Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 10, 9:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20 foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

No, it isn't. It's a very real possibility.

Since we discoursing reasonably, I have to agree that a sea level rise
of 20' (or any magnitude) is a possibility. A variety of plausible
phenomenon can cause this, including volcanic activity or asteroid
impact.

That's the problem with this problem. You could be right. I hope you
are, actually, because I doubt that enough will be done. I thinkn it
very unliely that you're right, but I'll concede that it's possible and
so would most scientists.

And here's the problem with the "cause" (and they admit this in their
own literature) -- No one will join the crusade if the net result is a
20 centimeter rise in sea level, or a 1 degree C rise in average
temperature.

They must stress the cataclysmic to get people's attention (see "the
Day After Tomorrow" or any local news before a snowstorm).

As far as conceding it's possible -- I concede I will have an engine
failure on every flight, and yet I plan to arrive at my destination at
a certain time. As pilots we plan for contingencies, yet proceed with
confidence based on expereince.

Caution is a good thing. The inherent problems in this approach are
unintended consequences.

Buy a Prius and save the world? Oops -- what about those huge
batteries?

Build lots of windmills and cut emissions? Oops -- just killed a few
hundred migrating raptors, native bats, and leveled a few thousand
acres of forest.

Replace all those paper bags with plastic? Oops.. now the landfills
are full.

While there is certainly interaction between human activity, the
atmosphere, and overall climate patterns, must we then conclude that
all human activity is thus harmful and that the only direction the
climate can change is towards damage?


the problem is, even if you are right, alternative energy sources will
have to be found this century to replace oil. It is going to run out.
When doesn;'t matter. A few decades or even centuries is the twinkling
of an eye. Even if we've only used 25% of the available oil on the
planet, to use up in a couple of centuries what it took nature a few
hundred million years to make is just stupid, pure and simple.
the other problem is, if I'm right and you ae wrong, it will be too
late. The I told you so's won't be something we can laugh at over a
beer.
In short, it has to be done either way. The only difference is when. IC
technology, much as I love it, is a bore. Nothing really new in over a
hundred years, unless you count crappy FADECs and the like. The Jet
engine is over a hundred years old now. Steam was only king for a bit
over a hundred years and in fact when steam was younger than that the
new brats of the future were already toddling around amusing people.(
the early IC cars of the 1880s and the early attempts at flight) We can
develop technologies that can carry us into the next century and we can
do it now.

I agree 100%. As I said long ago on an earlier topic, I really don't
care if my powerplant burns mouse turds. The energy source isn't what
we require -- the power is.

While the IC engine is old, it still is the most efficient means of
converting transportable stuff into thrust. Unfortunately there is
more worthless heat released than actually converted into what we
want. Perhaps that needs some tightening up.

But I need to make something clear. I'm no cigar-smoking
industrialist.

I live in one of the most industrially ravaged ares in the country
(Pittsburgh area). Not far from my house are rows of coke ovens long
dormant. The ground all around grows only a few weeds as the soil is
far too alkaline after years of coke cinders leaching. All around this
county are "brown fields" -- places too damaged by chemical runoff to
be used for anything but parking lots.

My son and I spent 8 days canoeing 220 miles down the West Branch and
main stem of the Susquehanna River. The West branch flows though what
is now pristine wilderness -- black bear, elk, and bald eagle live
all along the shores. But the water is gin clear due to high acid
levels from upstream mine drainage. No fish live in the upper reaches,
even though it passes through scenes pulled from "A River Runs through
It."

I've spent days and nights backpacking through the second and third
growth forests all up and down the Alleghenies. In the most stretch
spots you will find open, bare spots where a charcoal furnace once
stood. Now nothing grows.

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.

The ability of nature to recover -- when supplemented by enlightened
protection -- is astounding.

While I don't reject reasoned debate on this topic, and am willing to
consider my impact and what I can do mitigate that impact, I will
always reject the modern Robespierre's, who accept only complete
fealty, and label all others "traitors to the cause."


Dan

Dan wrote in news:0c475af1-d8f3-4e5b-a9f9-
:

On Mar 10, 9:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah. Thus Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
Global Warming due to Man Made Causes which will result in a 20
foot
rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of Unmitigated ****.

No, it isn't. It's a very real possibility.

Since we discoursing reasonably, I have to agree that a sea level rise
of 20' (or any magnitude) is a possibility. A variety of plausible
phenomenon can cause this, including volcanic activity or asteroid
impact.

That's the problem with this problem. You could be right. I hope you
are, actually, because I doubt that enough will be done. I thinkn it
very unliely that you're right, but I'll concede that it's possible
and
so would most scientists.

And here's the problem with the "cause" (and they admit this in their
own literature) -- No one will join the crusade if the net result is a
20 centimeter rise in sea level, or a 1 degree C rise in average
temperature.


I would. a 1 deg c increase is a very bad thing for weather patterns. If
nature causes it , os be it, but it's stupid for us to continue in this
way.

They must stress the cataclysmic to get people's attention (see "the
Day After Tomorrow" or any local news before a snowstorm).


Maybe, doesn't matter and I don't really care what "they" whoever
"they" are do. This is a real problem and a logical one and can be dealt
with.


As far as conceding it's possible -- I concede I will have an engine
failure on every flight, and yet I plan to arrive at my destination at
a certain time. As pilots we plan for contingencies, yet proceed with
confidence based on expereince.

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

Caution is a good thing. The inherent problems in this approach are
unintended consequences.

OK, the loppoing down of vast amounts of indonesia's rainforest to
support biofuels may be a good example of that, but there are lots of
smarter things we could be doing now. I mean like right now, by the end
of the summer now.

Buy a Prius and save the world? Oops -- what about those huge
batteries?

Band-aid. They're not as good as an equivelant diesel.

Build lots of windmills and cut emissions? Oops -- just killed a few
hundred migrating raptors, native bats, and leveled a few thousand
acres of forest.

Not neccesarily.

Replace all those paper bags with plastic? Oops.. now the landfills
are full.

Reuse bags. Mandatory where I live, BTW.

While there is certainly interaction between human activity, the
atmosphere, and overall climate patterns, must we then conclude that
all human activity is thus harmful and that the only direction the
climate can change is towards damage?

Mind opointong out where I wrote that?


the problem is, even if you are right, alternative energy sources
will
have to be found this century to replace oil. It is going to run out.
When doesn;'t matter. A few decades or even centuries is the
twinkling
of an eye. Even if we've only used 25% of the available oil on the
planet, to use up in a couple of centuries what it took nature a few
hundred million years to make is just stupid, pure and simple.
the other problem is, if I'm right and you ae wrong, it will be too
late. The I told you so's won't be something we can laugh at over a
beer.
In short, it has to be done either way. The only difference is when.
IC
technology, much as I love it, is a bore. Nothing really new in over
a
hundred years, unless you count crappy FADECs and the like. The Jet
engine is over a hundred years old now. Steam was only king for a bit
over a hundred years and in fact when steam was younger than that the
new brats of the future were already toddling around amusing people.(
the early IC cars of the 1880s and the early attempts at flight) We
can
develop technologies that can carry us into the next century and we
can
do it now.

I agree 100%. As I said long ago on an earlier topic, I really don't
care if my powerplant burns mouse turds. The energy source isn't what
we require -- the power is.

I like it as much as th enext guy as i'm sure you can see.

While the IC engine is old, it still is the most efficient means of
converting transportable stuff into thrust. Unfortunately there is
more worthless heat released than actually converted into what we
want. Perhaps that needs some tightening up.

But I need to make something clear. I'm no cigar-smoking
industrialist.



I live in one of the most industrially ravaged ares in the country
(Pittsburgh area). Not far from my house are rows of coke ovens long
dormant. The ground all around grows only a few weeds as the soil is
far too alkaline after years of coke cinders leaching. All around this
county are "brown fields" -- places too damaged by chemical runoff to
be used for anything but parking lots.

My son and I spent 8 days canoeing 220 miles down the West Branch and
main stem of the Susquehanna River. The West branch flows though what
is now pristine wilderness -- black bear, elk, and bald eagle live
all along the shores. But the water is gin clear due to high acid
levels from upstream mine drainage. No fish live in the upper reaches,
even though it passes through scenes pulled from "A River Runs through
It."

I've spent days and nights backpacking through the second and third
growth forests all up and down the Alleghenies. In the most stretch
spots you will find open, bare spots where a charcoal furnace once
stood. Now nothing grows.

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.

The ability of nature to recover -- when supplemented by enlightened
protection -- is astounding.

Sure. you get an injury you heal.

Within limits.

While I don't reject reasoned debate on this topic, and am willing to
consider my impact and what I can do mitigate that impact, I will
always reject the modern Robespierre's, who accept only complete
fealty, and label all others "traitors to the cause."


And you were doing so well there.


Bertie

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?


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?

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.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:


Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "


And only inconvenient to those living on the waters edge. Venice
seemed to survive.

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:44:22 -0800
Cow Tse Tung wasted precious bandwith
with:

In article -
sjc.supernews.net, mariposas rand mair fheal says...

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I kinda dried up my corner for a while, but there's
kooks-a-plenty all the sudden.

election year

If perchance you're a Jefferson Airplane fan, its worth catching
their latest incarnation in concert. Paul Kanter gets really
wound up with his political rhetoric in election years.

Its nice to know some people still think that America can be saved.


--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/09/...eneys-secrecy/

"Dan" wrote:

By the way, neither I nor anyone else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by
2100.
That's all in your head. You're delusional.

I expect you to prove there will be a 10 foot rise by then.

Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "

It's time you were reminded of how this discussion has gone, since you seem
somewhat absent-minded.

You showed up flinging around some platitudes about the earth, the climate
and humanity. One of these was this brilliant observation:

Humans adapt, period.

To which I replied:

"So a 20-foot sea level rise over a couple hundred years would be just an
inconvenience. Right."

Making the point that there are enormous changes that *could* happen over a
far shorter time scale than previous periods of human adaptation. An event
that even you should see would be a cataclysm far beyond the adaptability of
modern civilization.

Somehow, you have twisted this around in your mind to believe I owe you
proof there will be a 10 foot rise by 2100.

Nuts.



You are not acquitting yourself very well in this thread. You've postured,
you've bloviated, but you haven't posted a thing that indicates you have a
clue what modern climate science is about. You appear to believe, for
example, that effects of global warming must be linear. Furthermore, you
expect science to "prove" things, evidence that you don't know how science
works.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you don't know WTF you are talking about.

But I know that won't stop you. Keep it coming.

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

Talk-n-Dog wrote in news:l5dBj.1744
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:9b1905bc-48dd-456e-8992-3ba5f2b8bbf6
@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 9, 9:49 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:


Your words were (and I quote): "So a 20-foot sea level rise over a
couple hundred years would be just an inconvenience. Right. "


And only inconvenient to those living on the waters edge. Venice
seemed to survive.

Well, it won;'t survie that unless they all move up a story in their
houses.



Bertie

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...

On Mar 10, 3:10 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Speaking of inconsistency...


To which I replied:

"So a 20-foot sea level rise over a couple hundred years would be just an
inconvenience. Right."

[blah blah blah snipped]

However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
head. You're delusional."

So which is it? 20' rise or not?

Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

How very convenient.

Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
zealot.


Dan