"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:31:25 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.

I live at about 1500' elevation on a mountain in PA and I'm hoping for
waterfront property by the time I retire! :-)

Unfortunately you'll be sharing it with millions of immigrants from
NYC, Washington DC, Philadelphia, .
Interesting program the other night. Scientist said they've been
forced to drastically understate things if they expect to keep their
funding. Just the Greenland ice sheets could give 3 to 5 feet.
According to ice cores a major portion of the last warming took about
one *decade* and not hundreds of years and that was without our
help.:-))

Roger (K8RI)

Matt

In article ,
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

According to ice cores a major portion of the last warming took about
one *decade* and not hundreds of years and that was without our
help.:-))

Did the program indicate the cause the last warming? If so, what
was it?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:53:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

snip
Anyhow, the info that I came up with in the end, was this.
The SUV drivers can tear it apart, use it for canary droppings or do what
you like. you won't be convinced of anything anyway, but it does have the
best info that several days worth of research on my behalf could produce.

Wanna argue? Write a leter to the NY times or these guys.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...assy-argument/

You can spend a longggg time on that page, or group of pages. :-))
"Real Climate" has put together some of the best information available
in one spot. They also do a very good job of debunking a number of
"junk science" arguments.



This article adressed just about every argument I saw that was worthy of
the title ( I ignored crap like "well, you'd a thunk peeple'd be happy
about longer summers" and "Cows make more greenhouse gas than cars")

The "Tundra" which is thawing, contains many times the amount of
methane contained in the atmosphere, let alone the amount released by
cows/farming/society. I saw a film clip on a National Geographic show
this past week that showed a lake in Alaska literally bubbling
Methane. They captured some and lit it off

The permafrost line has moved North over 300 miles in the last couple
decades IIRC. Here in Central Michigan Winters are officially
(according to the state Department of Natural Resources, or what ever
they call it now) between 5 and 6 weeks shorter than they were 50
years ago. Summers are now twice as long. We get two weeks instead of
one and Black Fly season runs June to September. 20 to 30 years ago we
didn't have black flies. OT OH that has to do with the water being
cleaner, rather than warmer.

Roger (K8RI)



Bertie

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:37:07 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

John Mazor wrote:

So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the greenhouse gas CO2. From
one of the websites you so blithely blew off:

"The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since
pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning
of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating
electricity."

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

Just follow the link below. It says almost all.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...assy-argument/

The ocean is a natural CO2 sink. It is absorbing a lot of CO2, but as
it warms it absorbs less. That CO2 is converted into phosphates and
eventually ends up as lime. This is why, historically over the past
few hundred thousand years, the temperature rise has led the CO2 rise.
Now the CO2 rise is leading. However it's likely the oceans will warm
enough to let the frozen Methane Hydrate evaporate (it goes from solid
to gas with no liquid intermediate stage) The continental shelves and
deep ocean contain enough of the stuff to make the CO2 problem look
miniscule in comparison and is believed to have been the ultimate
cause of the "Permian extinction". Methane is a far more effective
greenhouse gas than CO2.

Roger (K8RI)

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:39:51 -0600, Grumman-581
wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote:

It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
least if they're supposed to be good ones.

Let's also bring back the requirement to own land in order to vote...
That should get rid of most of those leftist Democrats in the northeast...

I really, really, REALLY hate to say this, but, you missed two very
important requirements to vote in early America. Male, property
owner, AND in good standing with the "local" church. (IOW local church
member giving "your fair share")

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:53:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

snip
Anyhow, the info that I came up with in the end, was this.
The SUV drivers can tear it apart, use it for canary droppings or do
what you like. you won't be convinced of anything anyway, but it does
have the best info that several days worth of research on my behalf
could produce.

Wanna argue? Write a leter to the NY times or these guys.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...6/a-saturated-
gassy
-argument/

You can spend a longggg time on that page, or group of pages. :-))
"Real Climate" has put together some of the best information available
in one spot. They also do a very good job of debunking a number of
"junk science" arguments.



Yeah, I did spend a loooong time looking around befor ei was directed to
this. And, as you say, it debunked an awful lot of the junk arguments I
had heard.



This article adressed just about every argument I saw that was worthy
of the title ( I ignored crap like "well, you'd a thunk peeple'd be
happy about longer summers" and "Cows make more greenhouse gas than
cars")

The "Tundra" which is thawing, contains many times the amount of
methane contained in the atmosphere, let alone the amount released by
cows/farming/society. I saw a film clip on a National Geographic show
this past week that showed a lake in Alaska literally bubbling
Methane. They captured some and lit it off


On rthe bright side, they'r elooking into harvesting it for fuel.


The permafrost line has moved North over 300 miles in the last couple
decades IIRC. Here in Central Michigan Winters are officially
(according to the state Department of Natural Resources, or what ever
they call it now) between 5 and 6 weeks shorter than they were 50
years ago. Summers are now twice as long. We get two weeks instead of
one and Black Fly season runs June to September. 20 to 30 years ago we
didn't have black flies. OT OH that has to do with the water being
cleaner, rather than warmer.


Well, I don't rememvber them at all in MI. I've seen them elsewhere, but
not there. And lving near Orchad lake I'd imagine you'd expect a few
bugs.


Bertie

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:42:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:01:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

I thinnk so. Our Wx has been insane this winter. OTOH I have been
getting very little x-wind practice in the las few years..

Come to Midland. Most days 18/36 and 06/24 do anything except line up
with the winds at 3BS. Hurry though, were getting AWOS and the airport
identifier is going to change.

Roger (K8RI)


What's the pavement strength like?

Strength AND length:-)) The largest ever so far has been a Falcon
900. He set it on the numbers, Immediate reverse, and kept them on
until the engines started to stutter (no backfire). Not bad for a 3800
X 75 foot runway. :-)) Airport operator was walking around like an
old cat ready to have kittens worried about the ramp strength. OTOH
after throttle up with the brakes on, he was off in less than half the
runway "AFTER burning all the green grass down to the ground between
the end of the runway and airport fence behind him" :-))

IOW it's strong asphalt on about 8 feet of good bed, but not feet
thick concrete for heavies. MBS (11.3 SE on their 317 radial) doesn't
even qualify for 747s due to the placement of the runway lights for
engine clearance.

Roger (K8RI)



Bertie

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:55:13 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article ,
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

According to ice cores a major portion of the last warming took about
one *decade* and not hundreds of years and that was without our
help.:-))

Did the program indicate the cause the last warming? If so, what
was it?

As I recall it's still a mystery. It was nothing like what they were
expecting to find. Unfortunately some one pressed the erase button on
the DVR and I can't go back and look at it. It should be on again. It
was the National Geographic HD channel. Impressive in wide screen,
high definition. IIRC they had two, one hour programs back to back.

Interesting thing is most predictions are based on "things at present"
but the Greenland glaciers are rapidly accelerating their movement.
Like the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica they could decide to let go.
The big difference? The Ross ice shelf was already floating, but even
at their fastest it should take the glaciers at least a few years to
slide off the land mass

With the polar albedo(sp?) changin so rapidly the temperature changes
within and near the Artic Circle are much greater (and faster) than
the rest of the world is seeing..

Roger (K8RI)

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support
our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than
the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done.
Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific
beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the
downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
political platform. My preliminary research shows that this
candidate does not yet exist.

Or, we just don't know who it is because the issue isn't being covered by
the media, which instead focuses on the horse race.

There is a move afoot by several science groups and the two physicists in
Congress to have a "science debate", where we would ferret out the
candidates' position.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

Become aware, get involved.

Neil

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:


What's the pavement strength like?

Strength AND length:-))


Nah, lenght is OK. Req for landing is only 2800' ( no reverse) and we
can get off light with flap 15 no prob. Actually, because of the bogies,
we'd probably be OK for pavement strength too! Mid width for doing a 180
is 125 feet, I think. It hasn't been an issue yet!

The largest ever so far has been a Falcon
900. He set it on the numbers, Immediate reverse, and kept them on
until the engines started to stutter (no backfire).


They won't backfire ( actually the term is compressor stall) form
reverse use. in some airplanes you can even back the airplane up using
it. Not a good idea cause of FOD.

Not bad for a 3800
X 75 foot runway. :-)) Airport operator was walking around like an
old cat ready to have kittens worried about the ramp strength. OTOH
after throttle up with the brakes on, he was off in less than half the
runway "AFTER burning all the green grass down to the ground between
the end of the runway and airport fence behind him" :-))

IOW it's strong asphalt on about 8 feet of good bed, but not feet
thick concrete for heavies. MBS (11.3 SE on their 317 radial) doesn't
even qualify for 747s due to the placement of the runway lights for
engine clearance.



Well, I think the runway lights would be the least of thier problems!
The Falcon 900 should have been OK I'm just guessing, but empty they
are probably about 15,000 lbs and loaded up probably about twice that.
Maybe a bit more.
They have double wheels and can probably land on just about any runway
dependin on how big a footprint the tires have.
The Russians Yak 40 "Falknoski" has a single fat tire and is good for
landing on grass!


Bertie