Frank Merton Posted March 26, 2013 #226 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Besides, they are Germans. They queue up for everything in nice neat lines. I even expect they respect bus lanes without having to hire a thousand cops to enforce them (as though HCMC had room for more vehicle lanes anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 26, 2013 #227 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I'd like to see a table of first frost for some location away from a big city over a century or so. For a dozen or so towns actually. I have that information on EXCEL files for the Ouachita National Forest. You'll have to check the dates of first and last frosts using the low-temperature data and compile your own table, but I have already done the hard part of digging it out of NCDC's records. There are 31 stations on the list, but only two or three go back a century. There are techniques for estimating missing temp data with about 90% accuracy if you want to use them. Using them, you should be able to get back to 1896, leaving a few gaps. Let me know and I'll email them to you. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 26, 2013 #228 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I just want to keep our motorbikes, I don't see a problem with motorbikes. They're more efficient than cars. We should be encouraging them. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 26, 2013 #229 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Cornelius said "Choosing only to look at the 15year period simply because it supports your beliefs is the only unacceptable thing here - and as I have pointed out is called cherry picking." I choose to look at the 15 year interval to find a zero trend, not because "it supports my beliefs", but because that is the interval period given by the climate modelers in 2008 as a falsifiability test against their climate models. if you find that unacceptable then take it up with the climate modelers who stated it. I believe what the modelers are saying is that the accuracy level of their models does not extend to shorter time intervals. That being the case, you'll only prove what they have already admitted: their models aren't accuarte at short intervals. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 26, 2013 #230 Share Posted March 26, 2013 the trend is something to be calculated not "proven". You need to calculate a number that is not just numerical gibberish. It has to mean something. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 26, 2013 #231 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I don't see a problem with motorbikes. They're more efficient than cars. We should be encouraging them. Doug Mythbusters found that bikes save feul but pollute as bad as cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 26, 2013 #232 Share Posted March 26, 2013 The climate cycle is 100,000 years, no 15 or 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 26, 2013 #233 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Mythbusters found that bikes save feul but pollute as bad as cars. Fuel that is saved is not burned. And that means less CO2 pollution. I suspect Myth Buster pollution estimates were couched in terms of amounts per unit of exhaust. If so, the concentrations can be as bad, or even worse than cars, but still come out ahead because of the smaller amount of fuel used. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 26, 2013 #234 Share Posted March 26, 2013 The climate cycle is 100,000 years, no 15 or 30. There are lots of natural cycles that impact climate. There is no such thing as "the climate cycle." That 100,000-year figure sounds like one of the three Milankovic cycles. There's also Bond Cycles (1500 years), the solar cycle (variable, nine to 14 years), the Chandler wobble (3.5 and 7 years) and cycles produced by ocean circulations (North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino Southern Oscillation, etc.). Lots of natural cycles have an impact. The 30-year convention is just a measuring device needed because anything less than 30 years will not produce statistically sound results. It's a measuring device, not a natural cycle. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted March 26, 2013 #235 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Fuel that is saved is not burned. And that means less CO2 pollution. I suspect Myth Buster pollution estimates were couched in terms of amounts per unit of exhaust. If so, the concentrations can be as bad, or even worse than cars, but still come out ahead because of the smaller amount of fuel used. Doug Well if you drive one of those elcheapo two-cylinder Chinese jobs I'm sure there is a lot of pollution, but they've pretty much disappeared now. I'm beginning to see electric motobikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 #236 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Well if you drive one of those elcheapo two-cylinder Chinese jobs I'm sure there is a lot of pollution, but they've pretty much disappeared now. I'm beginning to see electric motobikes. I quite fancy getting an electric rickshaw for local runarounds. They are cheap but not easily available over here in Europe. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 26, 2013 #237 Share Posted March 26, 2013 There are lots of natural cycles that impact climate. There is no such thing as "the climate cycle." That 100,000-year figure sounds like one of the three Milankovic cycles. There's also Bond Cycles (1500 years), the solar cycle (variable, nine to 14 years), the Chandler wobble (3.5 and 7 years) and cycles produced by ocean circulations (North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino Southern Oscillation, etc.). Lots of natural cycles have an impact. The 30-year convention is just a measuring device needed because anything less than 30 years will not produce statistically sound results. It's a measuring device, not a natural cycle. Doug The 100,000 year cycle, is about what glacial periods ar apart. We are at thw peak of a warm cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 26, 2013 #238 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in the "global warming" debate if they're floating the premise that it's man-made need to keep their focus on the real cause of the problem, human population growth. A woman who has a few babies increases her carbon footprint by almost 40 times. If I stay single I can drive a semi to work, fart daily beefburgers into the atmosphere till the cows come home, crank the A/C up all year and leave a few thousand old fashioned lightbulbs on 24/7/365 and I won't even make the chart next to another mother plopping out another consumer of the environment. Sorry alarmists, if global warming is an anthropogenic problem, the solution is shrinking the human population not buying energy saving light bulbs or a Toyota Prius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted March 26, 2013 #239 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in the "global warming" debate if they're floating the premise that it's man-made need to keep their focus on the real cause of the problem, human population growth. A woman who has a few babies increases her carbon footprint by almost 40 times. If I stay single I can drive a semi to work, fart daily beefburgers into the atmosphere till the cows come home, crank the A/C up all year and leave a few thousand old fashioned lightbulbs on 24/7/365 and I won't even make the chart next to another mother plopping out another consumer of the environment. Sorry alarmists, if global warming is an anthropogenic problem, the solution is shrinking the human population not buying energy saving light bulbs or a Toyota Prius. Switching lightbulbs and cars tends to be more socially acceptable than preventing people having kids or killing people off. And significantly less effort to enforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticStrummer Posted March 26, 2013 #240 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Sorry alarmists, if global warming is an anthropogenic problem, the solution is shrinking the human population not buying energy saving light bulbs or a Toyota Prius. Surely you're not saying that if everyone switched to more efficient bulbs, cars, etc that it would have no positive impact? Rampant reproduction definitely causes a lot of different problems, but getting it under control is certainly not the only option in regards to human influenced climate change. That's a good thing too, since it would be one of the hardest world changes to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 #241 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Global warming is the symptom - population explosion is the cause. Fundamentally you can solve the first without addressing the second. However I do not agree with Yamoto in his assessment of what been single and childless allows you to get away with. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 26, 2013 #242 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Sorry alarmists, if global warming is an anthropogenic problem, the solution is shrinking the human population not buying energy saving light bulbs or a Toyota Prius. Buckminster Fuller figured out that human population growth is negatively related to industrialization. Since then, we've refined it a little more: industrialization results in educated women who can afford and know how to use contraceptrion. And that's your answer: educate women, give them equal rights and good paying jobs and population growth will take care of itself. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 27, 2013 #243 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Alocvhol fuels give off co2 when burnt in an engine. Erlectric cars are powered off the grid. Meaning you just moved the tail pipe. Hybrids, don't run long enough to make up for its co2 construction cost. The metal in rechargeable batteries are toxic. The energy saving light bulbs have toxic gas in them. Nuclear power leaves toxic waste. How ever if we rycicled it there wouldn't be. Windgmills kill birds and keep to much of the heat at ground level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticStrummer Posted March 27, 2013 #244 Share Posted March 27, 2013 http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/202626/hot-water-global-warming-has-accelerated-past-15-years-new-study-oceans-confirms "Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted March 27, 2013 #245 Share Posted March 27, 2013 http://theenergycoll...oceans-confirms Thanks for posting that. I didn't know Trenberth was working on this. Thanks, again. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now