Sell your sailplane before 2030

Dan Marotta wrote on 7/22/2015 5:39 PM:
Please give us a clue as to the contribution of volcanoes and how we can
mitigate their effects.

Volcanoes contribute less than 1% the amount the fossil fuels contribute.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...al-warming.htm

I don't think there is anything that can be done directly to prevent
volcanic emissions, so mitigation would require "carbon capture" of some
sort, such vegetation, or man-made systems like those being developed
for that fossil fuel power plants.


On 7/22/2015 2:20 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
lynn wrote on 7/22/2015 10:22 AM:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
Unless you have ridge or wave nearby. A huge reduction in solar
output is predicted to occur by then.
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregul...en-dynamo.html


Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on
the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer
is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming
situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame
this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?

No, the recent and rapid rise in temperature is driven by the recent
rise (and rapid) rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the Industrial
Revolution. The original inhabitants are blameless.





--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:37:30 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
See, I told you the liberal mind cannot tolerate argument.* "Accept
my hysterical claims or I'll call you names."* Call me all the names
you want, I don't care.* Neither do I believe any of the so called
"science" behind all the claims that we're going to sizzle soon.*
I'll bet you nothing bad climate-wise happens in my life time.* If
I'm wrong, I'll give you my glider!* BTW, you should get a new spell
checker.

I'll be first to admit that there's a LOT of politics here because the only way to get a big chunk of the world's population to start planning for the upcoming changes will need governments to "force" us to use more expensive energy and plan ahead for the potential starvation and flooding events that will be caused by *miniscule* changes in our global temperature.

I also agree that most scientists are poor communicators, as am I, so the message may be poorly presented. While most of the opposition consists of smooth talking politicians and marketing professionals (think tobacco).

So is the "science" behind our medicine and technology also being performed by "amateurs"? Why are climate scientists, who have spent decades to learn how to interpret new data as it comes in (and change their interpretation and models as necessary) too "stupid" to see the "questions" that doubters pose? Is it perhaps that nearly all these "questions" have been rebutted to death?

When some pedestrian insists that we stay up because of the wind and refuses to understand how soaring really works, might you eventually shrug and walk away. Perhaps many climate scientists feel the same way to the doubters?

Dan, I consider you a good friend, but please consider taking a look at some of this (horrors) "liberal" rhetoric and give it some thought without letting someone else filter it for you.

5Z

When I was a kid, at the height of the cold war, we were told that it was not the blast effects or fallout from an all-out nuclear war that would be most devastating, but rather the nuclear winter that would follow. Sand and dust lifted into the air by the explosions would remain suspended in the atmosphere for years, covering the entire globe and blocking the sun. This would lead to the demise of plants which depend on photosynthesis and, in turn, the animals that eat them. The surface of the earth would be cold and dark. Rivers, lakes and oceans would freeze.
Perhaps just a dozen or so nukes, as opposed to the complete arsenals of the U.S. and soviets, would be sufficient to drive temperatures down a couple degrees and buy us another hundred years or so to utilize our bounty of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. Perhaps we can find someplace to detonate these weapons that needs to be nuked anyway, preferably someplace with a loose sandy soil...
Mike Koerner

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 4:57:50 PM UTC+12, wrote:
When I was a kid, at the height of the cold war, we were told that it was not the blast effects or fallout from an all-out nuclear war that would be most devastating, but rather the nuclear winter that would follow. Sand and dust lifted into the air by the explosions would remain suspended in the atmosphere for years, covering the entire globe and blocking the sun. This would lead to the demise of plants which depend on photosynthesis and, in turn, the animals that eat them. The surface of the earth would be cold and dark. Rivers, lakes and oceans would freeze.
Perhaps just a dozen or so nukes, as opposed to the complete arsenals of the U.S. and soviets, would be sufficient to drive temperatures down a couple degrees and buy us another hundred years or so to utilize our bounty of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. Perhaps we can find someplace to detonate these weapons that needs to be nuked anyway, preferably someplace with a loose sandy soil...

ISIS territory?

Unfortunately, nuclear winter was pretty much a lie as well. Or, putting the best possible spin on it, the output of a too-simplistic (in fact 1-dimensional) model.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:32:07 -0700, Waveguru wrote:

The thing about all these arguments above is that very few of us ever
read anything that opposes the opinion that we have already formed, and
no matter what anybody says or links to, NOBODY is going to change their
mind and we are going to think those that think differently than we do
are idiots, so why bother saying anything?

That sounds like you're living inside a news monoculture which, IMHO, is
not good for any democracy.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |