Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 7, 6:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:92f50be8-9b35-4eb0-a536-7116f6b6b4f3
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 7, 5:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

And the sky can't fall, it is not affected by gravity.

Actually, it is...

Bertie

Only in a High pressure system...

Try switching gravity off and see how much of a sky you have.

Bertie


I hate it when that happens.


imagination is a powerful tool in begining to understand ho wnay machine
works. Particularly one you can't switch off and disassemble. All of the
forces and elements on and in the vicinity of earth drive our weather.
Of course it's cyclic and of course we're living in an unusually
peaceful period of realtively docile weather. Novody knows for sure what
is going to happen and nobody who has any sense is saying they do. There
are likely scenarios though and none of them are good. It may be that we
have little or nothing to do with it but that is very unlikely. But if
we are and even if it were only a slom chance we were ( it isn't, but
bear with me for argument's sake) then we're effectively playing russian
roullete.
As to the economic argument, I simply don't buy it. If the oil
disappeeard tomorrow we'd figure out a way to cope. There are lots of
promising technologies and, more than likely, more to come. These can
only help ensure a sound economic future.
Don;'t like paying beaurocrats? Go support someone who's doing
something. But a proiduct that's moving things the right way..
Even leaving aside the ecological aspects of continued use of IC engines
, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at all.
I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines ( including
a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)

A bit of a kick in the ass , whatever the reason, will do no harm at
all.


Bertie

On Mar 7, 6:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at all.
I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines ( including
a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)

Bertie

Very true. The E-185 in the 1947 Bonanza 35 I fly burns about 8 GPH to
fly 130 KIAS at 5000'. The C172E with the 145 HP engine we flew
yesterday burns 6-7 for about 110 KIAS (much draggier airframe, of
course).

About the only thing that's improved in IC is power to weight.

Now if you're talking motorcycles, the improvements in ride, handling,
speed, braking, adhesion -- you name it -- is night and day. The old
bikes are neat, but to get someplace fast -- give me a new bike any
day (and I've had both).

Makes me wish Honda was building airplanes...


(oh wait...)


Dan

"Dan" wrote:

We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.

Far warmer in our history? Says who?

Obviously it doesn't matter who says what

Oh, dear me; it certainly does. The statements of people who back up what
they say with published, peer reviewed research have credibility. The
rantings of cranks and political hacks do not.


(though here's a sample:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf)

"The fact that an almost linear change has been progressing, without a
distinct change of slope,
from as early as 1800 or even earlier (about 1660, even before the Industrial
Revolution),

suggests that the linear change is natural change. As shown at the top diagram
of Figure 1, a

rapid increase of CO2 began only after 1940."

Eh? What's this guy been smoking? The rise in CO2 shows strong averaged
congruence with the rise in CO2:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...on_by_Type_png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...ure_Record_png




This is the Big Problem with the Global Warming hysteria.

Oh, boy! Right off the bat, we know we can expect objectivity!


Those who reasonably suggest that the evidence is inconclusive that
Human Activity may not be completely responsible for the 0.6 C
worldwide temperature rise over a 100 year period, and that even if
there were a predictable rise the results will not be as catastrophic
as the alarmists claim must be silenced (for the children's sake, of
course).

Ah-ha! Watch out, boys and girls: it's The Great Scientific Conspiracy to
hide THE TRUTH.


I'm a reasonable person, fish, camp, canoe, hunt, and hike, have
written checks to support environmental issues, have various
memberships in ecologically forward organizations, recycle, etc, etc,
etc.

So don't equate "Doubt about Global warming" with "wants to pollute
the streams and kill the fish."

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said or even thought anything
remotely like that.

It's ok to doubt global warming. It's not ok to doubt the science while
remaining ignorant of what it actually says.


That's an smear campaign and that's what's been going on -- though you
will deny it.

At this point, I'm done with this topic and done trying to reason with
you.

Really? Before you even start?

Running away noted.

It's the wrong venue, though not really -- because one day -- when
the Global Warming Nazis come collect the keys to your CO2 emitting,
fossil-fuel burning, Global Impacting Cessna -- maybe you'll wished
you'd stood up to their bullying.

LOL.

"Nazis"

I guess the discussion really is over.

Dan wrote in news:45b07162-394c-4fd9-824d-
:

On Mar 7, 6:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at
all.
I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines (
including
a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)

Bertie

Very true. The E-185 in the 1947 Bonanza 35 I fly burns about 8 GPH to
fly 130 KIAS at 5000'. The C172E with the 145 HP engine we flew
yesterday burns 6-7 for about 110 KIAS (much draggier airframe, of
course).

About the only thing that's improved in IC is power to weight.

Now if you're talking motorcycles, the improvements in ride, handling,
speed, braking, adhesion -- you name it -- is night and day. The old
bikes are neat, but to get someplace fast -- give me a new bike any
day (and I've had both).

Makes me wish Honda was building airplanes...



Still prefer my 1922 Raleigh... ..

Handling? Nothing beats a 1962 Matchless. . Brakes, I'll give you, but
the percentages are small. Performance is up but so is fuel
consumption...




Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Don;'t like paying beaurocrats? Go support someone who's doing
something. But a proiduct that's moving things the right way..
Even leaving aside the ecological aspects of continued use of IC engines
, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at all.
I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines ( including
a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)
Bertie

You owned a couple of 19th century cars?

Were they made in Europe?

http://cleveland.about.com/od/clevel...crawford_2.htm

On Mar 7, 7:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:45b07162-394c-4fd9-824d-
:





On Mar 7, 6:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

, the saddest part is after 130 years they haven't improved much at
all.
I love old engines. i've owned a bbunch of real old machines (
including
a coule of 19th century cars) and their efficiency isnt significantly
worse than what;s out there today ( though they were a bit draftier)

Bertie

Very true. The E-185 in the 1947 Bonanza 35 I fly burns about 8 GPH to
fly 130 KIAS at 5000'. The C172E with the 145 HP engine we flew
yesterday burns 6-7 for about 110 KIAS (much draggier airframe, of
course).

About the only thing that's improved in IC is power to weight.

Now if you're talking motorcycles, the improvements in ride, handling,
speed, braking, adhesion -- you name it -- is night and day. The old
bikes are neat, but to get someplace fast -- give me a new bike any
day (and I've had both).

Makes me wish Honda was building airplanes...

Still prefer my 1922 Raleigh... ..

Handling? Nothing beats a 1962 Matchless. . Brakes, I'll give you, but
the percentages are small. Performance is up but so is fuel
consumption...

Bertie

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?

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....

(Until I flew a Bonanza the Yamaha was the fastest machine I'd ever
piloted)

Dan

Dan wrote:
On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
:
On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.
--
Dan
Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?
There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.
Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?
5 feet in 25?
Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
Change" crisis of the moment.
Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.
We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
colder.
But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."
I know.
Bertie
You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?
All the alarmist noise?



Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?
That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea until
they break it.



Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).
"When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
not consensus."
Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.

Jesus wept.

Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see evidence
and can see the logical result according to the best information available.

Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that people
get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty short sighted
and narrow view of the investment to boot.

So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence based on
my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no investment and
I'm not crying about the sky falling.

How about you?

Bertie

I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
bureaucracy.

How about you?

Dan
Start now..... if you add all your tax burden, it's already 50+

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?

Not a good analogy, since we can obviously affect what happens to our own
homes. There is quite literally nothing that can be done by the average
person to influence the world's climate -- one way or the other -- so all
this blather and hand-wringing is nothing but noise and fury, signifying
nothing.

Well, except to the folks who stand to make a few billion dollars in
windfall profits by "studying" the phenomenon.

But all argument aside, I would politely ask for a list of things that we --
you and I -- can do that will "help" the climate problem as you see it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Temperature and precip vary widely from year to year and local to
local so taken by itself this past year is only a blip in a sea of
change. Give it another 10 years and then *maybe* we can say it
probably, might, could have meant something. :-))

Agreed -- but I don't think too many people will be able to endure ten more
brutal winters like this one.

Temps are dipping down to -5 degrees again tonight -- and it's March...

Bring on the global warming, please!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


What's the old saying? "Lies, lies and statistics"?

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

2. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to think humans are capable of changing
*global* climate - especially in a mere 150 years.

3. A review of the players for the pro-AGW crowd shows a littany of
leftists, former Communists and general anti-capitalists.

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.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________