On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:31:39 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>Rick Lyons wrote: > >> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick >> Lyons) wrote: >> >> (snipped) >> >>> >>> Neat. What an interesting thread!!! >>> >>>Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me >>>that automobiles are causing global warming and >>>that we're all gonna die, I ask them: >>> >>> "If that's true, what caused the global warming >>> 20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age' >>> when there were no automobiles? In case you >>> didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, >>> Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were >>> *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 >>> years ago!!!" >>> >> >> >> Hey guys, >> isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post? >> >> Shoot! >> >> [-Rick-] > >I thought I did, as delicately as I knew how. Right now, we smell smoke. >Is it prudent to wait until we see flames leaping from the woodwork? >Many think it's time to pull the fire alarm. I think it's at least time >to check around the basement to see where the smoke originates. We had a >president who said that the antarctic ozone hole and the thinning arctic >layer were opportunities, not problems. Good business for sunblock >makers and all that. > >It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had >supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil >fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all. > >Jerry >-- >Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. >�����������������������������������������������������������������������Hi Jer, I didn't see any other post from you (just this one). If you had to make your other post "delicate", then I must have rubbed you the wrong way. I didn't really mean to. I sure agree with your sentiments in the words above. I just don't trust anything I read in the newspaper or hear on the boob tube. The news media's *far* too biased to report global warming information in a balanced way. See ya', [-Rick-]
OT: Authority
Started by ●November 7, 2003
Reply by ●November 11, 20032003-11-11
Reply by ●November 11, 20032003-11-11
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:45:28 -0500, Jim Thomas <jthomas@bittware.com> wrote:>Clay S. Turner wrote: > > I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in >> Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese >> actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date >> corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa >> region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to >> be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at >> the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere >> that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark. > >PBS ran a program on that a few years ago, which is how I became aware >of it. I found the evidence very compelling. More info here: > >http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/535ad.htm >Hi Jim, Wow! What great webpage. Thanks Jerry ought to check out: http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/index.html [-Rick-]
Reply by ●November 11, 20032003-11-11
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<booeic$4ds$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...> It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had > supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil > fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all.I am not saying that there are no problems with fossile fuels. Anyone who have seen a city with severe smog problems would know that such problems exist. My point is that we must get an as precise understanding as possible about what's going on before we start preaching the end of the world. As an apropos, I found this link http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/index.html The case made is quite consistent with what I have seen during my years in and around the oil business: The "age of the huge finds" is over, now everybody targets the marginal fields, those who previously were just too small or just too deep to provide any economical return of exploring them. But then, there may be a bias in my interests here. I don't think there are, but... Rune
Reply by ●November 11, 20032003-11-11
Rick Lyons wrote:> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:31:39 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > >>Rick Lyons wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:10:05 GMT, ricklyon@REMOVE.onemain.com (Rick >>>Lyons) wrote: >>> >>> (snipped) >>> >>> >>>> Neat. What an interesting thread!!! >>>> >>>>Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me >>>>that automobiles are causing global warming and >>>>that we're all gonna die, I ask them: >>>> >>>> "If that's true, what caused the global warming >>>> 20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age' >>>> when there were no automobiles? In case you >>>> didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, >>>> Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were >>>> *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 >>>> years ago!!!" >>>> >>> >>> >>>Hey guys, >>> isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post? >>> >>>Shoot! >>> >>>[-Rick-] >> >>I thought I did, as delicately as I knew how. Right now, we smell smoke. >>Is it prudent to wait until we see flames leaping from the woodwork? >>Many think it's time to pull the fire alarm. I think it's at least time >>to check around the basement to see where the smoke originates. We had a >>president who said that the antarctic ozone hole and the thinning arctic >>layer were opportunities, not problems. Good business for sunblock >>makers and all that. >> >>It's good if Rune is right, and the situation isn't as bad as some had >>supposed. It would nonetheless surprise me to learn that all the fossil >>fuel burnt in the last century and a half has no adverse impact at all. >> >>Jerry >>-- >>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. >>����������������������������������������������������������������������� > > > Hi Jer, > I didn't see any other post from you (just > this one). If you had to make your other post > "delicate", then I must have rubbed you the wrong > way. I didn't really mean to. > > I sure agree with your sentiments in the > words above. I just don't trust anything I > read in the newspaper or hear on the boob tube. > The news media's *far* too biased to report > global warming information in a balanced way. > > See ya', > [-Rick-]Rick, You didn't step over any lines I know of, and you have enough credit to be let off even it you had. :-) I put what I had to say delicately because while I enjoy discussing facts and what they mean, I don't want to argue politics here. That can be a fine distinction that's easy to stumble over. I extracted my words that you didn't see: We are surely warming. Only the cause can be debated, not the trend. The weather pattern is buried in a lot of noise, but statistics can dig it out. If the variations were purely random, there ought to be no correlations among the dates of high-temperature records. It's not unusual or particularly significant when a record high is set on a particular date. It is significant that the previous record had been established relatively recently. We see that more and more now. In very cold climates, the major symptoms of warming is the melting of ice sheets and glaciers. Where I live, about 40 degrees north on the Atlantic coast, ponds and lakes froze over regularly as recently as 30 [years ago]. Ice skating every winter was the norm. After a brief period of thin ice warnings, they became unnecessary. For ten years or so, there has been no ice at all that would stop a rowboat. We know only a little about greenhouse gasses. We are quite sure, however, that their effects long outlast their production. When I see a man in the water, I throw him a life ring right away. I don't wait to be sure he's really drowning. Jerry P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way. -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●November 12, 20032003-11-12
> Hey guys, > isn't anyone gonna argue with me about my post? > > Shoot! > > [-Rick-]Hehehe. Rabble rouser! Rick Armstrong note: reply address is bogus; please reply to group
Reply by ●November 13, 20032003-11-13
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:58:37 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: (snipped)> >P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in >these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day >wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but >the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't >depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way.Ah ha. Well, a couple of weeks ago, here in Northern California, the temperature was 91 degrees (F) at 2:00 PM. A day and a half later, at 2:00 AM, the temperature was 12 degrees above freezing!! Weather sure is unpredictable, huh? [Almost as unpredictable as women. :-) ] [-Rick-]
Reply by ●November 13, 20032003-11-13
Rick Lyons wrote:> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:58:37 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > (snipped) > >>P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in >>these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day >>wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but >>the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't >>depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way. > > > Ah ha. Well, a couple of weeks ago, here in Northern > California, the temperature was 91 degrees (F) at > 2:00 PM. A day and a half later, at 2:00 AM, the > temperature was 12 degrees above freezing!! > > Weather sure is unpredictable, huh? > [Almost as unpredictable as women. :-) ] > > [-Rick-] > >The above statement says something about the variability of weather, not the ability to predict weather. Was the forecast accurate?
Reply by ●November 14, 20032003-11-14
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:13:17 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <stanp@nospam_mitre.org> wrote:>Rick Lyons wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:58:37 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> (snipped) >> >>>P.S. Yesterday was the coldest day on record for a November 10th in >>>these parts. The previous record was only a few (6?) years old. The day >>>wasn't exceptional as cold days go -- barely less than freezing -- but >>>the timing was unusual. Computer models of global warming that don't >>>depend on cause predict that too. So interpretation can go either way. >> >> >> Ah ha. Well, a couple of weeks ago, here in Northern >> California, the temperature was 91 degrees (F) at >> 2:00 PM. A day and a half later, at 2:00 AM, the >> temperature was 12 degrees above freezing!! >> >> Weather sure is unpredictable, huh? >> [Almost as unpredictable as women. :-) ] >> >> [-Rick-] >> >> > >The above statement says something about the variability of weather, not > the ability to predict weather. Was the forecast accurate?Hi Stan, ah, you're right. I don't remember hearing a forecast. [-Rick-]
