Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
-
sjc.supernews.net:

In article
9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-3948545b7571
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal mair_fh...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:
However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US technical
advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.

so let me get this analogy straight

generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our
enemies
(there always enemies - especially in an election year)
and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
anihilation

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

No.

"Everybody must agree that there is only one course to insure
our
survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.

everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
there was universal agreement on one course to insure our
survival


Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who couldnt
see
that seems to have proliferated, though.

everybody who mattered agreed
mr smarty pants

True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.

i wonder what would happen this summer if everyone goes to neijing
takes one deep breath
and then immediately turns around and gets back on the plane


Neijing would have considerably less air.

Cleaner too.

Everyone, take some home. It'd probably be the cleanest air they've
seen in decades.



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

"Dan" wrote:


You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't made a
single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would have to defend
on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an excuse
to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?

Still nothing? Thought not.



But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.

The answer to your question is "I don't know."

How's that?



Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there definitely will
not be?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?


Only from the tears of the environmental wackos when the science doesn't pan
out.

OK, "Gig," that doesn't even make sense.

If you're going to chime in, at least try to be coherent.

Otherwise, go out to the shop and glue something.

"Matt Whiting" wrote:


I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541


or this?

http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html


Matt

Dan,

I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?


Sorry, Matt; missed it.

My answer is "So what?"

The rantings of a couple of old cranks against the work of thousands of modern
scientists? Who cares?

But I know you a little, Matt. I know you distrust modern science and are
always looking for someone to tell you it can't be right. You're a young
earth creationist, aren't you?

If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing real
research, go ahead. But do me one favor: spend some time finding out what all
the fuss is really about instead of just hunting for sites that make you feel
good. I suggest you start he

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

and he

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...WarmingUpdate/

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 4:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:19208192-d0a1-4249-a6a8-
:





On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

What, you;re not worried abou tthe people from new jersey,
displaced
and
hungry, ravaging the countryside in search of food and shelter?
This isn;'t about disappearing beaches..

Bertie

People from NJ are easy -- they can't shoot for $%it.

But, as an aside, let's consider what the what the IPCC says about
Climate Change:

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period
(about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat
of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar
temperatures at that time were 3°C to 5°C higher than
present, because of differences in the Earth's orbit. The
Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely
contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level
rise. There may also have been a contribution from
Antarctica. {6.4}

And again:
Temperature Change Sea Level Rise
(°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999)a (m at 2090-2099 relative
to 1980-1999)
Best Likely Model-based range excluding future
Case estimate range rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
Constant Year 2000
concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 - 0.9 NA
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9 0.18 - 0.38
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.45
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8 0.20 - 0.43
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4 0.21 - 0.48
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4 0.23 - 0.51
A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4 0.26 - 0.59

And again:
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in
climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include
the full effects of changes in ice sheet fl ow, because a
basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
include a contribution due to increased ice fl ow from
Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993
to 2003, but these fl ow rates could increase or decrease
in the future. For example, if this contribution were to
grow linearly with global average temperature change,
the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios
shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m.
Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or
provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
rise. {10.6}

If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at A1B
levels14, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to
0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999).
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries,
due to the time required to transport heat into the deep
ocean.

The ONLY way to get a "20' rise in 100 (or 200) years" is to accept
a full melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the IPCC says "If
a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that
would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice
Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

See again the word "Millenia"

It's moving and moving fast now. The greater worry for the greenalnd
ice sheet is the dilution of the gulf stream there is considerable
evidence that it's salinity is already on the wane and it has been
known to shut down very quickly in the past.
It's not going to do much for the tourist trade..

Bertie

Not sure about that:

I am. Read some more.


Bertie

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 4:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ed613966-4828-4aa4-acba-
:



It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.

Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
materials, and perhaps..?

Mostly the culprit is desigining airplanes that were relatively easy
to manufacture and also to make them more appealling to more people.
The old Bellancas were a thing of rare beauty. I'm strongly tempted
to get on as they are still very cheap. the old 150 Franklin powered
Cruisair will do a genuine 150 mph with four up.
And then there are the prewar Cessnas. Beautiful things that did an
honest 135 mph on 145 HP...

Bertie

Nearby is someone I have to visit -- Bill Pancake, who is apparently
world renown for his Aeronca expertise.

I was floored when I learned the TAS of a Staggerwing from an owner...
unbelievable. And what a huge cabin!,

Yes, but pretty thirsty. The R985 powered ones drink close to 25 GPH
depending on how fast you want to go and how high you guy. A friend of
mine had a B model with a 225 Jake in it and that was considerably more
efficient. Almost all of the wacos had good performance as well.

I'm still impressed by the efficiency and performance of the '47 35 V
tail....


Yeah, and it's 60 years old. more than halfway back in the history of
aviation since the wrights now.
Speaking of which, there are some items on the wright flyer that were
just about perfect, first time. The props, for instance, were just about
perfect for that appliaction. Even a computer and a century of education
could improve only marginally on them. The airfoil was also very good
Remember the size of that airplane and the fact it flew on about 10 HP.
Astonishing. I have a lot of texts from the twenties and thirties.
People poke fun at the simple looking machines of that day, but thye
knew an awful lot.
And in fact, while on the subject. there was a house designed at the
time the primary goal of which was maximizing energy and resources for a
shrinking planet. the Engineer responsible was R Buckminster Fuller and
the house had an interesting shower, in particular, that would do the
job with only a cup of water. its only recently come into it's own,
being used in airplanes now..
It's supposed to work very well.



Bertie

Talk-n-Dog wrote in news:QLhBj.1879
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:2ac83c1d-1830-4501-a1b3-
:

On Mar 10, 3:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:92155978-4f98-478a-95ea-
:





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...
Don;t forget to arm it heavily so the hordes of people trying to
get
in
can be eliminated. And you'll need power, of course....

Bertie
Point 1: Already done.

Point 2: bunny farts. plenty of rabbits and they procreate like mad.


Now all you have to do is invent the technology to power all of your
toys and your house on one.


You'll have to raise enough to give the poor power too.

Not a problem, he;s going to shoot them.


The wind is free so we should all get free power right?

Yep!

Bertie

Roger wrote in
:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
-
sjc.supernews.net:

In article
9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-3948545b7571
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal mair_fh...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:
However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US
technical
advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.

so let me get this analogy straight

generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our
enemies
(there always enemies - especially in an election year)
and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
anihilation

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

No.

"Everybody must agree that there is only one course to insure
our
survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.

everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
there was universal agreement on one course to insure our
survival


Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who
couldnt
see
that seems to have proliferated, though.

everybody who mattered agreed
mr smarty pants

True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.

i wonder what would happen this summer if everyone goes to neijing
takes one deep breath
and then immediately turns around and gets back on the plane


Neijing would have considerably less air.

Cleaner too.

Everyone, take some home. It'd probably be the cleanest air they've
seen in decades.


A bit PKB for someone from near enough detroit, eh?

Bertie

Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:

I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541


or this?

http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html


Matt
Dan,

I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?


Sorry, Matt; missed it.

My answer is "So what?"

The rantings of a couple of old cranks against the work of thousands of modern
scientists? Who cares?

But I know you a little, Matt. I know you distrust modern science and are
always looking for someone to tell you it can't be right. You're a young
earth creationist, aren't you?

If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing real
research, go ahead. But do me one favor: spend some time finding out what all
the fuss is really about instead of just hunting for sites that make you feel
good. I suggest you start he

A man considered "the father of scientific climatology" is all of the
sudden a crackpot? Wow, you really have bought the Gore and company
propaganda hook, line and sinker.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I didn't see a whole lot of interest above. I'm amazed at the
rationalizations some so-called scientists will stoop to in an effort to
support a faulty hypothesis.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

There is much more evidence that warming causes high CO2 levels than
there is for the converse, yet the rationalizations continue.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:

I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541


or this?

http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html


Matt
Dan,

I'm still awaiting your reply. Are you still there?


Sorry, Matt; missed it.

My answer is "So what?"

The rantings of a couple of old cranks against the work of thousands
of modern scientists? Who cares?

But I know you a little, Matt. I know you distrust modern science
and are always looking for someone to tell you it can't be right.
You're a young earth creationist, aren't you?

If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing
real research, go ahead. But do me one favor: spend some time
finding out what all the fuss is really about instead of just hunting
for sites that make you feel good. I suggest you start he

A man considered "the father of scientific climatology" is all of the
sudden a crackpot? Wow, you really have bought the Gore and company
propaganda hook, line and sinker.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I didn't see a whole lot of interest above. I'm amazed at the
rationalizations some so-called scientists will stoop to in an effort
to support a faulty hypothesis.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

There is much more evidence that warming causes high CO2 levels than
there is for the converse, yet the rationalizations continue.


A statement in itself that displays an ignorance that is breathtaking.

Stop sniffing cordite, Matt.

oops, sorry, you killfiled me, dincha?


Bertie