Forums

hurricanes

Started by John Larkin August 24, 2013
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 22:14:09 -0400, Martin Riddle
<martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:49:41 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:28:02 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg >> >>http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/slowest-start-to-a-hurricane-season-on-record/ >> >>Global warming, you know. > >Hey they call it Climate change now. >But I dont see the Hockey stick in that chart.
We're still getting the shaft.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:48709e96-44ff-4bb0-9268-5d09931d33be@googlegroups.com...
> It's the same kind of idiocy that confuses socialism (which works rather > better in Germany and Sweden than US capitalism works in the US) with > communism, which utterly failed in the USSR and survives in more-or-less > Communist China with a lot less central control and a lot more > almost-free > market than the USSR was ever willing to tolerate.
How is the Soviet Socialist Republic communist? By much better reference (from people who actually study these things), I understand the USSR was as fully socialist as anything we've seen so far; Europe is only fractionally there, considering they are still fairly capitalist on the whole. The US is still stuck in the 'dark ages', so to speak, that is, if one assumes for better or worse that there is an inevitable march from realist capitalism to socialism and communism. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:31:29 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/24/2013 10:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:28:02 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg >> >> Weird. Counting hurricanes by president is a bit odd because the >> terms served by each president varies. FDR served 3 terms and >> therefore had the most hurricanes. Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush only >> served one term, and therefore had fewer hurricanes. Unless the >> author was trying to demonstrate that Republicans or Democrats cause >> hurricanes, the graph makes little sense.
>If we had had more hurricanes during Obama's presidency then the Tea >Party lunatics would be insisting that it was somehow Obama's fault.
But, if we have fewer hurricanes during Obama's presidency, he would insist that it was the result of his administrations forward thinking policies on climate change. It comes down to understanding how a hurricane is formed. Hurricanes are formed when hot and moist air rises and begins to circulate. Human breath is quite moist, and hot air is the most common byproduct of political discussions. To determine which party causes the most hurricanes, it is only necessary to measure the temperature, humidity, and volume of both Republican and Democrat hot air, and massage the results to reflect your political persuasion. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message 
news:7e3j1911qugb7k0vef0esp4qnk1cagcgqb@4ax.com...
> Weird. Counting hurricanes by president is a bit odd because the > terms served by each president varies. FDR served 3 terms and > therefore had the most hurricanes. Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush only > served one term, and therefore had fewer hurricanes. Unless the > author was trying to demonstrate that Republicans or Democrats cause > hurricanes, the graph makes little sense.
But don't forget, global warming causes pirates! All hail the FSM, Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:26:13 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net>
wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message >news:7e3j1911qugb7k0vef0esp4qnk1cagcgqb@4ax.com... >> Weird. Counting hurricanes by president is a bit odd because the >> terms served by each president varies. FDR served 3 terms and >> therefore had the most hurricanes. Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush only >> served one term, and therefore had fewer hurricanes. Unless the >> author was trying to demonstrate that Republicans or Democrats cause >> hurricanes, the graph makes little sense. > >But don't forget, global warming causes pirates! > >All hail the FSM, > >Tim
There must be hundreds of terrible things, thousands maybe, that have been blamed on AGW. Sheep shrinking, droughts, floods, crop failures, forest fires, storms, blizzards, pests, whatever. How come nothing good is ever reported? http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp All bad, bad, and bad. I did see one paper about the increased rate of growth of California redwood trees in the last 100 years. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/14/local/la-me-redwoods-climate-20130814 But the authors said the cause is unknown and conjecture all sorts of improbable stuff; except they didn't seem to want to even mention that CO2 might be good for trees. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
On 8/25/2013 12:36 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:26:13 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net> > wrote: > >> "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message >> news:7e3j1911qugb7k0vef0esp4qnk1cagcgqb@4ax.com... >>> Weird. Counting hurricanes by president is a bit odd because the >>> terms served by each president varies. FDR served 3 terms and >>> therefore had the most hurricanes. Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush only >>> served one term, and therefore had fewer hurricanes. Unless the >>> author was trying to demonstrate that Republicans or Democrats cause >>> hurricanes, the graph makes little sense. >> >> But don't forget, global warming causes pirates! >> >> All hail the FSM, >> >> Tim > > There must be hundreds of terrible things, thousands maybe, that have been > blamed on AGW. Sheep shrinking, droughts, floods, crop failures, forest fires, > storms, blizzards, pests, whatever. How come nothing good is ever reported? > > http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp > > All bad, bad, and bad. > > > I did see one paper about the increased rate of growth of California redwood > trees in the last 100 years. > > http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/14/local/la-me-redwoods-climate-20130814 > > > But the authors said the cause is unknown and conjecture all sorts of improbable > stuff; except they didn't seem to want to even mention that CO2 might be good > for trees. > >
Russians and Canadians are all for it. How about a nice villa on sunny Hudson Bay? ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA +1 845 480 2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:45 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>How come nothing good is ever reported?
Because there's no government research funding for good things in climate change, only for bad. It's also safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict success and improvement. It's much like what happens if you ask a doctor for a prognosis. The answer is usually "You are going to die" which does tend to be rather disconcerting. There are 4 combinations of predictions and outcomes. 1. Predict success and it succeeds. => Nothing much happens. 2. Predict success and patient dies. => Doctor gets sued for malpractice. 3. Predict disaster and patient recovers. => Doctor is a hero for saving the patient. 4. Predict disaster and patient dies. => Doctor says "I told you so". Of the 4 combinations, the safest is to predict disaster as it has the lowest risk of repercussions. Same with climate change predictions. If you predict disaster, you are either a hero for warning the public or a visionary for saying "It told you so" if things go awry. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message 
news:loik19djaoskvopq9boevvksag1ep5onme@4ax.com...
> 3. Predict disaster and patient recovers. > => Doctor is a hero for saving the patient.
Although this one usually goes more like "Thank God!" and the doctor gets no credit. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
John Larkin wrote:
> > > http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg > > >
What did Grover Cleveland do wrong? We all know that FDR stole our gold. And to equate B.O. with good ole Abe...
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in 
message news:pvbk19hfersfd6ahing3ln1d6k6bubu2pu@4ax.com...
> I did see one paper about the increased rate of growth of California > redwood > trees in the last 100 years. > > http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/14/local/la-me-redwoods-climate-20130814 > > But the authors said the cause is unknown and conjecture all sorts of > improbable > stuff; except they didn't seem to want to even mention that CO2 might be > good > for trees.
Read an article some time ago that says excessive CO2 is toxic to plants as it is to animals. So scratch that. But it leaves me to wonder... suppose you took the chimney of a clean coal power plant -- you know, pretty much 100% CO2, not much heat left, minimum of toxic bric-a-brak (SO2, fly ash) -- and piped it into a very wide greenhouse. The greenhouse is constructed of cheap, reasonably hail-resistant windows, sealed well enough together so the air inside doesn't mix very quickly with the outside air. Probably some means of allowing rainwater to pass would be a good idea. This covers a massive area, many miles let's say, with the power plant in the center, greenhouse radiating out for many square miles. Instead of walls, it's open on the outer rim, so atmosphere can diffuse in, and CO2 out. Probably, the outer rim should be screened to prevent animals from wandering in and dying, and louvered to control airflow as winds shift. At first, planting begins around the outer edge. Plants will be chosen according to rapid growth, minimal fertilizer application, and fecundity. The field will be mowed or harvested frequently to remove biomass and encourage new growth; this will be extracted for useful byproducts (oil, ethanol, etc.), or spread in the as-yet-unplanted inner areas to dry before burning in the power plant. In any case, seeds should be spread among the interior, so if there happen to be any mutant seeds that sprout, they're proven to tolerate high CO2. Combined with genetic engineering, the combined evolutionary pressure should breed plants with much more rapid growth, assuming the limiting factor is indeed CO2. The tropical temperature and humidity of the greenhouse plus residual chimney heat will drive rapid growth. And selection for high CO2 means anything inside probably won't survive outside, so you don't even have to worry about hippies complaining about GMO and cross-breeding. Downsides include the risk of CO2 toxicity and asphyxiation, and the expense of breathing apparatus (SCUBA, rebreathers, etc.) for all workers inside the greenhouse. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com