Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 8, 9:58 am, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:

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

I prefer a fat guy on a Caterpillar.


Dan

In article ,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 8, 9:58 am, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:

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

I prefer a fat guy on a Caterpillar.

did he make the caterpillar himself?

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

Dan wrote in news:1b8de725-9ae3-4323-8361-
:

I'll bet! Lots more work though.

Yeah, but I was in great shape then!!


I'd do it if I wasn't almost sure to be run down on the road.


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.

They're nice bikes. The fifties were kind of an in between time frm the
nice light rigid read things of the thirties and the more sophisticated
sixties bikes. I've ridden a Commando, which had rubber vibration
isolaters and that made it a litle vague compared to the earlier ones,
bu tstill a great bike. There was nothing like it when it came out, then
the CB 750 appeard and the rest is history.

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!

I rode one of those back then. A friend had one A 175 I think. Nice
little bikes and so solid compared to the other things!


Might explain the current affinity for Champs and Cubs?

I preferred those back then. Though the Luscombe was the one I really
liked best. I've had three of them.
My first bike was good fun, too. A '59 Cushman Eagle..

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.

Yeah, they are very similar feelings, but I'm a much better flyer than
rider and I don't think I'll ever "be one" with one!
Stil, good fun...

Bertie

"John T" wrote:

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

What's that supposed to mean - that we can believe no science that uses
numbers?

Well-poisoning attempt noted.


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.


The ol' "Greenland paradise" story. It is not incontrovertible that Greenland
was "much warmer" in the MWP than it is now. Modern research shows the late
20th century is warmer:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...oberg2005.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...o2006/fig5.jpg


Your second statement is misleading. Northern hemisphere temperatures reached
a temporary peak in the 1930s, declined until about 1970, and have been
climbing since. Greeland is not an ice cube on a hot sidewalk. It takes a
while for ice masses the size of Greenland's to absorb enough heat to get a
major melt event going. That seems to be underway now:

http://www.physorg.com/news122749356.html




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?

It's been getting genarally warmer for the last 100 years.


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.

You against taking precautions?



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."

I'll grant you the Holocene Maximum, but "just about anybody's temperature
reconstruction" shows the MWP was not as warm as today. Most importantly,
nothing in anybody's reconstruction shows a spike as steep as the 20th
century's.



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.

So?


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.

Puh-leeze. That is one of the moldiest oldies in the AGW deniers' bag of
talking points. What serious scientists of the time really said:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

There is no comparison between a few articles in the popular press of that
time and the near universal agreement among climate scientists today about
what is happening to the planet.



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.

More from the oldies bag. Let's take your points in order:

* Human-produced CO2 accounts for a far minority of the atmospheric CO2
(vice natural sources)

You don't quantify "far minority," but it is empirically established that
human activity has produced a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 PPMV since about
1800.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html
offers good explanations of how we know.

* and total CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.054%.

Yes. So? The major gases, nitrogen, oxygen and argon, are transparent to IR.
They don't matter when it comes to stopping heat from being radiated back to
space. It's the GHGs that prevent the planet from freezing. Pointing out that
CO2 is a small part of the total atmosphere is a red herring in this context.

* What's more, CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas-- far less potent than water
vapor, for instance

A good example of using an incomplete and misleadingly stated fact to make a
false point. H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect; it is not a forcing
agent. Simply put, perturbations in water vapor concentrations are too short
lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not
enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via
evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations
will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

* at a mere 0.054%, it simply cannot drive warming trends

I have already shown why your " mere 0.054%" argument is disingenuous. CO2 is
the most abundant and therefore most important of the *persistent* GHGs. It
is the persistent GHGs that control the long term retention of solar energy in
the atmosphere. The volume of CO2 in the atmosphere has recently risen 35% to
~380 PPM. That is the highest it has been for at least six hundred and fifty
thousand years, and almost all of the increase has happened since about 1800.
1800 roughly marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the
beginning of exponential growth of the human population. Furthermore, carbon
isotope tagging confirms the fossil fuel origin of much of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Therefore, it is logical and empirically demonstrable that human
activities are producing an increase in atmospheric CO2 unprecedented in the
climatological record for its *rapidity*.

Over the same 200-year period, the 5-year mean global temperature has steadily
risen, with well understood peaks and valleys due to other climate forcings
such as solar activity and volcanism and phenomena such as el niño/la niña.
Thus it seems obvious to me that human activities are warming the climate by
the massive emission of GHGs, principally CO2.



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.

All the graphs I see on scientific sites still show this lag. It's there; it
can't be "abandoned." What it *means* WRT to the current CO2 rise is the part
that gets "abandoned" by AGW deniers.

In the ice core records to which you refer, CO2 rise is a reinforcing factor
in warming periods begun by earth's orbital cycle. In those cases, the CO2 is
released by the initial warming and then acts to amplify and lengthen the
subsequent warm period.

What's different about the present CO2 rise is that it is independent of the
regular orbital cycles. Nevertheless, it is producing the warming effect that
an increase in CO2 *must* produce.

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.

Yep.

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

Hand waving.

Humans have jacked up the concentration of the most important greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere by 35%. The laws of physics demand that there be a result.

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

Weakest of all your arguments. A review of the denier mouthpieces reveals a
motley collection of crackpots, right wing axe-grinders and energy company
whores. There are indeed leftists who have co-opted the issue, but that's
politics and beside the point. Unless you are claiming that every major
professional scientific organization in the world is composed of leftists,
former Communists and general anti-capitalists, your argument falls flat.


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.

You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.

Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'

Long may we reign.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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

Ducati will do 130, been there.

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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

Ducati will do 130.

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

Dan wrote in news:00abaf35-a51a-4ddb-91ba-
:

On Mar 8, 10:57 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

You've regurgitated all the usual deniers' falsehoods to "support" your
position, but you exposed your real reasons in your #3 above.

Well, I learned something -- now I'm a "Denier.'

Long may we reign.


If you;'re wrong , it will be a short one.


Bertie

Talk-n-Dog wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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

Ducati will do 130.


This one will go a lot faster than that. Well over 160 as reported by
thr owner. It's 0-100 time is mindblowing, about 6 seconds. Scariest
thing I was ever on , though he assures me it feels real comfy after
only a few miles.


Bertie

On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Talk-n-Dog
wrote:

Ducati will do 130, been there.


With the plus that you look *really* good going that speed.