A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Protecting yourself



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old June 18th 19, 06:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:31:28 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Actually most of the temperatures being quoted are from satellite
readings. NOT local thermometers.

"global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the
temperature data from a total of fifteen instruments flying on different
satellites over the years."


Stand by for Tom to now tell us it is all a Chinese conspiracy as they
are changing all the computer chips they produce to produce false
readings.

TIC It is the dendrochronologists that i'm really suspiscious of. /tic

Ads
  #152  
Old June 18th 19, 07:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:34:56 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The temperature datasets going back to 1880 are entirely ground based
national weather stations using mercury thermometers that have automatic
setting high and low temperature readings. The Satellite data is only
available since 1978 and at this point their records are insufficient to
reach any conclusions as to any climate variations. 40 years is FAR too
short a time to reflect data on climate.

I'm still waiting on some sort of explanations on how actual datasets on
temperatures have "variability".


You've been pointed to it. you jst have to use your intellect to phrase a
web search to find an excellent paper on the web.


We have these things called "microclimates" such as there are a 20
degree temperature variations around the bay area which comprises a sea
shore with very cold sea water (though the temperature changes
cyclically depending on El Nino or La Nina events), around the bay with
a large body of water that regulates the temperature of most of the
major bay area cities and the "inland" which includes places like Santa
Rosa, Fairfield, Concord, Livermore and Gilroy. These areas are far
enough away from the moderating effects of the bay that they are hotter.


Perhaps you can defind the Earth's microclimate

Yet we simply average these temperatures over the area vs the
temperature and this is backed up with the satellite data so that we
know that we are achieving the proper averaging techniques.

In the bay area we are have good temperature records. LA is another
story and they now require the satellite data because the National
Weather Stations are often mishandled. They even had a picture of one of
the stations directly in the path of the exhaust from a building air
conditioner.

Weather predicting is a science and climate "science" is predicting long
term variations in the weather conditions. The problem is that a man
sitting in an office and using the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar
Cycle information is as accurate as any other way of predicting
"climate" whereas they have been attempting for three decades to use
computer models and these models have been total failures.


You seem to have found a correlation that no one else hase. The
correlation is shattering. Hint, block of steel under a heat lamp
displays the same basic dimensions

If you want to discuss the finer details I can do that. But CO2 has no
effect and we have known that since a 1915 paper by the forerunner of
NOAA.

Yep, the 'science' of those days was tip top. Was that before or after
the "germ theory of disease" became widely accepted?

"The ONLY thing that has effects are the applied emissions by the
Sun which are controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Cycles
which if memory serves both can in general change the applied radiation
by only a half percent - and the density of the atmosphere which is
fixed.


So the data measurement controls the sum which is interm is controlled by
it's are? So the problems we are using the wrong measurement? surely
someone's got the cat by the tail now after a centry of measurement?

The long and the short is that there is no

But so many people say YES and they have better science. Your Model T
science just doesn't hold a candle to a Lamboghini, etc. Personally I
prefer bicycles.

and cannot be any man-made climate change.

Well, the space station has one and it relies heaviy of what is happening
on the planet.

What's more the climate appears to have passed its peak
Interglacial Period temperature and is on the way down. This is also
suggested by the Ice Core research by the Russians at Vostok,
Antarctica, Siberia, Russia and the American papers from Alaska.


Maybe, but that isn't what we are discussing. In fact it doesn't matter
wheather you're getting fried by extreme high temperatures or blasted by
icy winds, as both are non-conducise to human life.

Sticky your head out of the door to see wheather you wear furs and shoe
shoes, or hat, sunscreen and light cotons and carry gllons of water each
day is a not daily choice I desire. Places for a months holiday, then
yes, but not daily.

  #153  
Old June 18th 19, 07:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Protecting yourself

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 04:55:01 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:48:58 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


Here I believe that the recyclables go through a crusher so that the
glass is fractured and falls through the bottom of the screen-like
conveyer belt from which the paper is sorted from the plastic. Among
these items are the needles and other disease carrying waste. This
sorting is extremely difficult to automate in order to reduce the cost
of recycling.


And it would result in the lowest qualty glass crud as there would be all
sorts of glass; clean, coloured/colored, lead contaminated and piles of
plastic. Useful for weak concrete at best.


Here (Thailand) glass bottles are readily salable to "garbage
collectors" (who would probably be identified as "recycles" in other
places) who in turn sell them in two places - one to those who can use
reclaimed bottles to package their goods, those that sell paint
thinner in small lots for example, and the remainder to folks who melt
them for use in making new bottles, and similar to reclaimed paper
they probably can't be used to make colorless bottles.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #154  
Old June 18th 19, 08:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:17:23 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled
"Global Warming Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming
is occurring. He simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact
as he documents earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another
article titled "2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly
steady increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest
Global Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a
steady increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.


Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global
warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those
are natural climate cycles.


Lol, it isn't those that the discussion has been about. Perhaps you
should get up to date. Although as far as accepted, the quality of the
data behind all thes cycles would be luck to produce a Model T Ford.

We're coming out of a cooling cycle called
the Little Ice Age


Your teams pulling in opposite directions. Tom says it is now back to
cooling. It seems your the problem is you're both thinking of different
cycles.

so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling
towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before
the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman
Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now,
periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods
of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in
Greenland.


Correlation =/= causation. And the problem is "human well being" has SFA
to do with it. BTW, what you are both taking as definite cycles are
themselves not widely accepted as the data correlations are very poor.


The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not
one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their
bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove
that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely
disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota
temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an
inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2,
that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical
legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other
trees.


All the data you quote has a higher correlation to reality than all the
"natural cycles" being pulled out of hats to "counter" claims.

The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere
temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and
even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was
easily proven to be random bull****.


Wow, you're calling all Tom's beloved mercury thermometer readings
"bull****"? Great team work there boys.

But the Glabal Warming Hysterics,
like you and News18,

Oooh, you have to have a bogey man.
I'm just posting arguments that you can not couunter and the fundamental
point is that if we're are wrong, nothing bad will happen, but if we are
correct, then you'd better start chasing a faecal transplant from a
termite gut very fast. if that is a "zoom' in your mental understanding,
you might like to get up to dats with the latest's ( ie last decades)
research into the effects on rising CO2 on plant grow and whatit means to
human nutrition.

carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.


It does., but then you're the man who believe wolrd history was all
documented in the 1500s or so.

2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or
unnatural?


Again, no one is arguing about "warming' existing as in "temperature',
what is being pointed out is energy flows in weather/climate.

hint. colr/colour of noise is largely that.

It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's
site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr
Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance
interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.


Meanwhile, the poles are doing someething out of all expectation?
That is like saying that IQ tests prove human intellect because the
average is consistently 100.

3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and
Christie, who're real scientists,

Is this the "all my cats are scientists because they study bugs"
definitioon of 'scientist'?

but the IPCC clown car of climate
thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a
neb-marxist redistributionist agenda

Thats a new one. hint, in scientific matters you are supposed to define
new terms.

that claims industrialisation is to blame.

Gee, given the amount of energy that industrialisation now produces as 7
billion arseholes demand the latest iphone, you could be forgiven to
believing so.

But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in
the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry,

There you go conflating "global warming" with temperature again. No
wonder you can not come to grips with "global warming"

and the
Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke
smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution.


There you go conflating correlation with causation again and anyone who
has a modern education would know size matters, despite what you may say,
e.g. arsehoes in the world and number with access to the technology.

Once again you're trying to drive by looking backwards. There is a reason
why those backward pedalling bicycles are not very popular.

snip repetition.

4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for
a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant.


Yes, because it lasts in the environment for centuries. so taking massive
amount of Carbon from under the ground and transforming it to Carbon
Dioxide and thus removing twice as much oxygen from the air is such a
great idea Hey!!!

Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food,


Which we have less and less of each ear.
Hint, it is also "food" for a lot of stuff we eat and givena plentiful
supply of CO2 to grow in, those plants tend to produce cellulose rather
than the sugars we seel in out diet. you of course already knew this?

Lol, you should seek out those Americans that come out to Australia and
get "lost in the bush", then they suddenly re-appear to claimed they
liven on "nuts and berries". They must know the secret of the foods that
will come to exist globally. Hint "woody pear" if you don't know why
everyoe rolls around laughing. (Hmm must de due for another ne soon.)

eh, if nobody has told you
before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?


As above.


5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or
manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James
Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global
warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed
we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had
listened to them...)

We don't have to imagine as we'll soon know.
Funny how we can 'see' acid rain, but not "ocean acidification" Out of
sight, out of mind again.

6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up
to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural
effloration?

How long ago was that? If they did. they know differently now.

Hint, only and out and out ignorant inoramous could have suggested that
life will continue as normal from such. One moment you suggest humans
matter not one iota, then you say the whole planet could be changed for
the benefit of humans an none of the other organisms that live on this
plant will give a damm and continue to support our every growing
population. shrug, i'd prefer not to reach Soylent Greeen as even the
elite probably wont "enjoy the crops on the surface".


You didn't know that, did you,


I did and laughed at the stupidity. We even had an ex-Prime Minister who
said so and given that he is known as the Mad Rabbit, you'll understand
why it was taken as a joke. He is marginally more respected than "The
Donald".

because you and the other
clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision
Makers,


Actually, I've collected measurements used in the fandango. Interesting,
that was how "climate change" was making this ancient tree sterile and
that it only existed in modern times because it was on the right part of
Gondwanna that drifted north. Sadly its current propagation method wont
work for human survival.


which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and
politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years
changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.


No, it was just the usual scientific questioning mind asking "does it
matter". And the posting of the sad an desperate as they flail more in
the growing mountain of evidence. shrug, All data can produce similar
patterns if you're selective.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before
you lecture you betters


"You Betters". Umm, is this the tic bird that hangs around with rhinos so
the cats leave it alone?

on how flat the earth is.

There by neatly summing up your knowledge of the science; "It all looks
flat to me".

At the very least you
should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first
one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement
have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on
this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're
late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke
here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good
guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and
facts.

Dr Spencer's cracked record needs a needle change.

Andre Jute Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus


Finally you're honest about yourself. Now if only you'd sat down the
front with the smart kids.

  #155  
Old June 18th 19, 08:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:57:07 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


So now the main exponent of man-made global warming has been completely
destroyed.


Err, nope. Politics and the courts do not determine true science.


  #156  
Old June 18th 19, 08:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:49:21 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering
and jeering and lying rather than facts:m

Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted
crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner";


Lol, Linus Pauling and vitamin C.

  #157  
Old June 18th 19, 09:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:11:29 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:


Andre Jute Just to be clear, while the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age stand, the can be no proof of manmade global warming,
which is why the global warming faithful sneer and jeer rather than
making arguments with hard facts.


Like the fact that you're talking about local phenomina?
You've been here, perhaps you can point to the Australia Records of these
events.

  #158  
Old June 18th 19, 09:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:02:50 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:34:50 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Get out there and share your wisdom! Fox News needs you!

- Frank Krygowski


Probably the same reason people reply to him - to be heard/read.


Naah, it is sport. Hasn't been anything worthwhile watching on TV for
years and you need a break from reading science stuff.
  #159  
Old June 18th 19, 09:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Protecting yourself

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:42:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural
climatic variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA
have actually counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that
the Weather Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't
show any heating and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of
the weather satellite program, finally resigned when he could no
longer stand the blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions.
He expressed the belief that these two would very soon begin
counterfeiting the satellite records to match their computer models
and that is now exactly what they have been doing.

Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily
newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized
their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But
actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you
can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything.
They have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like
their worthless computer models.

You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature
recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent
explanation on the web if you want to search for it.

FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the
actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the
average be a significant amount.

There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of
those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to
be similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more
"shuddering/ oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature.
Which fits in the the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there
is now more energy in "the climate" and we are now seeking more(number
of, not peaks) extremes.


Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting and seas are
rising.

But than, there are people who believe that the earth is flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies
https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html
https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...-believe-that-

the-world-is-flat/



What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play along with
someone's pet theory:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...rial-glaciers-

didnt-melt-fast-enough-to-meet-prediction-1688833/

Naah, that is just the usual "don't look there (poles melting), look over
here where this glacier, one, has grown. Except, it is all about there
being massively more energy in the environment and both high and low
temeperatures, aka the extremes will occurr in increasing frequency.

how is that for an each way bet?

  #160  
Old June 18th 19, 09:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Zen Cycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Protecting yourself

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:29:36 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:42:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play along with
someone's pet theory:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...rial-glaciers-

didnt-melt-fast-enough-to-meet-prediction-1688833/

Naah, that is just the usual "don't look there (poles melting), look over
here where this glacier, one, has grown. Except, it is all about there
being massively more energy in the environment and both high and low
temeperatures, aka the extremes will occurr in increasing frequency.


Typical denier obfuscations and distractions - cherry picking old long-refuted data and mis-characterizing scientists who actually work in the field of climate science. Of course, these people are the same ones who believe trump when he says he's smarter than all the generals:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...hange-threats/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Protecting the head ... Nick Kew UK 24 December 30th 06 11:19 AM
Protecting my shins pkplonker Unicycling 8 November 19th 06 11:02 AM
Protecting your saddle? firisfirefly Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:43 AM
Protecting your saddle? mornish Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:40 AM
Protecting your saddle? Jerrick Unicycling 0 August 3rd 06 06:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.