Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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.

Was there some specific criticism you had?


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.

Let's hear it.

On 2008-03-10, Dan Luke wrote:
If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing real
research, go ahead.

I'll listen to the "people doing real research" when they quit
excommunicating people doing real research and reaching conclusions that
don't agree with theirs. There's a LOT of vitriol from the climate change
industry directed at those who disagree with them. I believe it's because
their sinecures would evaporate if the real science was allowed to be
presented.

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just like
the rest of us.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-03-10, Dan Luke wrote:
If you want to believe these two crackpots instead of people doing
real research, go ahead.

I'll listen to the "people doing real research" when they quit
excommunicating people doing real research and reaching conclusions
that don't agree with theirs. There's a LOT of vitriol from the
climate change industry directed at those who disagree with them.


No, there isn't.


Bertie

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:12:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

In article Roger writes:

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So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says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

So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour added
to the atmosphere.
Strange you should mention that:-))

Efficiency...Efficiency.

Go Diesel!

Also I only fly a fraction of what I used to, but I will readily admit
that is not by choice. I'm serious about the diesel. If I get back
into flying and the engine becomes available the Deb will become a
diesel if the current IO-470N holds out long enough for the major..
The new engines are far more fuel efficient than out current aircraft
engines and the new diesels have far less particulates in the
emissions. OTOH the US currently has some rather poor quality diesel
fuel compared to the EU.


I say this with some seriousness. If people really believe that
releasing CO2 into the atomsphere is risking disaster, they should be
willing to abandon use of fuels for transportation, heating their homes,
and electrical power generation.

IF the figures are correct we could reach acceptable levels by simple
conservation along with renewable energy/fuels OTOH it would require
we change our way of doing things and truely abandon the American love
affair with the automobile including abandoning "flex fuel" credits
except when the vehicle actually uses something other than a fossil
based fuel.
We've also installed automatic/programmable set back thermostats in
the house and shop. We've installed new windows and additional
insulation in the attic and installed a new high efficiency natural
gas furnace . The shop is also well insulated and has 16" of blown in
cellulose overhead. I've looked into both active and passive solar
energy, but in Michigan we aren't even on the "pay-back scale" maps.
In addition I can find no subsidies available for residential sites in
our state and the only federal for residential I find is available for
contractors and new sites. Our zoning makes it difficult for the
individual to build anything substantial. We have low rates coupled
with low sunlight (lotsa clouds) which reduces the payback on a
reasonable system to well beyond 20 years. For us to be independent
of the mains about 75% of the time comes out to about a $50,000
investment. (and that's for a house of only 1000 ft^2)

Here, We've reduced our electrical usage by some 40% plus change in
the last two years. ALL screw in bulbs have been changed to CFLs.
We've gone to a Hybrid car that is currently averaging about 46 MPG.
It does a bit better in the summer.
I only drive the relatively small SUV when I need it to haul *stuff*
that is either to big, too heavy, or too dirty/greasy to put in the
car. I only make a couple trips a week into town and even coordinate
my route/stops to minimize the miles driven. In the warmer weather my
wife rides her bike into town (bout 30 miles round trip by roads for
her) and we've both been retired for some years. She rides about
3,000 miles a year and is an activist in alternative forms of
transportation. So in addition to the increased fuel efficiency we've
cut our miles per year by more than 50%

However IF I used the Deb to visit the kids it's less than a one day
trip. If we drove it'd be several days, two hotel stays, and 12 meals
that could be eliminated so again, even though the Deb currently gets
fewer MPG than the car, flying saves energy and money for long trips.
Unless you keep a car until the wheels are ready to fall off they are
EXPENSIVE to drive when the expenses are calculated in the same manner
as flying. I calculated the cost of flying Vs driving to the Denver
area to visit my daughter. The cheapest two were flying commercially,
or *renting* a car. the Deb came in just under a single non discount
coach class fare. The most expensive was driving our own car.
NOTE the following ignores depreciation: Take for example a car like
ours that gets an average of 46 MPG. Say $30,000 over 5 years
including interest. That's $6000 per year. add to that the $700 plus
or minus a bit for insurance. (plus a lot in some areas). IF you
drive 10,000 miles a year that works out to 67 cents per mile before
we figure gas. OTOH gas at $3.25 is 6.9 cents per mile. IOW the gas at
a bit less than 10% of the total 73.9 cents per mile is still by far
the smallest cost in driving. However, keeping that car just one year
beyond the point where it's paid for drops the cost per mile (assuming
no additional maintenance) by a tad over 10 cents per mile. Like
airplanes, the more you drive/fly the cheaper your cost per hour as
the majority is in fixed costs. BUT with cars and particularly the
new ones and hybrids even more so, the cost of keeping one beyond a
given point can almost become prohibitive UNLESS you do your own work
and have connections for parts. the battery in the hybrid is guarantee
for which ever comes first 8 years or (80 or 100,000 miles - I forget
which) an that sucker costs over $4,000.

Current operational const of the Deb (Including insurance is about
$130/hr. At 13 hours total (6.5 each way) that works out to $1,690
round trip. By road it's about 1,300 miles each way for a total of
2600 @ 73.9 cents a mile or $1921.40 or $231 cheaper not counting
meals for two days plus lodging. Of course, going commercial, shopping
for airfares, and scheduling ahead we could do it for less than $800
for the two of us.

BTW dropping the MPG to 18 just happens to raise the cost to 18 cents
per mile for gas at $3.25 a gallon.
From a practical standpoint/approach we (as a society) aren't going to
eliminate the energy usage, but we can conserve to the point of making
a substantial difference. If our current fleet average (cars AND
trucks) averaged 30 MPG we wouldn't even have to import crude for
motor fuel.


Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed.



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

Dan Luke wrote:
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.

Was there some specific criticism you had?

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.

Let's hear it.



Did you even read the article?

It says "At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2
starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic
temperature during glacial terminations."

What part of "after" don't you understand?

It is then fun to watch them try to refute the data that clearly
contradicts their opinion about CO2 causing global warming rather than
resulting from it.

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows
is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the
5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been
caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

So the causality magically reverses after 800 years, eh? That is truly
funny.

The rest of the article is full of "could" and "might" and other waffle
words simply because these "scientists" simply don't want to accept the
fact that the data contradicts their favorite hypothesis.

And you call this science?

Matt

On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"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?

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.

Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them --
are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and government-controls
on all aspects of human behavior.

IF governments could be trusted with such powers, it may be a good
move, if the threat is as you say it is.

But the older I get the less I trust government. And I've never had
much trust in bureaucracy.

The founders believed that centralized powers only results in bad to
worse. Factions (ie, differing opinions/ parties/ groups/ causes) all
wrestling in the political arena keeps those same people from killing
each other in the streets.

Things get ugly when one side accuses the other of criminality,
treason, lack of compassion, or care. Then we get beyond the wrestling
and head towards the shooting. And if you think I'm being overly
dramatic, please review US history prior to 1861.

Thus I think the more reasonable approach is civil debate on the
nature of the problem, the possible means to address the problem
that's framed at the conclusion of the debate, and then consensus on
the way forward.


Dan

On Mar 10, 8:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



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

When you think that aviation is that young, and consider that the 47 V
can be upgraded to modern and fit right in to all contemporary
requirements -- it really is amazing.

Of course it may just be how little progress we've made in 60 years?

It's interesting that the Wrights choose a canard, pusher design. And
yet since then there have been few truly successful follow ups.

A cup of water for a shower? Sounds like the ------baths I used to
take in the field in the Army -- one canteen cup, a hand towel, and
maybe some baby wipes.

Dan

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 05:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 8, 3:22 am, Roger wrote:


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

You mean they were wrong before?

Take the original "Global Cooling" statement ( often misquoted). that
the press took out of context and all of a sudden we were headed
toward another ice age. The scientist who made the statement gave a
lecture last month on University TV. When asked the inevitable he
replied, that he never predicted global cooling as such. He said the
original statement was the given cooling would happen "if the
particulate matter (pollution) in the atmosphere doubled by a given
date". (I don't remember the amount and date but could look it up)
So the global cooling every one latched onto was never really
predicted, at least not by the guy they were giving credit for it.



How very interesting....


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

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"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?

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.


Hmm, you dont like science speak and you don;'t like hyperbole.


Waht about just looking at the data for yourself.



Bertie

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 8:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:8eedffdb-127c-4e77-b8ce-1d995e07c09f@
60g2000hsy.googlegroups.co
m:



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

When you think that aviation is that young, and consider that the 47 V
can be upgraded to modern and fit right in to all contemporary
requirements -- it really is amazing.

Of course it may just be how little progress we've made in 60 years?

It's interesting that the Wrights choose a canard, pusher design. And
yet since then there have been few truly successful follow ups.

A cup of water for a shower? Sounds like the ------baths I used to
take in the field in the Army -- one canteen cup, a hand towel, and
maybe some baby wipes.


It was a misting thing. Apparently it works quite well. He designed a
whole house system that looked a bit like a flying saucer back in the
thirties. As well as a streamlined body for the Model A ford which
doubled it's fuel economy. I think someone is restoring the dymaxion
house as a museum piece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house

Bertie