Canuks all nuts??
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Me too!
Next: 'Lectro bike price drop
From: Bob Myers on 18 Nov 2009 11:30 ..p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> This is an argument from the "well, *I* don't understand it, so >> it must be hand-waving" school. > > No, it's an argument from the ' the people who can't answer > the little questions do not have my faith in their ability to answer > the big ones' school. OK, just to tackle the most obvious objection to that first - on what basis would you call "exactly why does lightning happen?" a "little question"? Bob M.
From: Bob Myers on 18 Nov 2009 11:33 S'mee wrote: > Wait a minute, it was clear to me and well recorded in history that > the poles shift sometimes many, many times in rapid succession. The > rotational pole theoretically CAN'T shift...barring a catostrophic > impact such as the one Uranus suffered (hope I got that right). So how > could it NOT be the magnetic poles, for that matter are you aware the > Earths magnetic field is weakening...since we started measuring it > anyways. Exactly right. But (believe it or not) there ARE people out there who think that "pole shifts" refer somehow to flipping of the rotational axis, the Gospel According to St. Isaac notwithstanding. I know, I've argued this very thing with 'em. Bob M.
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 18 Nov 2009 11:35 On Nov 18, 3:52 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > turby wrote: > > On Nov 17, 4:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> turby wrote: > >>> On Nov 17, 1:34 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 16, 7:57 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote > >>>>>>> innews:1j91etz.i4olp4i8khdsN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk: > > >>>>>>>> I' prefer to look at the polar ice caps for a longer-term trend > >>>>>>>> picture. > > >>>>>>> Oh... You mean the same polar ice caps that used to extend > >>>>>>> nearly all > >>>>>>> the way to the equator? > > >>>>>> The ones that used to NOT exist as evidenced by palm trees in > >>>>>> antartica. 8^) Let's not let facts get in the way of facts eh? > > >>>>> Ice in the tropics and palm trees in Antarctica have both > >>>>> existed at different points in earth's history. > > >>>>> The ice cores he's talking about are (I think) only about > >>>>> 400,000 years of data and I believe wouldn't show either > >>>>> of the above. Last ice age at least, the glaciers stopped > >>>>> in the northern U.S. Palms in Antarctica disappeared > >>>>> tens of millions of years ago. > > >>>>> OTOH, when you start shuffling continents around, > >>>>> all bets on climate are off anyway. For my money, > >>>>> figuring out the last few ice ages and interglacial > >>>>> periods is probably the most useful thing we could > >>>>> be working on. > > >>>>> What they seem to have established in the Vostok > >>>>> ice cores is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, > >>>>> with the problem that changes in CO2 apparently lags > >>>>> behind indications of climate change by hundreds of > >>>>> years. At this point, they continue to battle about > >>>>> why and what it means. > > >>>> They've done that, but something that nobody seems to mention is > >>>> that they've also established that glaciation occurs on a cycle > >>>> and we are at a spot in the cycle when rapid climate change is > >>>> _expected_. Further, something wonky seems to be happening this > >>>> time and whatever is causing it predates significant carbon > >>>> anthropogenic carbon emissions. > > >>> The presentations I've seen combine a variety of graphs (14 AIR,) > >>> all showing essentially the same thing, but there are also overlaps > >>> of the effects of various other parameters, such as volcanos, > >>> sunspot activity, etc - all the usual claimed alternative causes. > >>> None of them correlate to the changes seen at the end of that > >>> graph. If you zoom in on that graph, you'll see that the last spike > >>> is radically different from all the other spikes and is such an > >>> anomaly that to call it a normal extrapolation of the curve is a > >>> real stretch. I really wish you could see the Scripps data & then > >>> try to debunk it. > > >> What part of "something wonky seems to be happening this time" are > >> you having trouble with? > > > The word "wonky." > > Do you disagree with it or do you not know what it means? I find it difficult to understand what you're trying to say when you use "wonky". I suspect there might be a better way to say it. What you've said (I think) is that one might expect a dip in temperature that hasn't occurred. Maybe we could stipulate that we all think a new ice age would be as unfortunate as a period of increased warming. We might want to continue looking at whether our activities are influencing climate and how we might best encourage stable climate about where it is right now. I don't think Kyoto or any other agreement locks us into a course that can't be modified as we continue to gain understanding. I see energy efficiency as a pretty good thing regardless of climate, since we can reasonably expect another few billion people working toward a first world standard of living and beginning to compete with us for resources. I also don't think it's such a bad idea to understand CO2 sequestration for example so we have some remedial measures that could be deployed if needed. If it turns out that by burning fossil fuels we're heroically holding off another ice age, we sure as hell know how to do more of that quickly.
From: turby on 18 Nov 2009 12:00 On Nov 18, 3:52 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > turby wrote: > > On Nov 17, 4:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> turby wrote: > >>> On Nov 17, 1:34 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 16, 7:57 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote > >>>>>>> innews:1j91etz.i4olp4i8khdsN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk: > > >>>>>>>> I' prefer to look at the polar ice caps for a longer-term trend > >>>>>>>> picture. > > >>>>>>> Oh... You mean the same polar ice caps that used to extend > >>>>>>> nearly all > >>>>>>> the way to the equator? > > >>>>>> The ones that used to NOT exist as evidenced by palm trees in > >>>>>> antartica. 8^) Let's not let facts get in the way of facts eh? > > >>>>> Ice in the tropics and palm trees in Antarctica have both > >>>>> existed at different points in earth's history. > > >>>>> The ice cores he's talking about are (I think) only about > >>>>> 400,000 years of data and I believe wouldn't show either > >>>>> of the above. Last ice age at least, the glaciers stopped > >>>>> in the northern U.S. Palms in Antarctica disappeared > >>>>> tens of millions of years ago. > > >>>>> OTOH, when you start shuffling continents around, > >>>>> all bets on climate are off anyway. For my money, > >>>>> figuring out the last few ice ages and interglacial > >>>>> periods is probably the most useful thing we could > >>>>> be working on. > > >>>>> What they seem to have established in the Vostok > >>>>> ice cores is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, > >>>>> with the problem that changes in CO2 apparently lags > >>>>> behind indications of climate change by hundreds of > >>>>> years. At this point, they continue to battle about > >>>>> why and what it means. > > >>>> They've done that, but something that nobody seems to mention is > >>>> that they've also established that glaciation occurs on a cycle > >>>> and we are at a spot in the cycle when rapid climate change is > >>>> _expected_. Further, something wonky seems to be happening this > >>>> time and whatever is causing it predates significant carbon > >>>> anthropogenic carbon emissions. > > >>> The presentations I've seen combine a variety of graphs (14 AIR,) > >>> all showing essentially the same thing, but there are also overlaps > >>> of the effects of various other parameters, such as volcanos, > >>> sunspot activity, etc - all the usual claimed alternative causes. > >>> None of them correlate to the changes seen at the end of that > >>> graph. If you zoom in on that graph, you'll see that the last spike > >>> is radically different from all the other spikes and is such an > >>> anomaly that to call it a normal extrapolation of the curve is a > >>> real stretch. I really wish you could see the Scripps data & then > >>> try to debunk it. > > >> What part of "something wonky seems to be happening this time" are > >> you having trouble with? > > > The word "wonky." > > Do you disagree with it or do you not know what it means? I guess I don't understand what you mean by it.
From: .p.jm. on 18 Nov 2009 12:05
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:30:52 -0700, "Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote: >.p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >>> This is an argument from the "well, *I* don't understand it, so >>> it must be hand-waving" school. >> >> No, it's an argument from the ' the people who can't answer >> the little questions do not have my faith in their ability to answer >> the big ones' school. > >OK, just to tackle the most obvious objection to that >first - on what basis would you call "exactly why does >lightning happen?" a "little question"? > >Bob M. As one particular behavior evinced by nature, one that although it occurs frequently, occurs only very very locally and briefly, thus 'little' by comparison to things evinced by nature that happen globally over long periods, such as 'climate'. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/ Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm |