Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:57:04 -0800 (PST), Dan
wrote:

I know this is a waste of time but:
Sorry to cloud your thinking, but here are the facts you desired.

Unfortunately they don't square with your preposterous claims or 20'
sea level rise.

FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
term trends.

That was on 01. They've changed their minds

FACT: Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are
at the extreme end of the IPCC range (read the report).

Several of those from the committee were on TV recently and made the
statements their published figures were ultra conservative.

FACT: Both James Hansen of NASA--the father of greenhouse theory--and
Richard Lindzen of MIT--the most renowned climatologist in the world--
agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the
world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the
next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional
warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ±
0.04°C per decade."

Your data is way out of date. I'm currently reading an article on
Hansen (the guy you quoted above). In it Hansen's analysis shows that
the earth warmed that 0.5C in the last 30 years for a current total
of 0.9C since 1880. The original data was taken from too small an
area.


FACT: No one has provided data that conclusively links human activity
to the temperature rise of 0.6 C over 100 years.

To quote again. "To questions about whether this warming is natural
or just a fluctuation the answer has become clear: The world is
getting warmer." Hansen stated. "The fact agrees so well with what we
calculate with our global climate model that I am confident we are
looking at warming that is mainly due to increasing human-made
greenhouse gases"

Hansen is using the 1 deg C as a tipping point that will put us into
dangerous territory. He figures at least a 2 to 3C rise by the end
of the century "Which is a temperature Earth hasn't experienced
since the middle of the Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago
when sea level was roughly _25_METERS_HIGHER_ than it is today"
(Again quoting Hansen)

FACT: No one has proven a causal link between CO2 and global
temperatures. It may be a cause, but is more likely an effect.

In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.

So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
differently.

The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/




Dan





Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:tDoAj.66221$yE1.47073@attbi_s21:

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 --



Dummer 'n dirt.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:ZKoAj.66228$yE1.20864@attbi_s21:

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!


Unbelievable.


Bertie

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
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

Whata Fool wrote in
:

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?


One was, an early DeDion Bouton. The other was a a 1899 Sperry ( yes
Elemr,the same guy who , with his son, developed the first AC gyros)
electric. An extremely advanced propulsion system was the hallmark of this
contraption, btw. It had regenerative braking. Well, it still does. I sold
it to a friend. THe rest was strictly horse and buggy and it wasn't very
fast, but it did have a reasonable range of about 30 miles. Beautiful thing
it was, too. It was later marketed as the Cleveland electric. Elmer and his
son Lawrence also designed and installed many of the electric trolley
systems in the US around the turn of the century.
Lawrence is also credited with being the first mile high club member.
Tehre were lots of cars made in the US in the 19th century, but not as many
as europe. Henry Ford didn;t get going til 03 and his cars dserve their
place in history. Well, actually he started earlier, but lost his first
company whihc was bough up by a guy who renamed it after the town it was
built in. Cadillac MI.

Ferry Porsche also built electrics around this time. His electrics also had
regenerative braking. They also had motors which were integral with the
hubs of the wheels, which was a bad idea from the unsprung weight angle,
but a good one form efficiency. Four wheel drive as well.
I also owned a 1903 Ford A, a 1911 DeDion, a 1902 Olds, a 1922 Morris a
1906 Le Zebre and a couple of other oddballs that were a bit more
obscure...
A fascinating period in automotive history. There wasn't much that hadn't
been tried by 1905. Four wheel drive, fuel injection ( of sorts) variable
valve timing, V8s , you name it. France was the absolute center of the
universe for both autos and aviation then, BTW. Both their airplanes and
their cars set the patterns for both for the next century..





Bertie

On Mar 8, 4:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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)


One of the things we lost on or wheeled rockets is the perception of
speed -- Helmet, leathers, windscreen, etc all insulate the rider form
the road, to some degree.

I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

Of course helmets were mandatory in cycling, but they weren't full
face, etc etc. If you fell (which I did), it hurt -- alot. You always
had that sensation of being on the edge of doom (similar to usenet).

The oldest bike I've ridden was a 50's vintage British something or
other. I was young and unaware of the legendary names so I don't
remember which. But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
asphalt.

The 80's bikes from Japan were a quantum leap forward in all respects
(starting, continuing running, brakes, etc), but the "car like"
expereince intruded on the ride.

My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
explain that.


!!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and that's
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

My next bike will likely be a beamer touring style. My wife likes to
ride along but the current ride isn't great two-up. I'll miss the 550
lb flickable ride, but -- ya gotta do what's right.


Dan

Dan wrote in news:26c8c021-3ac3-48f6-837f-
:

On Mar 8, 4:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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)


One of the things we lost on or wheeled rockets is the perception of
speed -- Helmet, leathers, windscreen, etc all insulate the rider form
the road, to some degree.

Well, one of the guys at "Mad Sunday" during the Isle of Man TT a few
years ago decided to confront that problem head on by riding around the
course buck nekkid. When you ride around buck nekkid you do not want to
fall off. But he did. Eeep!
I wonder what his sensation of speed felt like!

I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

I'll bet! Lots more work though.

Of course helmets were mandatory in cycling, but they weren't full
face, etc etc. If you fell (which I did), it hurt -- alot. You always
had that sensation of being on the edge of doom (similar to usenet).

The oldest bike I've ridden was a 50's vintage British something or
other. I was young and unaware of the legendary names so I don't
remember which. But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
asphalt.

Well, that's a good thing!
The Brits built lots of bikes back then. It coulda been a Norton,
Triumph, BSA, Matchless, James, AJS, Vincent, Francis Barnett, Royal
Enfield or Ariel amongst dozens of others.

Lots of thier bikes from back then were hardtail or had some primitive
form of rear suspension like a sprung hub or "plunger" suspension. By
the mid fifties they all had swing arm rears and telescopic forks. I've
ridden a good few form that period and thought they handled just fine,
but The AJS and Matchless were both extraordinary by the early sixties
( they're pretty much the same bike) and the Nortons form this period
are supposed to be spectacular in their roadholding capability.

The 80's bikes from Japan were a quantum leap forward in all respects
(starting, continuing running, brakes, etc), but the "car like"
expereince intruded on the ride.

My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
explain that.


I know exactly what you mean. It;'s why I prefer the older ones, faults
and all.



!!! I've never done 150 on a bike! My BMW will do about 110 and
that's
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

My next bike will likely be a beamer touring style. My wife likes to
ride along but the current ride isn't great two-up. I'll miss the 550
lb flickable ride, but -- ya gotta do what's right.


My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride. It
has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and you
can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
along.


Bertie

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:tDoAj.66221$yE1.47073@attbi_s21:

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 --



Dummer 'n dirt.

what he says is true
but he uses it to imply a fallacy

an -individual- has very little power over the climate
even a rich individual

however that does not imply that collectively people are powerless

individually you cannot build a pyramid
but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with copper tools
and you can move mountains

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

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:tDoAj.66221$yE1.47073@attbi_s21:

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 --



Dummer 'n dirt.

what he says is true
but he uses it to imply a fallacy

an -individual- has very little power over the climate
even a rich individual

however that does not imply that collectively people are powerless

individually you cannot build a pyramid
but get together maybe 50 000 working together during fallow with
copper tools and you can move mountains

Oh, I agree completely. Jay's still dummer'n dirt, though.



Bertie

On Mar 8, 9:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I used to race road bicycles (my only claim to cycling fame is being
soundly beaten by Floyd Landis -- along with everyone else in that
race) and the feeling of speed at 45 MPH on a 22 lb steel bike running
20 mm tires is pretty close to 65 MPH on a motorcycle.

I'll bet! Lots more work though.

Yeah, but I was in great shape then!!

But it was a bear to start, had a very narrow power
band, and let me feel every ridge on every pebble embedded on the
asphalt.

Well, that's a good thing!
The Brits built lots of bikes back then. It coulda been a Norton,
Triumph, BSA, Matchless, James, AJS, Vincent, Francis Barnett, Royal
Enfield or Ariel amongst dozens of others.

Probably a BSA -- it was in Canada -- my cousins had one of every
motorized toy sold -- it was a pre-teen boy's wonderland. My uncle
built a Chalet (what they called cabins in Quebec) and all roads were
dirt (sand, really) or some scattered gravel. Not ideal for those
sorts of bikes but you couldn't go too fast or get hurt too bad.

We actually spent most of our time on a little Honda Trail -- I think
it was one of Honda's earliest foray's into "off road."

There were two springs on either side of the rear axle but all show!



Lots of thier bikes from back then were hardtail or had some primitive
form of rear suspension like a sprung hub or "plunger" suspension. By
the mid fifties they all had swing arm rears and telescopic forks. I've
ridden a good few form that period and thought they handled just fine,
but The AJS and Matchless were both extraordinary by the early sixties
( they're pretty much the same bike) and the Nortons form this period
are supposed to be spectacular in their roadholding capability.

Never rode one -- would like to, but any I've seen are more jealously
guarded than any trophy wife.

My last road bike I bought in 2001, and it is simply a screaming
machine. It hums along, continues to surprise me in the turns, and
sips gas. But I don't have a connection to it -- and don't ask me to
explain that.

I know exactly what you mean. It;'s why I prefer the older ones, faults
and all.

Might explain the current affinity for Champs and Cubs?

My BMW is a sprts version of the old airhead 7 series. It's a high
compression 800 so it's quick enough, but it's really nice to ride. It
has some handling quirks, but once you ride it with some verve it
responds very well. It feels really substantial yet it's light and you
can feel every nut and bolt clicking in perfect harmony as you rail
along.

Bertie

That's one awesome feeling....

I rode bikes for a while during my break from aviation (when I
couldn't afford it). Very similar sensations, for alot less $$.

But not exactly the same. Thus the return to the addiction.


Dan