"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 5

02-02-2007, 01:12 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Considering that countries like China don't give a damn and the situation does, in fact get worse,
>> the global warming phenomena might make the weather wildly unpredictable
>
> Not a chance. We've seen MUCH bigger variations in world temps in the past.

There have been events like the mini-Ice age due to some really big
volcanoes blowing their tops and putting megatons of materials into the
air. Not a St. Helens size but more like the Krakatoa type.
>
>> to the point of taking out most of humanity.
>
> Not a chance. Even the ice ages didnt manage to do that.

No, it didn't, but there were only so many humans that did survive, and
they managed to to hunt various animals to extinction. Humans sure do
make a difference, now and then.
>
>> I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were once considered impossible ten or
>> twenty years ago.
>
> And those didnt even get close to taking out most of humanity.

Those are just a pre-cursor to what CAN happen.
>
>> The planet might just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.
>
> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

Wow. I wasn't trolling for either an ******* or a moron, but I seem to
have found one.
London had an all-time record high over 100 degrees F within the last 2
years and we have had record cold temperature here in California.
What we might get at first is wildly fluctuating weather, them WHAM, an
ice age or a hot age.
I'll let someone else take up the fight.
BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate.
Bill Baka

>
>

02-02-2007, 01:34 PM

John Thompson wrote:

>
> As a bicycle commuter myself, I can commiserate with you. Automobiles in
> general are a very energy-inefficient means of transporting people and
> public transportation should be encouraged as a way (not the only way!)
> to reduce overall energy consumption. A huge amount of resources are
> dedicated to providing infrastructure to an automobile society. If we
> can reduce dependence on automobiles not only will it become easier for
> pedestrians and bicyclists, but money can be freed for other worthwhile
> projects to make our urban areas safer for everybody.
>

Public transportation generally requires approximately the same BTUs per
passenger mile, about 3500, as do private motor vehicles on average.
Short haul public transportation is also a bigger competitor to walking
and biycling than it is to automobiles. That is, short haul public
transportation reduces bicycling and walking to a greater extent than it
does car use, turning low energy users into chauffered big energy users.
If short haul public transportation didn't exist, how would those users
get around? They'd walk, bike, drive alone, or carpool.

Further, bus public transit is heavy and destroys the pavement,
something that is very important to bicyclists. And when the bus pulls
over to the curb, there is conflict with bicyclists.

Frankly, public transportation and bicycling have nothing in common.
Bicycling has much more in common with automobile travel.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
html/table_04_20.html

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Wayne

02-02-2007, 01:58 PM

On Fri, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Considering that countries like China don't give a damn and the
>situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming phenomena might
>make the weather wildly unpredictable to the point of taking out most of
>humanity.

Why sure, global warming might even make a
natural blonde's eyes brown.

>I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were
>once considered impossible ten or twenty years ago. The planet might
>just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.
>Bill Baka

Tornados are possible almost anyplace (level
ground usually though), and there is plenty of wind
shear in California sometimes with the Satana Winds,
but what is usually needed is hail conditions, and
lots of precipitation and cold air aloft helps create
that condition.

Joe Fischer

02-02-2007, 02:08 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>Rod Speed wrote:

>>> The planet might just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.

>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

>Wow. I wasn't trolling for either an ******* or a moron, but I seem
>to have found one.

>London had an all-time record high over 100 degrees F within the last 2

"all-time" being since the end of the little ice age around 1650.
Or more precisely, since temperatures have been methodically
recorded within the urban heat island of London. Which is around
1850.

You should note that the Thames was frozen over for 14 weeks in 1063
and 1076. Later from London Bridge to Gravesend from November 1434
through to the following February. In 1515, the ice on the river was
trafficable and the cold continued for a long number of winters;
with thefirst Frost Fair recorded in 1564.

In 1683, severe frosts in London killed plant and animal life. But
it didn't end there: In the winter of 1739-40, another great frost
was recorded; a great inconvenience and hazard to shipping
downstream of the Bridge; and once again a winter playground/market
place upstream.

In 1814, ice floes were carried downstream, crashing into bridges on
the way.

Now; you're worried that it's warmer than what it was during an "ice
age"?

Temperature records start after the above events.

>years and we have had record cold temperature here in California.

Since temperatures were recorded... i.e. very recently.

>What we might get at first is wildly fluctuating weather, them WHAM, an
>ice age or a hot age.

We've had 4 fore-warnings of ice-age or catastrophic warming since
1980 or thereabouts.

>I'll let someone else take up the fight.

If you have a rational argument based on real-world facts and not
fantasies, then do continue.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

02-02-2007, 02:15 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>> Considering that countries like China don't give a damn

They do actually, which is why they are building nukes.

>>> and the situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming phenomena might make the weather
>>> wildly unpredictable

>> Not a chance. We've seen MUCH bigger variations in world temps in the past.

> There have been events like the mini-Ice age due to some really big
> volcanoes blowing their tops and putting megatons of materials into
> the air. Not a St. Helens size but more like the Krakatoa type.

Yes, but that wont happen due to man made CO2 etc.

Thats going to be a much more gradual effect.

>>> to the point of taking out most of humanity.

>> Not a chance. Even the ice ages didnt manage to do that.

> No, it didn't, but there were only so many humans that did survive,
> and they managed to to hunt various animals to extinction.

That extinction didnt happen due to hunting.

> Humans sure do make a difference, now and then.

Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to that silly
claim about 'to the point of taking out most of humanity'

The striking thing is how adaptable humanity is to climate variation.

In spades now compared with during the ice ages etc.

We've worked out how to grow stuff where it grows best and
move it to where its going to be consumed for centurys now.

And how to move immense numbers of people around the world permanently too.

>>> I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were once considered impossible ten or
>>> twenty years ago.

>> And those didnt even get close to taking out most of humanity.

> Those are just a pre-cursor to what CAN happen.

Nothing will be taking out most of humanity, you watch.

>>> The planet might just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.

>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

> Wow. I wasn't trolling for either an ******* or a moron, but I seem to have found one.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> London had an all-time record high over 100 degrees F within the last
> 2 years and we have had record cold temperature here in California.

Neither of which are anything special where hordes of people live.

> What we might get at first is wildly fluctuating weather, them WHAM, an ice age or a hot age.

Taint gunna happen on that silly WHAM claim.

> I'll let someone else take up the fight.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate.

Thats the drug you're crazed by, stupid.

02-02-2007, 02:17 PM

John Thompson <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].org> wrote
> donquijote1954 <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>> See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid
>> Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles.

> Quibble: all humans pollute

Nope, some dont.

> (what happens to your waste?

Some use their waste productively.

> Where does your food come from?),

Some produce more using their waste.

> but some pollute to a greater extent than others.

Some dont pollute at all.

>> And how about those who --like me-- want to ride a bike, but find
>> there's no safe place for it. It's a frightful jungle out there, you know.

> As a bicycle commuter myself, I can commiserate with you. Automobiles
> in general are a very energy-inefficient means of transporting people
> and public transportation should be encouraged as a way (not the only
> way!) to reduce overall energy consumption. A huge amount of
> resources are dedicated to providing infrastructure to an automobile
> society. If we can reduce dependence on automobiles not only will it
> become easier for pedestrians and bicyclists, but money can be freed
> for other worthwhile projects to make our urban areas safer for everybody.

It doesnt work like that.

02-02-2007, 02:39 PM

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Considering that countries like China don't give a damn and the
>> situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming phenomena might
>> make the weather wildly unpredictable to the point of taking out most of
>> humanity.
>
> Why sure, global warming might even make a
> natural blonde's eyes brown.
>
>> I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were
>> once considered impossible ten or twenty years ago. The planet might
>> just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Tornados are possible almost anyplace (level
> ground usually though), and there is plenty of wind
> shear in California sometimes with the Satana Winds,
> but what is usually needed is hail conditions, and
> lots of precipitation and cold air aloft helps create
> that condition.
>
> Joe Fischer
>
If you don't get it now I doubt you ever will.
It's a little known thing called "Cause and effect".
Bill Baka

02-02-2007, 02:46 PM

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Considering that countries like China don't give a damn and the
>> situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming phenomena might
>> make the weather wildly unpredictable to the point of taking out most of
>> humanity.
>
> Why sure, global warming might even make a
> natural blonde's eyes brown.
>
>> I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were
>> once considered impossible ten or twenty years ago. The planet might
>> just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Tornados are possible almost anyplace (level
> ground usually though), and there is plenty of wind
> shear in California sometimes with the Satana Winds,
> but what is usually needed is hail conditions, and
> lots of precipitation and cold air aloft helps create
> that condition.

They are possible but never any recorded damage in California until
recently. And it is Santa Ana winds.
>
> Joe Fischer
>

02-02-2007, 02:52 PM

In article <63Qwh.3199$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.net>,
Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> it is Santa Ana winds.

Oh, I LOVE Santana! "Riders On The Storm", "Help!" and more! What a
great band!

02-02-2007, 03:14 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>
>>>> Considering that countries like China don't give a damn
>
> They do actually, which is why they are building nukes.

They, China, are still Communists so the nuclear plants just might be a
way for them to build up a reserve of Plutonium for you know what.
>
>>>> and the situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming phenomena might make the weather
>>>> wildly unpredictable
>
>>> Not a chance. We've seen MUCH bigger variations in world temps in the past.
>
>> There have been events like the mini-Ice age due to some really big
>> volcanoes blowing their tops and putting megatons of materials into
>> the air. Not a St. Helens size but more like the Krakatoa type.
>
> Yes, but that wont happen due to man made CO2 etc.
>
> Thats going to be a much more gradual effect.

It may more gradual but I don't like the overall trend. In the long run
the trashing of the plant life to advance things for a few people will
have an effect on the CO2. Remember that plants recycle the CO2 back
into O2 and use the Carbon for growth. Less plants and more CO2.
So here we are not making the CO2 but we are killing the forests that
give us Oxygen. It will be a gradual effect to us, but in terms of what
happens to the planet in it's 4.6 billion years it's is a sudden change.
>
>>>> to the point of taking out most of humanity.
>
>>> Not a chance. Even the ice ages didnt manage to do that.

Not a chance, but possible. Only the politicians have bunkers with years
of food stashed. I always wondered why it was so important to save the
often fat and useless politicians. Would they repopulate the world with
junior politicians?
>
>> No, it didn't, but there were only so many humans that did survive,
>> and they managed to to hunt various animals to extinction.
>
> That extinction didnt happen due to hunting.

Watch some educational television once in a while, and they might change
your mind, if that is possible. Why did wooly mammoths and sabre tooth
tigers go extinct about 10,000 years ago?
>
>> Humans sure do make a difference, now and then.
>
> Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to that silly
> claim about 'to the point of taking out most of humanity'

Most of humanity does not have the resources to survive even one really
bad year, much less 20 too hundreds of years. As I mentioned the
politicians will save themselves first, and that is a sorry state of
affairs.
>
> The striking thing is how adaptable humanity is to climate variation.
>
> In spades now compared with during the ice ages etc.
>
> We've worked out how to grow stuff where it grows best and
> move it to where its going to be consumed for centurys now.

You have quite a set of rose colored glasses I have to admit.
>
> And how to move immense numbers of people around the world permanently too.

From one over populated area to another?
>
>>>> I have seen things like tornadoes here in California that were once considered impossible ten or
>>>> twenty years ago.
>
>>> And those didnt even get close to taking out most of humanity.
>
>> Those are just a pre-cursor to what CAN happen.
>
> Nothing will be taking out most of humanity, you watch.

OK,
I'll live to 200 and take notes on the way. Most of humanity, in terms
of sheer numbers, lives in pathetically poor areas. 3 or 4 billion would
not survive a global event, even if it took 50 to 100 years to actually
happen. Many countries seem to be on welfare courtesy of the United
States. If we have to cut off our free lunch to save our own country
then others will truly be hurting. We started "Foreign aid" to keep
people away from Communism. We won by bankrupting the USSR but are still
giving poor countries a free ride to some extent.
>
>>>> The planet might just decide to scratch us 'fleas' off.
>
>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> Wow. I wasn't trolling for either an ******* or a moron, but I seem to have found one.
>
> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

I'm not bull****ting, I just watch the history channel and the other
educational channels rather than waste my time watching 'Survivor' or
'Big Brother' or some other total waste of time. BBC has done some very
informative work that I would advise you to watch if you can with your
head so for up your ass.
>
>> London had an all-time record high over 100 degrees F within the last
>> 2 years and we have had record cold temperature here in California.
>
> Neither of which are anything special where hordes of people live.

Yeah right, 30 million plus people in California is trivial. And of
course the entire UK is nothing special, just some islands.
>
>> What we might get at first is wildly fluctuating weather, them WHAM, an ice age or a hot age.
>
> Taint gunna happen on that silly WHAM claim.

That was WHAM in terms of geological time.
>
>> I'll let someone else take up the fight.
>
> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate.
>
> Thats the drug you're crazed by, stupid.

Well then I'm flying high as a kite, because I just ate two chocolate
donut things.
Bill Baka

>
>