If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
On Mar 8, 9:58 am, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote: individually you cannot build a pyramid but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with copper tools and you can move mountains I prefer a fat guy on a Caterpillar. Dan |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
In article ,
Dan wrote: On Mar 8, 9:58 am, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote: individually you cannot build a pyramid but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with copper tools and you can move mountains I prefer a fat guy on a Caterpillar. did he make the caterpillar himself? arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins nobody could do that much decoupage without calling on the powers of darkness |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
"John T" wrote: What's the old saying? "Lies, lies and statistics"? What's that supposed to mean - that we can believe no science that uses numbers? Well-poisoning attempt noted. There is enough ice on Greenland *alone* to raise msl 20+ feet. That is an incontrovertible fact. It's also incontrovertible that Greenland was much warmer just 1000 years ago than it is today. In fact, Greenland temperatures reached a maximum around 1930, but they have decreased since (based on ice core readings by Dahl-Jensen, et al). The Greenland glaciers didn't suffer a dramatic melting event. The ol' "Greenland paradise" story. It is not incontrovertible that Greenland was "much warmer" in the MWP than it is now. Modern research shows the late 20th century is warmer: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...oberg2005.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...o2006/fig5.jpg Your second statement is misleading. Northern hemisphere temperatures reached a temporary peak in the 1930s, declined until about 1970, and have been climbing since. Greeland is not an ice cube on a hot sidewalk. It takes a while for ice masses the size of Greenland's to absorb enough heat to get a major melt event going. That seems to be underway now: http://www.physorg.com/news122749356.html Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years? Not according to current models, but ominous things are happening in Greenland and Antarctica that indicate there are previously unknown accelerating phenomena at work. The real question is: Why? It's been getting genarally warmer for the last 100 years. But let me ask you something: Are you 100% sure your house is going to burn down this year? If not, why are you wasting your money on insurance? Why don't you just wait until you see flames, then buy a policy? Ah, the Precautionary Principle. Let's throw in "for the children" while we're at it. You against taking precautions? We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder. Far warmer in our history? Says who? Says just about anybody's temperature reconstruction record which will show periods such as the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warm Period - assuming, of course, you consider the years 5500-2000 B.C.E. and 1100-1300 C.E. to be "in our history." I'll grant you the Holocene Maximum, but "just about anybody's temperature reconstruction" shows the MWP was not as warm as today. Most importantly, nothing in anybody's reconstruction shows a spike as steep as the 20th century's. Speaking of statistics, satellites can measure temperature over a wide area of the earth at a time and have been doing so continuously for the past 18 years or so. They report a modest rise of 0.05° C per decade (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...t21jul_1m.htm). This contrasts sharply with the 0.25-0.4° C change reported by surface readings between 1978 and 1998. So? Oh, I'm sure many of us here also remember the "coming ice age" predictions of the '70's. It's certainly been mentioned in this thread before. Puh-leeze. That is one of the moldiest oldies in the AGW deniers' bag of talking points. What serious scientists of the time really said: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html There is no comparison between a few articles in the popular press of that time and the near universal agreement among climate scientists today about what is happening to the planet. Further, we humans have supposedly warmed the earth due to all the CO2 we've created since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Human-produced CO2 accounts for a far minority of the atmospheric CO2 (vice natural sources) and total CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.054%. What's more, CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas - far less potent than water vapor, for instance - and at a mere 0.054%, it simply cannot drive warming trends. More from the oldies bag. Let's take your points in order: * Human-produced CO2 accounts for a far minority of the atmospheric CO2 (vice natural sources) You don't quantify "far minority," but it is empirically established that human activity has produced a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 PPMV since about 1800. http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html offers good explanations of how we know. * and total CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.054%. Yes. So? The major gases, nitrogen, oxygen and argon, are transparent to IR. They don't matter when it comes to stopping heat from being radiated back to space. It's the GHGs that prevent the planet from freezing. Pointing out that CO2 is a small part of the total atmosphere is a red herring in this context. * What's more, CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas-- far less potent than water vapor, for instance A good example of using an incomplete and misleadingly stated fact to make a false point. H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect; it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, perturbations in water vapor concentrations are too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback. * at a mere 0.054%, it simply cannot drive warming trends I have already shown why your " mere 0.054%" argument is disingenuous. CO2 is the most abundant and therefore most important of the *persistent* GHGs. It is the persistent GHGs that control the long term retention of solar energy in the atmosphere. The volume of CO2 in the atmosphere has recently risen 35% to ~380 PPM. That is the highest it has been for at least six hundred and fifty thousand years, and almost all of the increase has happened since about 1800. 1800 roughly marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the beginning of exponential growth of the human population. Furthermore, carbon isotope tagging confirms the fossil fuel origin of much of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, it is logical and empirically demonstrable that human activities are producing an increase in atmospheric CO2 unprecedented in the climatological record for its *rapidity*. Over the same 200-year period, the 5-year mean global temperature has steadily risen, with well understood peaks and valleys due to other climate forcings such as solar activity and volcanism and phenomena such as el niño/la niña. Thus it seems obvious to me that human activities are warming the climate by the massive emission of GHGs, principally CO2. This combined with ice core records proving CO2 peaks lag temperature by hundreds of years (as much as 800 years) is a major reason the "pro-anthropogenic global warming" (pro-AGW) crowd have abandoned Gore's famous graph trying to link CO2 as the cause of warming. All the graphs I see on scientific sites still show this lag. It's there; it can't be "abandoned." What it *means* WRT to the current CO2 rise is the part that gets "abandoned" by AGW deniers. In the ice core records to which you refer, CO2 rise is a reinforcing factor in warming periods begun by earth's orbital cycle. In those cases, the CO2 is released by the initial warming and then acts to amplify and lengthen the subsequent warm period. What's different about the present CO2 rise is that it is independent of the regular orbital cycles. Nevertheless, it is producing the warming effect that an increase in CO2 *must* produce. My point? 1. Earth's climate has changed dramatically over the millenia from extraordinarily warm periods to very cold ice ages long before humans came along - only in the current interglacial, by the way. Yep. 2. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to think humans are capable of changing *global* climate - especially in a mere 150 years. Hand waving. Humans have jacked up the concentration of the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by 35%. The laws of physics demand that there be a result. 3. A review of the players for the pro-AGW crowd shows a littany of leftists, former Communists and general anti-capitalists. Weakest of all your arguments. A review of the denier mouthpieces reveals a motley collection of crackpots, right wing axe-grinders and energy company whores. There are indeed leftists who have co-opted the issue, but that's politics and beside the point. Unless you are claiming that every major professional scientific organization in the world is composed of leftists, former Communists and general anti-capitalists, your argument falls flat. I'm just not buying the "humans are causing global warming" line. There are simply too many holes in that theory for it to be any more valid than the former "coming ice age" scare of the '70's. You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above. -- Dan "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful thinking." -John Derbyshire |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above. Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.' Long may we reign. Dan |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5- : Get out... now that would be some ride! A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably be the closest in feeling, I suppose? What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke. The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course) The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns, suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older skins. And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to remember.... !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's Ducati will do 130. pushing it (also old) and that's fast enough for me. I have an old Triumph 350 as well and I prefer to ride that on tight country roads that rquire a lot of cog swapping. The brakes on it suck, though, so you have to be ahead of the game. The brakes on the Raleigh are almost non- existent, though. Bertie (Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever piloted) Dan |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
Dan wrote in news:00abaf35-a51a-4ddb-91ba-
: On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" wrote: You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above. Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.' Long may we reign. If you;'re wrong , it will be a short one. Bertie |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
Talk-n-Dog wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dan wrote in news:b9da4887-a6d3-4c09-b9e5- : Get out... now that would be some ride! A good, stiff road bicycle caring down a mountainside would probably be the closest in feeling, I suppose? What, to the 22 Raleigh? It has front suspension. A double acting springer fork and nothing on the back, bu tit only does about 35. The Mathcless isn't moine, it's a friends, but it is absolutely the best handling thing i have ever ridden, including a fireblade.and a 998 duke. The mathcless was a G12 and was very quick for it's day, but is very tame by today's standards. It's so predictable, though, os sure footed and just such a pleasure to ride ( except for the vibes, of course) The biggest leaps I've experienced have been in adhesion in turns, suspension (and thus cornering), and of course acceleration. I can take turns on today's tires at speeds I simply wouldn't try on older skins. And of course that lovely 0-150 in less time that I care to remember.... !!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's Ducati will do 130. This one will go a lot faster than that. Well over 160 as reported by thr owner. It's 0-100 time is mindblowing, about 6 seconds. Scariest thing I was ever on , though he assures me it feels real comfy after only a few miles. Bertie |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming The debbil made me do it
On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Talk-n-Dog
wrote: Ducati will do 130, been there. With the plus that you look *really* good going that speed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | C J Campbell[_1_] | Home Built | 96 | November 2nd 07 04:50 AM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 10:47 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 09:21 PM |
I have an opinion on global warming! | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 89 | April 12th 07 12:56 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: CBS Spotlights Aviation's Effect On Global Warming!!! | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 1 | August 3rd 06 07:24 PM |