:

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
(about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica. {6.4}

And again:
Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
(°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative to
1980-1999)
Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
Constant Year 2000
concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59

And again:
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
grow linearly with global average temperature change,
the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
rise. {10.6}

If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
ocean.

The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept a
full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If a
negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would
lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

See again the word "Millenia"

It's moving and moving fast now. The greater worry for the greenalnd ice
sheet is the dilution of the gulf stream there is considerable evidence
that it's salinity is already on the wane and it has been known to shut
down very quickly in the past.
It's not going to do much for the tourist trade..

Bertie

Not sure about that:

"The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th
century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland
coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At
the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature
has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of
the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet
and coastal regions are not following the current global warming
trend. A considerable and rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland
occurred in the 1920s when the average annual surface air temperature
rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years (at some stations the
increase in winter temperature was as high as 6 °C). This rapid
warming, at a time when the change in anthropogenic production of
greenhouse gases was well below the current level, suggests a high
natural variability in the regional climate."

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...20001/05140445

On Mar 10, 4:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
:



It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.

Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
materials, and perhaps..?

Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively easy to
manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more people. The old
Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm strongly tempted to get on as
they are still very cheap. the old 150 Franklin powered Cruisair will do a
genuine 150 mph with four up.
And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that did an honest
135 mph on 145 HP...

Bertie

Nearby is someone I have to visit -- Bill Pancake, who is apparently
world renown for his Aeronca expertise.

I was floored when I learned the TAS of a Staggerwing from an owner...
unbelievable. And what a huge cabin!

I'm still impressed by the efficiency and performance of the '47 35 V
tail....


Dan

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
warming
scenario.
Really? Name two.
Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm


HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541


or this?

http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html


Matt

Dan,

I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?

Matt