The impact of climate change on the riding season

Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by atomicalex, Jan 8, 2016.

  1. randyo

    randyo Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    2,360
    Location:
    Northern NewEngland
    the earth has been and is still coming out of an ice age, (warming) where have you been there is no dispute that the earth is and has been warming, the dispute is whether or not that man is contributing to a significant acceleration in the warming trend

    now you come along and say we would be in a cooling phase, what have you been smoking ?
  2. Midnullarbor

    Midnullarbor Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Oddometer:
    740
    .
    Exactly, JohnCW @3235 . . . so why don't you seem to give a shit about now ? (unquote)
    ~ about the Great Barrier Reef and everything else.

    And do purleeez try to think about it rationally.
    Population control (zero growth) or reduction is a centuries-long project
    . . . and won't fix the AGW / CO2 problem in the slightest , during this critical century.

    BTW ~ quite agree with you about the Population Ponzi Scheme
    . . . but that's not the hottest potato which needs cooling right now.

    You have lost sight of the value of priorities.
    Not that we can't start tackling two problems simultaneously, of course !




    Face it, Bandito , you are simply absoberluddylutely clueless about carbon's role in climate.
    So why does your ego push you to argue that all the scientists are wrong ?!






    Mjbeam @3232 , you are showing the typical Denialist inability to operate outside of black/white thinking.
    Almost none of us control what other people do.
    But we can influence them, to some extent. Yes, even influence governments.
    As the Scots say : "Mony a mickle maks a muckle" . :-)
    And I have already explained - above - why individual/personal reduction (by even a whopping amount, such as 75%) of CO2 emissions falls way, way short of the necessary response to the world's AGW problem.
    And nope . . . before you ask . . . simply denying our AGW problem exists, does not work too well, at all ! :-)

    Mjbeam, if you disbelieve the Earth is Round, and disbelieve there's any Global Warming (and surely, surely, you're not as clueless as Popscycle & Randyo :-) )
    . . . then why do you choose to rant and rave online, here ?!?

    Might I suggest you do it, because you are an angry guy.
    IMHO, all hard-core denialists are angry people.
    Their emotions make them them irrational ~ irrational enough to deny the evidence before their very eyes
    ( and also evidence vouched for, a hundred different ways, by the expert scientists ) .


    As tlub mentioned above, there's hardly a climate scientist to be found anywhere , who disagrees with the well-proven consensus
    ~ and there's absolutely NO scientist to be found who can supply any VALID science showing all the others are wrong.






    Mjbeam, a good vocabulary is a great help in thinking clearly & rationally.
    I notice that you have now posted a definition (of "paradoxical") which you have cherry-picked from the much larger paragraph of description/definition to be found in any decent dictionary of English : say in the OED, for example.
    Sorry Mjbeam, but you are not using the word in the commonly-used colloquial sense of meaning
    . . . nor in the commonly-used academic sense of meaning.

    But it's hardly worth bothering to discuss "paradoxical" . . . except to say that even by your distorted definition
    . . . there is nothing "inexplicable or contradictory" about tlub or AGW.

    And I only raised the point . . . because it was trivial yet amusing.

    Rather like Randyo (@3234) and his (quote) "the elude to gravitational and orbital effects" . :-)
    Oh Randyo !
    Perhaps it is your failure to grasp English that is contributing to your failure to grasp Science & Logic.

    You don't even seem to have grasped even the most basic idea about natural cooling trends or warming trends (natural or otherwise).
    The most basic ideas about climate science !
    Though on non-climate matters you can talk sensibly !
    Yet when it comes to climate . . . your head falls off your shoulders.
    ( Please make sure you are wearing a helmet, when you pause to think about climate !! :-) )

    .
  3. JohnCW

    JohnCW Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Oddometer:
    2,717
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    You're continued gross misrepresentation of what others with an opinion that differs to you have said (that's a polite way of saying lie) is why I can't take you or your opinions even remotely seriously. You might think it's 'cute', but unfortunately it just gives you zero credibility.

    I used to always say to my kids when they were young, never lie to me. There might be a time one day when you really need me to believe you. Perhaps something to consider.
  4. bandito2

    bandito2 Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Oddometer:
    458
    Location:
    outside of the box
    No really, how is growing some kind of goop to get a carbon source that gets oxidized producing energy and releasing that carbon to the atmosphere different or better than digging or pumping a carbon source out of the ground to do the same thing effectively with the same results?

    Energy is used to get a fuel source out of the ground but it seems silly to spend so much energy to create energy by growing something to burn. A lot of the processes are the same as far as transport and storage goes. I see no advantage to growing an energy source.

    Honestly it baffles me a bit why people think that electric cars are any better than conventional ICE powered vehicles. That electricity they use comes from somewhere with transmission loss. And isn't gas, coal or oil most often used to generate the electricity for them in the first place anyway?
  5. tlub

    tlub Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,061
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Well, this is probably wasted effort, but here goes...

    First: 'Growing some kind of goop' removes carbon from the atmosphere. That's where the carbon comes from when plants grow. You should have learned this in grade-school biology. When the 'goop' is burned, that carbon, previously removed, is returned to the atmosphere. If this is the only stuff that is burned, then at least we are net zero loss or gain of CO2. When you pump it out of the ground, you are adding net carbon, from the ground, where it has been buried for millions of years, and putting it into the atmosphere. That is the entire point of all the debate about CO2 in the atmosphere. That is where it comes from , for pete's sake! The fact that you don't get this tells me and all of us that you do not understand the basics. You have NO understanding whatsoever.

    Second: You don't spend energy to grow something. The something, or 'goop' as you call it, get its energy from the sun, in a process called photosynthesis, on which all life on earth ultimately depends. Again, grade-school biology that you don't have the foggiest idea of. If you don't see the advantage of growing an energy source, it is because you are hopelessly clueless.

    Third: Have you even looked at numbers on the efficiencies of the electric cars? It's bloody obvious if you care to. The efficiencies of electric cars are far higher than an ICE just for motive force, plus they use regenerative braking to recover much of that used for acceleration. The electrical energy they get from power plants is also generated far more efficiently, even if it does come from fossil fuels. Large stationary generators are pretty efficient. Far, far more efficient than an ICE in a car. Look it up, if you care to, but the overall efficiency gain by these two parts of the equation is significant. Furthermore, the electricity can be made from renewable sources (net carbon zero) or from nuclear (net carbon zero).

    Nuclear has its issues with waste, primarily because the current reactors were designed to have waste so that they could also be used for weapons grade production. Thorium reactors, the development of which was abandoned in the 50s because they couldn't make plutonium, could solve both the waste and fuel source problems, but research into them has only just restarted, and only halfheartedly.
    ikonoklass likes this.
  6. tlub

    tlub Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,061
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    You just don't have a clue about what a carbon cycle is, do you? How can you debate this if you are so clueless as to make this statement? It shows a complete lack of understanding of what happens when you burn a fossil fuel. Which, incidentally, is what is behind all of this.
  7. bandito2

    bandito2 Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Oddometer:
    458
    Location:
    outside of the box
    THANK YOU for a response that does not contain stupid retarded child like blubbering like that _______ troll Midnullarbor does.
    Your response seems a bit harsh, (OK, I can take it) but I will concede to it being firm but fair. An honest attempt to enlighten is far
    better than just being called stupid.

    I'm tiring of the round and round of this thread so I'll come back from time to time
    to see what has been going on... But for now there are other things I'll be devoting
    attention to.

    Carry on. (or is that carrion?)
    tlub likes this.
  8. Steve in Golden

    Steve in Golden Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Oddometer:
    284
    Location:
    Golden, CO
    Solar output has been dropping since the 1950s yet temps continue to rise.
    Are we heading into a new Ice Age?
  9. mjbeam

    mjbeam Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Oddometer:
    478
    Location:
    Forest Grove, Oregon
    Howdy Midnullarbor!

    I did in fact cherry pick that definition. If you define cherry picking as selecting the definition from a dictionary that applies to the usage one intended. Guilty as charged. I'm not sure why you think that I was referring to AGW as paradoxical when I was clearly referring to the actions of self-admitted AGW proponents being contrary to their stated beliefs, but I imagine that the amount of times someone would have to slam their face into the keyboard to generate that confusing diatribe could cloud one's perceptions.
    JohnCW likes this.
  10. Midnullarbor

    Midnullarbor Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Oddometer:
    740
    There you are, Mjbeam . . . your very own words
    ~ of course you were referring to persons i.e. Tlub , as being "paradoxical".
    Did I say that you weren't ?
    No, I certainly didn't.


    Mjbeam (@3249) ~ you were doing rather more than "cherry-picking". :-)
    Cherry-picking is always dangerous and dubious, when you are genuinely pursuing the truth.
    All too often, it is used for the opposite purpose !
    Cherry-picking is one of the pillars of deception, and of denialism too.

    If you wish to think clearly and communicate clearly, then you should choose to use words in their common standardised sense.
    Mjbeam, you are brazenly taking the Humpty Dumpty attitude to words :-
    "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." (unquote, from Lewis Carroll)
    :-)


    And of course, Mjbeam, it was not so much one particular word and your non-mainstream usage of it that I was objecting to
    . . . but to your underlying confused thinking.





    ~~~~~~~~~~~~





    Well, an expected outcome, Tlub.
    You explain to Bandito the importance of organic liquid hydrocarbon fuel production, in tackling AGW.

    => Do we see Bandito apologizing for previously automatically asserting that the thousands/millions of expert scientists would be wrong about such a basic point ?

    => Do we see Bandito actually acknowledging he was wrong ?

    => And see him now say he will correct his views/opinions ?
    And cease to be a Denialist ?
    Nope. No such thing.
    Bandito merely complains about being dissed/butthurt , and says he is tired and will temporarily withdraw from the thread.
    And so it goes, in Denial Land.

    Tlub , it appears your cynicism was justified, in the matter of explaining facts to Denialists.
    As Pecha-72 says : they are fact resistant.
    They hate facts, because real facts clash mightily with their Denialist Dogma.




    IIRC, there was an interview 5 years ago between science-presenter the excellent Mr Robyn Williams and a certain Eminent Scientist.
    The Eminent Scientist admitted that he no longer bothered to debate with Denialists.
    "Denialists are like Blancmanges.
    You hit them with some facts . . . and they quiver for a little while.
    But next day, they are the same old blancmange, unchanged."


    .
  11. popscycle

    popscycle Fahren Away

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Oddometer:
    5,081
    Location:
    Central MA
    FYI, the president signed the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 today that puts NASA back into the business of aerospace where it belongs and more out of the business of climate where it doesn't.
  12. mjbeam

    mjbeam Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Oddometer:
    478
    Location:
    Forest Grove, Oregon
    Hello again Midnullarbor!

    I'm really not sure where you're trying to go with this but it sure is fun to watch. You are to rhetoric as Michael Jordan is, to rhetoric. Much like Jackson Pollock, I can't tell if you are a genius or a madman. Where Mr. Pollock flung household paints onto unprimed canvas using knives and sticks and syringes, you attempt to persuade with insults, misdirection, and obfuscation. I'm not sure if there is any money in it but you should consider taking your show on the road! At least set up a webcam. I know I'd pay a couple nickels to see the spittle flying as you attempt to slow the rising of the seas by spastically thrashing away on your keyboard. I can't wait to hear the final dissonant notes of your chaotic jazz masterpiece.

    (Rhetoric - the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.)
    JohnCW likes this.
  13. Midnullarbor

    Midnullarbor Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Oddometer:
    740
    Mjbeam , I am glad to see that your literary competence has improved slightly.
    For instance, your definition of "rhetoric" is almost reaching an adequate level ~ but it still lacks that vital ingredient of contextual roundedness which should be the goal of the well-educated writer who has had the good fortune to have English as his Mother Tongue**.

    ** As a side note here; and as a friendly hint for your future writing :
    it is probably best if you avoid letting your web-cam voyeurism & salivari-sexual fantasies intrude into your communications.
    I mention Mother Tongue especially, because that is somewhere where you simply should not go.
    :-)


    The context of words is so very important to their function in conveying ideas.
    Mjbeam, you should spend at least part of each week being coached in the development of your Reading Comprehension skills.
    That should take priority over any English Writing courses which you might be considering.
    ~ You have clearly failed to grasp the context of "rhetoric" as it applies in my case
    . . . for I have frequently pointed out to the more dim-witted Denialists
    . . . that I do not "attempt to persuade" them to give up their foolish rejection of reality.
    [ The latest reminder I gave was in in post #3101 . . . but perhaps Mjbeam, you came in late . . . or Reading Comprehension, again ? ]

    . . . and speaking of reality :-

    ~ I am saddened that you do not have the capability to tell a genius from a madman.
    You must be someone very young & inexperienced
    . . . or perhaps you have led an extraordinarily sheltered existence
    . . . or well, there are several other less-flattering possibilities.

    Mjbeam, to help you on your path to education & enlightenment, you should concentrate on becoming able to distinguish a madman (a.k.a., in PC terms : an insane man) from a normal man [let alone, from a genius].
    Permit me to give you some pointers.

    Firstly, you need to be able to understand the concept of sanity.
    Yes, the rigorous definition of "sanity" is a tough nut to crack [no pun intended]
    ~ and we do not have the time here to delve into it thoroughly.
    But the essence of sanity is the capacity to recognise and deal effectively with reality.

    Now, Mjbeam, you may wish to interject that such a definition of sanity does completely disqualify all AGW/climate-science deniers
    . . . just as it would completely disqualify all genuine Flat-Earthers.
    And technically, you would be correct.
    But you are going much too fast.

    SURE, it is a cinch to point to those Denialists who believe there is some Conspiracy by governments & millions of scientists & billions of normal laymen. Yes, such beliefs are clearly insane.

    But you must come to understand that sanity is not a black/white issue ~ but sanity of the mind is something that can exist in a partial form ~ minds can have a gradation of sanity
    . . . minds can exist in-between the mature 100% sane state . . . and the completely "ga-ga" [excuse my usage of this technical term].




    There is a substantial minority of the population possessing only partial sanity.
    In more lawyer-like terms, these semi-sane individuals can conduct their business & financial affairs adequately.
    And they can engage sensibly in online forums, dealing adequately with everyday mundane matters
    . . . such as which oil to use, or when to ride Deals Gap.
    But when they come to discuss slightly more abstract topics (such as science, or Harleys, or riding skills)
    . . . then they melt down into "ga-ga". (Often noticeable on this thread, actually.)

    This whole area is one of ongoing research still : and the experts have not yet reached better than 80% consensus.
    Some experts point to the widespread prevalence of "Encapsulated Paranoia".
    And true, this would nicely explain the Denialists.
    But other experts hold that there are deeper complexities to it than that.
    ~ Anger Issues, and the effects of childhood psychological abuse, as well.




    But alas, time presses, Mjbeam.
    Perhaps we can take up this topic again on another occasion, and discuss it more bigly.

    Also, you seem to have difficulty understanding "misdirection" and "obfuscation".
    Those too are interesting concepts, well worth discussing (in your case, I mean) .




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




    Popscycle @ #3251 ,
    it is very pleasing to hear that all those grifters at NASA are having their funding cut back.

    For decades they have been wasting the taxpayers' money with all those satellites looking down on this planet here, and observing/monitoring forests and crops and rivers and oceans and weather and all that sort of palaver.

    Now it sounds like at last they will do something useful, and turn the satellites' telescopes/sensors outwards, so that we can get warning of practical stuff like the possible approaching Lizard People main space-fleet.
    Fore-warned is fore-armed !

    And the manned mission to Mars.
    Well over-due.

    Popscycle, you would be an excellent candidate as the human race's pioneer on Mars.
    Unlike Earth, the planet Mars has a cold heart; is very red; and shows no evidence of intelligent life.
    A perfect fit ~ a match made in [the] Heaven(s) .


    .
  14. Steve in Golden

    Steve in Golden Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Oddometer:
    284
    Location:
    Golden, CO
    Some would say that Earth also shows no evidence of intelligent life. If the human race did have half a brain, we wouldn't be busily destroying our only home.
  15. popscycle

    popscycle Fahren Away

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Oddometer:
    5,081
    Location:
    Central MA
    Despite scientific prognostications to the contrary, the human race has survived for a very long time, not drowned in coastal cities, not suffered from mass starvation or baked in the heat on the plains and will outlive you and your arrogant attitude about being brainer-than-thou. That you place yourself above the human race is both laughable and pathetic, but typical of the AGW grifters. The good news is that you don't use excessive verbage like midnull to say nothing.
  16. mjbeam

    mjbeam Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Oddometer:
    478
    Location:
    Forest Grove, Oregon
    Thanks for the tips Midnullarbor! I promise to give your advice the full consideration it is due, taking into account of course the words of the good Polonius, that brevity is the soul of wit.
  17. Midnullarbor

    Midnullarbor Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Oddometer:
    740
    .
    Glad to be of assistance, Mjbeam.
    I'm sure your above-average concentration span allows you to take it all in, effortlessly.

    Still, if there's one Take-Home message worth remembering
    . . . it is the concept of sanity (as shown by the ability to recognise and deal with reality).
    And since the fast-rising AGW is a physical reality
    . . . then yes, you would be right to describe the deniers as clearly insane.






    Brevity is the soul of wit, but not the soul of science.
    Lots of logical thinking / education / observation / experimentation / and more thinking
    . . . are very necessary to get a real understanding of the physical world.
    Most denialists are too lazy to do that ~ they just want to become as expert as the real experts
    . . . but without doing the hard yards.

    ~ And then the denialists' Dunning-Kruger swollen egos are offended that their own skimpy half-baked ideas are not respected & considered to be of equal value & weight to the real scientists' valid ideas.
    Add in the denialists' Anger Issues . . . and it all gets ugly.

    Twas ever thus ! (As a certain literary gentleman almost said.)






    btw, Mjbeam ~ another tip for your own budding literary career :
    * please remember to pay close attention to grammar and spelling.
    Especially spelling.
    Since sometimes even a single letter wrong, can be a fatal mistake
    e.g. if you happen to take on board Polonium rather than Polonius.

    Good luck with your future career as a word-smith.
    One day, if you can show that you are The Write Stuff
    . . . you might be chosen as official reporter, to go on the first manned mission to Mars (under Captain Popscycle).
    ~ It would likely be a 15-month journey just to get there.
    Probably room for just the two of you.
    Still, that time will pass quickly, with Captain P. expounding continually about all the grifters back home on Earth.

    If you had any doubts about your own sanity, Mjbeam
    . . . then those doubts would be ended, by the time you reach Mars !


    :-)
  18. Steve in Golden

    Steve in Golden Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Oddometer:
    284
    Location:
    Golden, CO
  19. mjbeam

    mjbeam Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Oddometer:
    478
    Location:
    Forest Grove, Oregon
    Sure, but how often do you really find yourself riding in the arctic circle?
  20. DesertPilot

    DesertPilot Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Oddometer:
    171
    Location:
    Mountain View, CA
    He can sign as many acts as he wants, but I can assure you, from thirty years of personal experience as a scientist at NASA, that no one takes what the president says seriously anymore. Like its all-too-many predecessors, this misson statement will be entirely forgotten in two years -- maybe sooner given the attention span of this particular administration. Meanwhile, NASA's budget will continue to fall behind inflation until the Agency is small enough to drown in a bathtub. Remember the X-20? Nixon's Mars mission? The Single State To Orbit Launcher? Reagan's National Aerospace Plane? The Mission to Planet Earth? Smaller Faster Cheaper? I stopped keeping track of these things around 2002. It was getting old.

    Still, I do rather miss the X-20. That was such a neat vehicle! Now you can't even find a model of the thing, unless you're willing to deal with resin. I gather there may be bits and pieces of various prototypes, wind tunnel models, and mock-ups, and the like kicking around the Air Force museum and Smithsonian, but I've never seen any of this on display. Alas.

    This, of course, has nothing to do with climate change, but members of my tribe are easily distracted when spacecraft are involved. One of our many character flaws...
    Roam likes this.