Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sea Level Rising Faster
15 views
Skip to first unread message
HVAC
Nov 2, 2012, 8:08:40 AM11/2/12
to
— Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and
University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last
official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between
0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise
measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a
rise of one meter or more by the end of the century.
"What's missing from the models used to forecast sea-level rise are
critical feedbacks that speed everything up," says Hay. He will be
presenting some of these feedbacks in a talk on Nov. 4, at the meeting
of The Geological Society of America in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
One of those feedbacks involves Arctic sea ice, another the Greenland
ice cap, and another soil moisture and groundwater mining.
"There is an Arctic sea ice connection," says Hay, despite the fact that
melting sea ice -- which is already in the ocean -- does not itself
raise sea level. Instead, it plays a role in the overall warming of the
Arctic, which leads to ice losses in nearby Greenland and northern
Canada. When sea ice melts, Hay explains, there is an oceanographic
effect of releasing more fresh water from the Arctic, which is then
replaced by inflows of brinier, warmer water from the south.
"So it's a big heat pump that brings heat to the Arctic," says Hay.
"That's not in any of the models." That warmer water pushes the Arctic
toward more ice-free waters, which absorb sunlight rather than reflect
it back into space like sea ice does. The more open water there is, the
more heat is trapped in the Arctic waters, and the warmer things can get.
Then there are those gigantic stores of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.
During the last interglacial period, sea level rose 10 meters due to the
melting of all that ice -- without any help from humans. New data
suggests that the sea-level rise in the oceans took place over a few
centuries, according to Hay.
"You can lose most of the Greenland ice cap in a few hundred years, not
thousands, just under natural conditions," says Hay. "There's no telling
how fast it can go with this spike of carbon dioxide we are adding to
the atmosphere."
This possibility was brought home this last summer as Greenland
underwent a stunning, record-setting melt. The ice streams, lubricated
by water at their base, are speeding up.
Hay notes, "Ten years ago we didn't know much about water under the
Antarctic ice cap." But it is there, and it allows the ice to move -- in
some places even uphill due to the weight of the ice above it.
"It's being squeezed like toothpaste out of a tube," explains Hay. The
one thing that's holding all that ice back from emptying into the sea is
the grounded ice shelves acting like plugs on bottles at the ends of the
coastal glaciers. "Nobody has any idea how fast that ice will flow into
the oceans once the ice shelves are gone."
Another missing feedback is the groundwater being mined all over the
world to mitigate droughts. That water is ultimately added to the oceans
(a recent visualization of this effect in the U.S. was posted by NASA's
Earth Observatory: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79228).
All of these are positive feedbacks speeding up the changes in climate
and sea-level rise.
"You would expect negative feedbacks to creep in at some point," says
Hay. "But in climate change, every feedback seems to go positive." The
reason is that Earth's climate seems to have certain stable states.
Between those states things are unstable and can change quickly. "Under
human prodding, the system wants to go into a new climate state."
--
"I'm Harlow Campbell and I approved this message"
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg
Hägar
Nov 2, 2012, 10:07:35 AM11/2/12
to
"HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrote in message
news:k70d3d$8ij$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> - Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and
> University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last >
> official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2
> and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements
> meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter
> or more by the end of the century.
>
< snipped to conserve virtual paper >
> official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2
> and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements
> meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter
> or more by the end of the century.
>
Sounds exactly like the Medieval Climate Anomaly, which sounds sooo Al
"there's a fire raging twixt me loins" Gore-ish, or something the IPCC would
concoct. But it is a fact that temperature started rising from AD 950 to
temperature much higher than today and then declining again in AD 1250, to
be followed by the "Little Ice Age".
It does seems that world temperature fluctuates on its own, without
prodding from those evil, pesky CO2 creating humans. Rumor has it the Viking
actually cultivated crops and raised outdoor livestock on Greenland (hence
the name) and there were no cars, planes, powerplants or other CO2
generating machinery.
Humans will adapt to whatever nature throws at us. There ultimately may be a
lot less of us, but then we exceeded our occupancy limit a long time ago.
But to think that it is within our power to reverse this warming trend is a
sign of our arrogance and lack of understanding the phenomena of Nature
taking care of itself by cleaning house. It's only just begun.
Brad Guth
Nov 2, 2012, 10:22:36 AM11/2/12
to
On Nov 2, 7:07 am, "H gar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HVAC" <h...@physisist.net> wrote in message
I see that you like to chat with piles of burning dog poop, because it
makes you feed so good that a plagiarizer and redneck can each go as
unpoliced as other brown-nosed clowns and parrots of the mainstream
status-quo.
Notice how your bed-wetting partner has once again switched sides, but
then don't all FUD-masters.
For each and every melted km3 of glacial ice, there is likely two km3
of erosion going into the drink. Go figure how oceans are not going
to rise and further dim our planet.
With a hundred teratonnes worth of water vapor (less than 2% of
atmospheric mass) that has to continually recycle, along with
sustaining a volume of less glacial ice and compacted snow that never
melts, is a wonder that more of our world with its poorly
infrastructure configured lot of humanity is not a whole lot more at
risk and unlivable, and/or eroded past the point of no return.
As Greenland thaws and its mostly bare bedrock surface with little if
any topsoil emerges, as even uplifted due to the considerable
reduction in mass, eventually there will be those enormous fresh water
lakes surrounded by a mostly basalt and granite bedrock terrain that
will continue as to being icy and snow covered above their seasonal
snow-line or the glacial elevation year round. This and one other
mostly frozen area of Earth will likely become our future Edens.
However, if we can’t even manage to construct our homes with a basic
foundation and having whatever structure compressed onto its
foundation with essentially long steel bars and through-bolts so as to
hold these buildings onto their foundations, and at ground level or
below as having the basic pumps required in order to safely utilize
such easily flooded space, is why this kind of wind and storm-surge
damage along with loss of most all community infrastructure is
inevitable. In other words, demonstrating yet another waste of lives,
time and resources that should have been better spent by our parents
and grandparents.
Other than culling 95% of humanity, what's your better infrastructure
plan?
> "HVAC" <h...@physisist.net> wrote in message
makes you feed so good that a plagiarizer and redneck can each go as
unpoliced as other brown-nosed clowns and parrots of the mainstream
status-quo.
Notice how your bed-wetting partner has once again switched sides, but
then don't all FUD-masters.
For each and every melted km3 of glacial ice, there is likely two km3
of erosion going into the drink. Go figure how oceans are not going
to rise and further dim our planet.
With a hundred teratonnes worth of water vapor (less than 2% of
atmospheric mass) that has to continually recycle, along with
sustaining a volume of less glacial ice and compacted snow that never
melts, is a wonder that more of our world with its poorly
infrastructure configured lot of humanity is not a whole lot more at
risk and unlivable, and/or eroded past the point of no return.
As Greenland thaws and its mostly bare bedrock surface with little if
any topsoil emerges, as even uplifted due to the considerable
reduction in mass, eventually there will be those enormous fresh water
lakes surrounded by a mostly basalt and granite bedrock terrain that
will continue as to being icy and snow covered above their seasonal
snow-line or the glacial elevation year round. This and one other
mostly frozen area of Earth will likely become our future Edens.
However, if we can’t even manage to construct our homes with a basic
foundation and having whatever structure compressed onto its
foundation with essentially long steel bars and through-bolts so as to
hold these buildings onto their foundations, and at ground level or
below as having the basic pumps required in order to safely utilize
such easily flooded space, is why this kind of wind and storm-surge
damage along with loss of most all community infrastructure is
inevitable. In other words, demonstrating yet another waste of lives,
time and resources that should have been better spent by our parents
and grandparents.
Other than culling 95% of humanity, what's your better infrastructure
plan?
HVAC
Nov 2, 2012, 10:27:59 AM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 10:07 AM, Hägar wrote:
>
>
> Humans will adapt to whatever nature throws at us. There ultimately may be a
> lot less of us, but then we exceeded our occupancy limit a long time ago.
> But to think that it is within our power to reverse this warming trend is a
> sign of our arrogance and lack of understanding the phenomena of Nature
> taking care of itself by cleaning house. It's only just begun.
We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>
>
> Humans will adapt to whatever nature throws at us. There ultimately may be a
> lot less of us, but then we exceeded our occupancy limit a long time ago.
> But to think that it is within our power to reverse this warming trend is a
> sign of our arrogance and lack of understanding the phenomena of Nature
> taking care of itself by cleaning house. It's only just begun.
but we can prepare for it.
default
Nov 2, 2012, 11:33:09 AM11/2/12
to
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:08:40 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
>All of these are positive feedbacks speeding up the changes in climate
>and sea-level rise.
>
>"You would expect negative feedbacks to creep in at some point," says
>Hay. "But in climate change, every feedback seems to go positive." The
>reason is that Earth's climate seems to have certain stable states.
>Between those states things are unstable and can change quickly. "Under
>human prodding, the system wants to go into a new climate state."
>
I'm sure negative feedback is occurring. Plants produce more oxygen
>
>All of these are positive feedbacks speeding up the changes in climate
>and sea-level rise.
>
>"You would expect negative feedbacks to creep in at some point," says
>Hay. "But in climate change, every feedback seems to go positive." The
>reason is that Earth's climate seems to have certain stable states.
>Between those states things are unstable and can change quickly. "Under
>human prodding, the system wants to go into a new climate state."
>
and sequester more carbon as they grow faster with increases in CO2.
But considering how fast we cut down forests and pollute the oceans
that hardly can make up for the amount of CO2 released as a result of
burning fuel and global warming itself. It is a system with a
response time measured in centuries and in a positive feedback mode
already.
The system as we know it is going to change big time. Hurricane Sandy
gave NY/NJ a taste of rising sea levels and what it will do to the
electrical distribution and transportation systems they rely on.
Multiply that all over the globe and you begin to get the picture.
Florida will be the new Bahaman islands. Texas, Alabama, etc.. All
of it will shrink a bit displacing millions of people.
Humans will remain in denial even as the water laps at their knees...
Those at higher elevations will just pretend it is someone else's
problem.
Brad Guth
Nov 2, 2012, 10:40:42 AM11/2/12
to
On Nov 2, 7:32 am, default wrote:
Except that a few of us and myself have always offered a number viable
solutions, including better i9nfrastructure and geoengineering that
benefits everyone and everything. Harlow and is redneck Hagar are
essentially providing us with prime examples of what not to do.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
solutions, including better i9nfrastructure and geoengineering that
benefits everyone and everything. Harlow and is redneck Hagar are
essentially providing us with prime examples of what not to do.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
default
Nov 2, 2012, 11:43:23 AM11/2/12
to
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:27:59 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>On 11/2/2012 10:07 AM, H�gar wrote:
>>
>>
>> Humans will adapt to whatever nature throws at us. There ultimately may be a
>> lot less of us, but then we exceeded our occupancy limit a long time ago.
>> But to think that it is within our power to reverse this warming trend is a
>> sign of our arrogance and lack of understanding the phenomena of Nature
>> taking care of itself by cleaning house. It's only just begun.
>
>
>We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>but we can prepare for it.
We can't even afford to prepare for it. You would build dykes around
Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
sea water?
Relocate millions of people?
We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
"prepare?"
>On 11/2/2012 10:07 AM, H�gar wrote:
>>
>>
>> Humans will adapt to whatever nature throws at us. There ultimately may be a
>> lot less of us, but then we exceeded our occupancy limit a long time ago.
>> But to think that it is within our power to reverse this warming trend is a
>> sign of our arrogance and lack of understanding the phenomena of Nature
>> taking care of itself by cleaning house. It's only just begun.
>
>
>We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>but we can prepare for it.
Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
sea water?
Relocate millions of people?
We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
"prepare?"
HVAC
Nov 2, 2012, 10:50:40 AM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 11:43 AM, default wrote:
>
>> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>> but we can prepare for it.
>
> We can't even afford to prepare for it. You would build dykes around
> Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
> sea water?
>
> Relocate millions of people?
>
> We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
> mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
> "prepare?"
What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
>
>> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>> but we can prepare for it.
>
> We can't even afford to prepare for it. You would build dykes around
> Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
> sea water?
>
> Relocate millions of people?
>
> We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
> mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
> "prepare?"
areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
to leave. Fuck em.
Brad Guth
Nov 2, 2012, 10:52:16 AM11/2/12
to
On Nov 2, 7:42 am, default wrote:
We have prepared ourselves as to losing millions of our own kind,
because that's the best we can do besides proxy wars. Americans
simply can not be educated any better.
because that's the best we can do besides proxy wars. Americans
simply can not be educated any better.
default
Nov 2, 2012, 12:32:18 PM11/2/12
to
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:50:40 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>On 11/2/2012 11:43 AM, default wrote:
>>
>>> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>>> but we can prepare for it.
>>
>> We can't even afford to prepare for it. You would build dykes around
>> Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
>> sea water?
>>
>> Relocate millions of people?
>>
>> We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
>> mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
>> "prepare?"
>
>
>What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
>areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
>to leave. Fuck em.
Those morons are numbered in the millions and they vote. We already
>On 11/2/2012 11:43 AM, default wrote:
>>
>>> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>>> but we can prepare for it.
>>
>> We can't even afford to prepare for it. You would build dykes around
>> Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
>> sea water?
>>
>> Relocate millions of people?
>>
>> We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
>> mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
>> "prepare?"
>
>
>What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
>areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
>to leave. Fuck em.
spend inordinate amounts of money in what is euphemistically called
"beach renurishment" etc.. to keep the "morons" happy and living by
the sea.
These days, in my area, that means real estate firms that have bought
up the property, put up high rises and rent it out at exorbitant rates
during the summer and fishing seasons... You are talking about a well
connected, financially motivated, industry who is willing to spend
money to influence financially motivated politicians.
"Bridge to Nowhere" "Big Dig" "Mississippi's Railroad to Nowhere,"
ring any bells?
I have no doubt at all that Congress will find ways to spend money, it
doesn't have, to fund solutions that don't work and both parties do
it.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 2, 2012, 3:07:39 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 7:08 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Another missing feedback is the groundwater being mined all over the
> world to mitigate droughts. That water is ultimately added to the oceans
> (a recent visualization of this effect in the U.S. was posted by NASA's
> Earth Observatory:
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79228).
>
> All of these are positive feedbacks speeding up the changes in climate
> and sea-level rise.
>
> "You would expect negative feedbacks to creep in at some point," says
> Hay. "But in climate change, every feedback seems to go positive." The
> reason is that Earth's climate seems to have certain stable states.
> Between those states things are unstable and can change quickly. "Under
> human prodding, the system wants to go into a new climate state."
>
>
>
>
>
Ground water pumping is correct. And IS changing sea levels. However, it
> Another missing feedback is the groundwater being mined all over the
> world to mitigate droughts. That water is ultimately added to the oceans
> (a recent visualization of this effect in the U.S. was posted by NASA's
> Earth Observatory:
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79228).
>
> All of these are positive feedbacks speeding up the changes in climate
> and sea-level rise.
>
> "You would expect negative feedbacks to creep in at some point," says
> Hay. "But in climate change, every feedback seems to go positive." The
> reason is that Earth's climate seems to have certain stable states.
> Between those states things are unstable and can change quickly. "Under
> human prodding, the system wants to go into a new climate state."
>
>
>
>
>
is not "climate change" due to fossil fuels, fools.
All the "positive feedbacks" on the other hand are pure bullshit. There
is NO science behind any of them and were just invented to cover up the
fact that scientific measurements DO NOT support any of the warmist
theories. Of course, all "feedback" in "Climate change" goes positive.
It's not allowed to be reported any other way! Nevertheless stability
in the Earth's climate has been observed for millions of years being a
STRONG hint that positive feedbacks are not active.
"Climate Science" is the new Atheism.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 2, 2012, 3:11:38 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 9:27 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 11/2/2012 10:07 AM, Hägar wrote:
>>
>>
>> Humans will adapt to whatever nature throws at us. There ultimately
>> may be a
>> lot less of us, but then we exceeded our occupancy limit a long time ago.
>> But to think that it is within our power to reverse this warming trend
>> is a
>> sign of our arrogance and lack of understanding the phenomena of Nature
>> taking care of itself by cleaning house. It's only just begun.
>
>
> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
> but we can prepare for it.
>
>
>
SURE you can "prepare", HVAC. Simply tuck your head between your legs
> On 11/2/2012 10:07 AM, Hägar wrote:
>>
>>
>> Humans will adapt to whatever nature throws at us. There ultimately
>> may be a
>> lot less of us, but then we exceeded our occupancy limit a long time ago.
>> But to think that it is within our power to reverse this warming trend
>> is a
>> sign of our arrogance and lack of understanding the phenomena of Nature
>> taking care of itself by cleaning house. It's only just begun.
>
>
> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
> but we can prepare for it.
>
>
>
and kiss your ass goodbye,if any of your alarmist "positive feedbacks"
actually exist. You have NO more idea of what positive feedback is than
low wit Wormley. I'm still asking for the climate Nyquist diagram to
prove your point. Hey, you are smarter than Warmley, why don't YOU
provide it? Oh I remember. You don't do actual work. "request denied"
is as far as you go.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 2, 2012, 3:12:59 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 9:50 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 11/2/2012 11:43 AM, default wrote:
>>
>>> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>>> but we can prepare for it.
>>
>> We can't even afford to prepare for it. You would build dykes around
>> Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
>> sea water?
>>
>> Relocate millions of people?
>>
>> We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
>> mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
>> "prepare?"
>
>
> What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
> areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
> to leave. Fuck em.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Not "fuck em", Harlow Just good atheist evolutionary policy. Call it
> On 11/2/2012 11:43 AM, default wrote:
>>
>>> We can't reverse it...At least not with our current state of technology,
>>> but we can prepare for it.
>>
>> We can't even afford to prepare for it. You would build dykes around
>> Florida? Pumping stations to keep the Everglades from filling with
>> sea water?
>>
>> Relocate millions of people?
>>
>> We've already demonstrated how quickly we are prepared to act to
>> mitigate the problem, wanna take bets on how fast we move to
>> "prepare?"
>
>
> What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
> areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
> to leave. Fuck em.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"natural selection"
HVAC
Nov 2, 2012, 3:35:27 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 3:12 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>
>> What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
>> areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
>> to leave. Fuck em.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not "fuck em", Harlow Just good atheist evolutionary policy. Call it
> "natural selection"
You love em? Get YOUR ass down there.
>
>>
>> What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
>> areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
>> to leave. Fuck em.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not "fuck em", Harlow Just good atheist evolutionary policy. Call it
> "natural selection"
Brad Guth
Nov 2, 2012, 4:29:47 PM11/2/12
to
On Nov 2, 12:06 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
The true all-inclusive amounts of hydrocarbon burning (including our
organics, chemicals and various bio-fuels (aka human set forest fires)
is simply enormous, not to mention the 25% average energy efficiency
of most everything else humans suck and blow at.
The geothermal contribution of roughly 64 TW is perhaps worth as
little as half of what humans directly and indirectly contribute, and
otherwise figure at the very least being equal to what humans
contribute, not to mention our global dimming via industrial and
atmospheric pollution that includes perhaps sustaining an extra 50e12
tonnes of H2O vapor that we manage to add to the otherwise natural
atmospheric base of 50e12 tonnes.
How little energy and water vapor do you think humanity contributes?
wrote:
organics, chemicals and various bio-fuels (aka human set forest fires)
is simply enormous, not to mention the 25% average energy efficiency
of most everything else humans suck and blow at.
The geothermal contribution of roughly 64 TW is perhaps worth as
little as half of what humans directly and indirectly contribute, and
otherwise figure at the very least being equal to what humans
contribute, not to mention our global dimming via industrial and
atmospheric pollution that includes perhaps sustaining an extra 50e12
tonnes of H2O vapor that we manage to add to the otherwise natural
atmospheric base of 50e12 tonnes.
How little energy and water vapor do you think humanity contributes?
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 2, 2012, 5:05:39 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 2:35 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 11/2/2012 3:12 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
>>> areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
>>> to leave. Fuck em.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not "fuck em", Harlow Just good atheist evolutionary policy. Call it
>> "natural selection"
>
>
> You love em? Get YOUR ass down there.
>
>
>
Hey, Harlow, I already told you Evolution is at least in part true.
> On 11/2/2012 3:12 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What I mean by prepare is prepare to abandon those morons who stay in
>>> areas prone to flooding. No more government money for those who refuse
>>> to leave. Fuck em.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not "fuck em", Harlow Just good atheist evolutionary policy. Call it
>> "natural selection"
>
>
> You love em? Get YOUR ass down there.
>
>
>
I love the Darwin awards.
Of course, I'm against abortion after life begins which is murder. I
generally place that point about 38 years old.
HVAC
Nov 2, 2012, 5:31:45 PM11/2/12
to
On 11/2/2012 5:05 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>
> Hey, Harlow, I already told you Evolution is at least in part true.
You're coming along, BJ. Just listen to every word I say and obey my
>
>
> Hey, Harlow, I already told you Evolution is at least in part true.
commands as if they were the word of the lord himself, and you will turn
out OK.
Larry Stones
Nov 2, 2012, 5:37:44 PM11/2/12
to
║║║╔╚╗╔╣╔║╚║═║║║║ ║╔║║║═║║║║╚╣╔║╚╗
║║║║ ║║║╚║║║═║╚║╚╗ ║║╠╦║═║║║╠╗║╚║║║
╚╩╩╚ ╚╝╚═╚╩╚═╚═╚═╝ ╚╝╚╩╚═╚╩╩╚═╚═╚╩╝
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 2, 2012, 6:32:08 PM11/2/12
to
escape into India; most of that country is less than 40 feet above sea
level.
> Humans will remain in denial even as the water laps at their knees...
> Those at higher elevations will just pretend it is someone else's
> problem.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Double-A
Nov 2, 2012, 6:35:50 PM11/2/12
to
Double-A
Double-A
Nov 2, 2012, 6:37:30 PM11/2/12
to
On Nov 2, 7:07 am, "H gar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HVAC" <h...@physisist.net> wrote in message
least my dumpster can float!
Double-A
Brad Guth
Nov 2, 2012, 9:14:40 PM11/2/12
to
surrounded by their cesspool.
default
Nov 3, 2012, 11:07:39 AM11/3/12
to
yourself if you live in the north) white snow and ice reflects
infrared heat better than blue ocean or green grass or brown rocks
etc.. All you need is a non contact IR thermometer (~$30) snow ice
and a sunny day.
That is "positive feedback." in a context of climate change. Raising
temperatures cause more snow and ice to melt causing more IR to be
absorbed causing more snow and ice to melt and raising temperatures.
But that is very simplistic. We have other positive feedback
mechanisms going at the same time. Warmer oceans release more methane
which causes warmer oceans, melting perma frost raises the temperature
of vegetable detritus frozen for centuries, this vegetable matter
starts decaying and releasing CO2 causing more warming, Ocean currents
and winds become stronger as the differential temperatures across the
globe increase with heating, those in turn cause stronger weather
patterns and ocean currents exacerbating the problem, new droughts
caused by warming lead to more forest fires, which release more CO2
causing increased absorption of heat from the sun....
You are the fool and have been suckered by all the misinformation the
propaganda machines of industry churn out (aided and abetted by all
the neo con religious hucksters).
default
Nov 3, 2012, 11:10:14 AM11/3/12
to
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT), Double-A <doub...@hush.com>
wrote:
Good plan!
Then you get to watch the forest fires rushing up the hill to your
house while you sit in smug denial.
wrote:
Then you get to watch the forest fires rushing up the hill to your
house while you sit in smug denial.
Brad Guth
Nov 3, 2012, 10:17:17 AM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 7:06 am, default wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:07:39 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
Most Americans have long been snookered and dumbfounded past the point
of no return. The few of us as not having been sucked into the
mainstream status-quo vortex of our having to always accept those
public-funded science infomercials and their published eyecandy, are
willing to put up a fight on behalf of the greater good.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:07:39 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
of no return. The few of us as not having been sucked into the
mainstream status-quo vortex of our having to always accept those
public-funded science infomercials and their published eyecandy, are
willing to put up a fight on behalf of the greater good.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/
default
Nov 3, 2012, 12:01:32 PM11/3/12
to
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 07:17:17 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most Americans have long been snookered and dumbfounded past the point
>of no return. The few of us as not having been sucked into the
>mainstream status-quo vortex of our having to always accept those
>public-funded science infomercials and their published eyecandy, are
>willing to put up a fight on behalf of the greater good.
I wouldn't begin to challenge that statement. It is true.
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most Americans have long been snookered and dumbfounded past the point
>of no return. The few of us as not having been sucked into the
>mainstream status-quo vortex of our having to always accept those
>public-funded science infomercials and their published eyecandy, are
>willing to put up a fight on behalf of the greater good.
The problem is there are just as many hucksters on each side of many
issues - each with their own agenda.
Want to have energy independence? Why that's simple! Just pay large
agribusiness subsidies to convert corn food to corn fuel. What could
go wrong with that idea?
bjacoby
Nov 3, 2012, 11:16:17 AM11/3/12
to
"tipping" point is reached and in an instant all snow and ice suddenly
disappears!
And you expect any person with normal intelligence to believe this
patent nonsense from some totally anonymous self-appointed "authority"?
Excuse me I live in the North and the snow does NOT melt that way!
> But that is very simplistic. We have other positive feedback
> mechanisms going at the same time. Warmer oceans release more methane
> which causes warmer oceans, melting perma frost raises the temperature
> of vegetable detritus frozen for centuries, this vegetable matter
> starts decaying and releasing CO2 causing more warming, Ocean currents
> and winds become stronger as the differential temperatures across the
> globe increase with heating, those in turn cause stronger weather
> patterns and ocean currents exacerbating the problem, new droughts
> caused by warming lead to more forest fires, which release more CO2
> causing increased absorption of heat from the sun....
>
> You are the fool and have been suckered by all the misinformation the
> propaganda machines of industry churn out (aided and abetted by all
> the neo con religious hucksters).
>
>
I'm still waiting for the climate nyquist diagram. I'll allow you to
provide it anonymously.
bjacoby
Nov 3, 2012, 11:21:08 AM11/3/12
to
On 11/3/2012 10:10 AM, default wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT), Double-A<doub...@hush.com>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT), Double-A<doub...@hush.com>
>> So when shopping for real estate, buy high!
I heard when something is up it can only go higher! And anyway, in case
of default, the dimocrats will use tax money to cover everyone's
stupidities so (almost) nobody will lose.
> Good plan!
>
> Then you get to watch the forest fires rushing up the hill to your
> house while you sit in smug denial.
anyone would believe some anonymous self-appointed internet climate
"expert"? We've already got our own Sam Wormley if we need any more
bullshit. NASA's Dr. Hansen isn't even anonymous and he's been shown to
be a fraud.
Brad Guth
Nov 3, 2012, 11:50:45 AM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 8:00 am, default wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 07:17:17 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 07:17:17 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
default
Nov 3, 2012, 4:49:29 PM11/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:16:17 -0500, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
Is that the problem? "tipping point" has to be instantaneous? What a
ridiculous idea. The real concept is that once positive feedback is
introduced there's no going back the result augments the cause.
I wouldn't use "tipping point," since it causes the simple minded to
see it as a sudden reversal analogous to "capsize."
What we are seeing is a sudden change in geological terms. But only
"sudden" in geological terms.
What should take centuries and millenniums is taking place in decades.
All at once? No, not in human terms, but very fast for climate
change.
What should take several lifetimes is happening in a fraction of a
lifetime.
you, and from this single observation you presume to know what is
happening on a global scale?
You may actually get colder weather and more snow in some locations
but that is not what is happening on a global scale.
The "authorities" are not "totally anonymous," why would you think
that? All the media hype that tends to jack up the hyperbole while
attributing the data to something like "scientists say!"?
The scientists that actually do research into climate change are peer
reviewed climatologists. Those scientists I tend to trust even if
climatology isn't my field of study - not the idiots the industry
interest groups trot out to cause simpletons to feel secure, and cause
doubt.
>
>> But that is very simplistic. We have other positive feedback
>> mechanisms going at the same time. Warmer oceans release more methane
>> which causes warmer oceans, melting perma frost raises the temperature
>> of vegetable detritus frozen for centuries, this vegetable matter
>> starts decaying and releasing CO2 causing more warming, Ocean currents
>> and winds become stronger as the differential temperatures across the
>> globe increase with heating, those in turn cause stronger weather
>> patterns and ocean currents exacerbating the problem, new droughts
>> caused by warming lead to more forest fires, which release more CO2
>> causing increased absorption of heat from the sun....
>>
>> You are the fool and have been suckered by all the misinformation the
>> propaganda machines of industry churn out (aided and abetted by all
>> the neo con religious hucksters).
>>
>>
>
>The fools are all the people you are trying to "sucker" with your lies.
>I'm still waiting for the climate nyquist diagram. I'll allow you to
>provide it anonymously.
>
Why wait? The data is there if you care to plot it. Too much noise
in the baseline to see the exponential rise?
Now if you actually were to do a nyquist plot, ala control system
feedback, you would have to live for several millennia to see the
system reach an extreme and return to normal. Like someone already
said - the negative feedback is there, we just have to let it work -
humans make the planet uninhabitable for humans, they die off and
nature returns to equilibrium.
We humans are limited to our senses, memories, bigotry, bias, and
short life spans -
I'm an electrical engineer, my problem is the opposite most days -
what I see isn't the whole picture because signals can change faster
than even my equipment can discern. Turn on a light and you have
light instantaneously - but in the switch making contact and the light
coming on, there's room for hundreds of thousands of events to occur.
Or right on target: an analog adjustment to something with a 5 minute
time constant. Make a small adjustment and the meter goes from one
extreme to the other - five minutes after it was adjusted - very hard
to zero the baseline under that circumstance.
wrote:
ridiculous idea. The real concept is that once positive feedback is
introduced there's no going back the result augments the cause.
I wouldn't use "tipping point," since it causes the simple minded to
see it as a sudden reversal analogous to "capsize."
What we are seeing is a sudden change in geological terms. But only
"sudden" in geological terms.
What should take centuries and millenniums is taking place in decades.
All at once? No, not in human terms, but very fast for climate
change.
What should take several lifetimes is happening in a fraction of a
lifetime.
>
>And you expect any person with normal intelligence to believe this
>patent nonsense from some totally anonymous self-appointed "authority"?
> Excuse me I live in the North and the snow does NOT melt that way!
You live in the north? and the snow isn't melting fast enough to suit
>And you expect any person with normal intelligence to believe this
>patent nonsense from some totally anonymous self-appointed "authority"?
> Excuse me I live in the North and the snow does NOT melt that way!
you, and from this single observation you presume to know what is
happening on a global scale?
You may actually get colder weather and more snow in some locations
but that is not what is happening on a global scale.
The "authorities" are not "totally anonymous," why would you think
that? All the media hype that tends to jack up the hyperbole while
attributing the data to something like "scientists say!"?
The scientists that actually do research into climate change are peer
reviewed climatologists. Those scientists I tend to trust even if
climatology isn't my field of study - not the idiots the industry
interest groups trot out to cause simpletons to feel secure, and cause
doubt.
>
>> But that is very simplistic. We have other positive feedback
>> mechanisms going at the same time. Warmer oceans release more methane
>> which causes warmer oceans, melting perma frost raises the temperature
>> of vegetable detritus frozen for centuries, this vegetable matter
>> starts decaying and releasing CO2 causing more warming, Ocean currents
>> and winds become stronger as the differential temperatures across the
>> globe increase with heating, those in turn cause stronger weather
>> patterns and ocean currents exacerbating the problem, new droughts
>> caused by warming lead to more forest fires, which release more CO2
>> causing increased absorption of heat from the sun....
>>
>> You are the fool and have been suckered by all the misinformation the
>> propaganda machines of industry churn out (aided and abetted by all
>> the neo con religious hucksters).
>>
>>
>
>The fools are all the people you are trying to "sucker" with your lies.
>I'm still waiting for the climate nyquist diagram. I'll allow you to
>provide it anonymously.
>
in the baseline to see the exponential rise?
Now if you actually were to do a nyquist plot, ala control system
feedback, you would have to live for several millennia to see the
system reach an extreme and return to normal. Like someone already
said - the negative feedback is there, we just have to let it work -
humans make the planet uninhabitable for humans, they die off and
nature returns to equilibrium.
We humans are limited to our senses, memories, bigotry, bias, and
short life spans -
I'm an electrical engineer, my problem is the opposite most days -
what I see isn't the whole picture because signals can change faster
than even my equipment can discern. Turn on a light and you have
light instantaneously - but in the switch making contact and the light
coming on, there's room for hundreds of thousands of events to occur.
Or right on target: an analog adjustment to something with a 5 minute
time constant. Make a small adjustment and the meter goes from one
extreme to the other - five minutes after it was adjusted - very hard
to zero the baseline under that circumstance.
default
Nov 3, 2012, 4:57:42 PM11/3/12
to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:21:08 -0500, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
CO2 does not start forest fires. Changing climate patterns can make
arid land wet and wet land arid.
It is a fact that there has been a drought condition in the mid west
for several years now and the number and severity of forest fires has
increased dramatically.
Climate change may be the culprit. Not a given, certainly, but a
strong possibility.
wrote:
arid land wet and wet land arid.
It is a fact that there has been a drought condition in the mid west
for several years now and the number and severity of forest fires has
increased dramatically.
Climate change may be the culprit. Not a given, certainly, but a
strong possibility.
Brad Guth
Nov 3, 2012, 3:58:52 PM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 12:48 pm, default wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:16:17 -0500, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> >> <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
I happen to have a very long-term geoengineering solution to GW + AGW
that involves moving our moon out to Earth L1, and interactively
keeping it there.
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:16:17 -0500, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 11/3/2012 10:07 AM, default wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:07:39 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 11/3/2012 10:07 AM, default wrote:
> >> <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
that involves moving our moon out to Earth L1, and interactively
keeping it there.
default
Nov 3, 2012, 5:00:17 PM11/3/12
to
to believe the holy horse shit politicians come up with.
default
Nov 3, 2012, 5:24:02 PM11/3/12
to
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I happen to have a very long-term geoengineering solution to GW + AGW
>that involves moving our moon out to Earth L1, and interactively
>keeping it there.
That's silly! Even George Bush would say so; in fact it fails his
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I happen to have a very long-term geoengineering solution to GW + AGW
>that involves moving our moon out to Earth L1, and interactively
>keeping it there.
litmus test for climatology solutions:
On September 28, 2007 George W. Bush stated that the US now accepted
that climate change was occurring, and that the US would take steps to
mitigate it, "so long as that did not interfere with economic growth."
Obviously shuttling planets around like dust motes is bound to be
expensive and "interfere with economic growth."
In a finite world nothing can grow forever - but try telling that to
an economist or politician.
Brad Guth
Nov 3, 2012, 4:27:26 PM11/3/12
to
economics, insider trading and proxy wars that tend to drag on
forever, fertilizers have to be artificially created as is, and
otherwise topsoil erosion via too much rain and otherwise via piss
poor farming infrastructure plus getting dried out and literally
blowing in the wind, as such isn't exactly looking good for a
sustainable resource of bio-synfuels that'll always have to compete
with natural hydrocarbons.
I haven't been putting all that much faith in the "holy horse shit
politicians come up with" since early 1967. Sorry about that.
default
Nov 3, 2012, 6:52:36 PM11/3/12
to
After all who are you gonna trust some heathen atheist scientist who
believes in evolution, or some god-fearing, right-thinking, God's
honest, career politician?
You are preaching to the choir. I had a "Social Studies" teacher in
high school who pretty much told us what we'd be seeing today, if
things didn't change, and that was in '63 or '64. Now I wish I'd paid
more attention to him. He was spot on, except he didn't imagine how
corrupt the government would become in 50 years.
Brad Guth
Nov 3, 2012, 6:04:56 PM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 2:51 pm, default wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 13:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 13:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
we pretend to elect and/or appoint leadership from within the ranks of
our own kind, is sort of tightly gripped by our private parts.
However, if we eliminate even the upper most 0.0001% (one out of every
million), could make a significant correction in the over-the-cliff
course that we're on.
Perhaps we should make a list and keep updating it, as to documenting
who is most responsible for the colossal mess we're in.
Brad Guth
Nov 3, 2012, 6:10:32 PM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 1:23 pm, default wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
constructive attributes of having relocated our trusty moon to Earth
L1. It's not as simplistic nor benefit limited as simply pulling it
out and parking it within the halo orbit of our L1 for accomplishing
that 3+% spot of shade.
default
Nov 3, 2012, 11:34:37 PM11/3/12
to
of whack with nature. We should be limiting human populations to
shrink the unnatural load we impose on natural systems.
Relocating the moon? What impact will that have on tides and the
species that depend on them? What will that do to weather patterns?
I assume you are going for something like a perpetual lunar eclipse of
the sun?
Wouldn't it be less costly and least disruptive to just put many small
lightweight reflectors in orbit to achieve the same thing? Assuming
that the decrease in light wouldn't adversely affect plant growth on
earth. Aha, something like dichroic reflectors (reflect the long wave
heat energy, while passing shorter wavelengths of visible light) Thin
film polyester dichroic reflectors - cheap light weight low tech.
Or take a liability like aircraft pollution and add something to the
jet engines to make high altitude contrails last longer or become
denser?
All solutions contain the seeds of other problems - engineering axiom.
Limit population and you limit pollution, war, starvation, etc..
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 4, 2012, 12:18:02 AM11/4/12
to
On 11/3/2012 3:49 PM, default wrote:
> I wouldn't use "tipping point," since it causes the simple minded to
> see it as a sudden reversal analogous to "capsize."
Nobody with a brain would.
> I wouldn't use "tipping point," since it causes the simple minded to
> see it as a sudden reversal analogous to "capsize."
> What we are seeing is a sudden change in geological terms. But only
> "sudden" in geological terms.
destruction of mankind in how many million years?
> What should take centuries and millenniums is taking place in decades.
> All at once? No, not in human terms, but very fast for climate
> change.
>
> What should take several lifetimes is happening in a fraction of a
> lifetime.
>> And you expect any person with normal intelligence to believe this
>> patent nonsense from some totally anonymous self-appointed "authority"?
>> Excuse me I live in the North and the snow does NOT melt that way!
>
> You live in the north? and the snow isn't melting fast enough to suit
> you, and from this single observation you presume to know what is
> happening on a global scale?
>
> You may actually get colder weather and more snow in some locations
> but that is not what is happening on a global scale.
>
> The "authorities" are not "totally anonymous," why would you think
> that? All the media hype that tends to jack up the hyperbole while
> attributing the data to something like "scientists say!"?
>
> The scientists that actually do research into climate change are peer
> reviewed climatologists. Those scientists I tend to trust even if
> climatology isn't my field of study - not the idiots the industry
> interest groups trot out to cause simpletons to feel secure, and cause
> doubt.
dollars per year "carbon taxes" like say NASA's Dr. Hansen? So here is
some of Dr. Hansen's scary data:
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSJUNE.htm
We'll wait while you point out the "warming" that has taken place in the
last decade that used to take millions of years.
Just who do you think is fooled with your anonymous bullshit?
>> The fools are all the people you are trying to "sucker" with your lies.
>> I'm still waiting for the climate nyquist diagram. I'll allow you to
>> provide it anonymously.
>>
> Why wait? The data is there if you care to plot it. Too much noise
> in the baseline to see the exponential rise?
cornered you are already laying ground work for your excuses!
> Now if you actually were to do a nyquist plot, ala control system
> feedback, you would have to live for several millennia to see the
> system reach an extreme and return to normal. Like someone already
> said - the negative feedback is there, we just have to let it work -
> humans make the planet uninhabitable for humans, they die off and
> nature returns to equilibrium.
"climate science", but it's all unmeasurable! And it's millienia in the
future, but we need that TRILLION dollars per year energy tax NOW to
"save" us all! And you have the anonymous gall to whine about "industry
interests"? Can you spell hypocrite? I KNEW that you could.
> We humans are limited to our senses, memories, bigotry, bias, and
> short life spans -
>
> I'm an electrical engineer, my problem is the opposite most days -
> what I see isn't the whole picture because signals can change faster
> than even my equipment can discern. Turn on a light and you have
> light instantaneously - but in the switch making contact and the light
> coming on, there's room for hundreds of thousands of events to occur.
political propaganda. Or IF you want to stick you nose in there you
certainly have enough education to actually take a fair look at the REAL
science instead of the Wormley lies and dreams.
try here:
For example this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/#more-73662
Which shows what liars the peer-reviewed so-called climate scientists
are; in this case Dr. Mann of hockey stick fame.
IPCC responds to latest propaganda efforts to erroneously portray Dr.
Mann as a Nobel laureate. Dr. Mann did not renounce such fraudulent
efforts.
"The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any
individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to
any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel
laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a
scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way:
“X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”"
This kind of scandal based on perjury and prevarications is typical of
the AGW crowd. And you as an honest working engineer want to defame your
reputation by hooking your wagon to that bunch of fraudsters? You aren't
thinking very straight. No wonder you stay anonymous! Think you can stay
that way forever?
> Or right on target: an analog adjustment to something with a 5 minute
> time constant. Make a small adjustment and the meter goes from one
> extreme to the other - five minutes after it was adjusted - very hard
> to zero the baseline under that circumstance.
should try to make them anyway? By your OWN arguments doing NOTHING is
FAR better and far SAFER than trying to "fix" things! Think about it.
Wally W.
Nov 4, 2012, 1:25:15 AM11/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:18:02 -0500, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/#more-73662
>
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/#more-73662
Wally W.
Nov 4, 2012, 1:36:48 AM11/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:18:02 -0500, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/#more-73662
Nice title.
>
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/#more-73662
Weasels don't get sucked into jet engines,
but cannibalistic animals don't herd well.
So much for the "consensus" as the house of cards begins to fall.
Brad Guth
Nov 4, 2012, 5:27:09 AM11/4/12
to
benefit everyone and every living thing on Earth, not to mention
making our moon a whole lot better suited as for living upon or
within.
Perhaps if you can't be bothered to think constructively, then why
bother thinking at all. Any damn fool can think and act obstructively
and create a purely negative intellectual feedback environment with
regard to most anything. It takes real brains and a healthy
motivation to consider what good can be derived out of the relocation
of our moon, and there's certainly a lot to consider.
>
> I assume you are going for something like a perpetual lunar eclipse of
> the sun?
be slightly (+/- .5%) adjusted to suit with the amount of energy
that's artificially beamed back to Earth.
Nothing about the moon relocation happens quickly, nor without great
effort and investment. BTW; how much is the salvaging of the whole
planet Earth worth nowadays?
It seems as is, the all-inclusive global cost of sticking with our
mainstream status-quo, runs in the trillions of those extra hard
earned dollars per year in order to cover what those excessive tides,
plus the increasing seismic issues and what the GW+AGW of subsequent
nasty storms is obviously capable of doing to us.
>
> Wouldn't it be less costly and least disruptive to just put many small
> lightweight reflectors in orbit to achieve the same thing? Assuming
> that the decrease in light wouldn't adversely affect plant growth on
> earth. Aha, something like dichroic reflectors (reflect the long wave
> heat energy, while passing shorter wavelengths of visible light) Thin
> film polyester dichroic reflectors - cheap light weight low tech.
or even making a minimal effort.
>
> Or take a liability like aircraft pollution and add something to the
> jet engines to make high altitude contrails last longer or become
> denser?
>
> All solutions contain the seeds of other problems - engineering axiom.
>
> Limit population and you limit pollution, war, starvation, etc..
resources of peak Earth, and that peak of global resource depletion is
getting quite near to what the next generations of K12+ educated
idiots that can't actually think deductively for themselves, much less
on behalf of anyone else, will have to live with and pay dearly for,
or having to fight yet another proxy war.
However, exploiting our moon and the extremely nearby planet Venus is
within the capability and expertise of what at least some of us should
be doing.
The positive and/or constructive list of what we could be doing with
our moon, especially if it were relocated to Earth L1, is actually
quite extensive. GuthVenus is just a perfectly good example of what
any truly smart individuals could accomplish if properly motivated,
instead of their being systematically unmotivated by those with
multiple vested interest in sustaining their terrestrial mainstream
status-quo.
What sort of weird planet geology, or that of its active geodynamics,
looks or acts anything like this?
Thumbnail images of Venus, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
The matter of fact is, not even the most active moon (Io) of Jupiter
offers up anything like this remarkable degree of surface geology with
such unusually symmetrical looking complexity, and there’s certainly
nothing remotely artificial looking with anything discovered thus far
about the planet Mars or that of any other planet or moon to speak of,
outside of planet Venus that gets within 110 LD every 19 months (any
closer and we’d have to reevaluate Venus as a NEO).
default
Nov 4, 2012, 11:36:56 AM11/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:18:02 -0500, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 11/3/2012 3:49 PM, default wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't use "tipping point," since it causes the simple minded to
>> see it as a sudden reversal analogous to "capsize."
>
>Nobody with a brain would.
Neat the way you snipped your statement, to wit:
>On 11/3/2012 3:49 PM, default wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't use "tipping point," since it causes the simple minded to
>> see it as a sudden reversal analogous to "capsize."
>
>Nobody with a brain would.
"So once snow starts to melt, "positive feedback" takes over and BAM!
The "tipping" point is reached and in an instant all snow and ice
suddenly disappears! "
>
>> What we are seeing is a sudden change in geological terms. But only
>> "sudden" in geological terms.
>
>Ah. Geological terms! So the big breathless panic is over total
>destruction of mankind in how many million years?
cataclysmic changes enclaves of "mankind" would probably adapt and
survive. We are like cockroaches in that respect.
But that doesn't mean large numbers of people, plants and animals
won't suffer because of climate change. We act like we own the planet
and can do no wrong. We should be stewards of the earth's resources
and learn to live without destroying that which supports us.
>
>> What should take centuries and millenniums is taking place in decades.
>> All at once? No, not in human terms, but very fast for climate
>> change.
>>
>> What should take several lifetimes is happening in a fraction of a
>> lifetime.
>
>Not only is this total bullshit, but it's not even true.
So you bought into the whole misinformation product of a wealthy
>> What should take centuries and millenniums is taking place in decades.
>> All at once? No, not in human terms, but very fast for climate
>> change.
>>
>> What should take several lifetimes is happening in a fraction of a
>> lifetime.
>
>Not only is this total bullshit, but it's not even true.
industrial bases propaganda. Makes you feel secure - and absolves you
of guilt I suppose.
>
>>> And you expect any person with normal intelligence to believe this
>>> patent nonsense from some totally anonymous self-appointed "authority"?
>>> Excuse me I live in the North and the snow does NOT melt that way!
>>
>> You live in the north? and the snow isn't melting fast enough to suit
>> you, and from this single observation you presume to know what is
>> happening on a global scale?
>>
>> You may actually get colder weather and more snow in some locations
>> but that is not what is happening on a global scale.
>>
>> The "authorities" are not "totally anonymous," why would you think
>> that? All the media hype that tends to jack up the hyperbole while
>> attributing the data to something like "scientists say!"?
>>
>> The scientists that actually do research into climate change are peer
>> reviewed climatologists. Those scientists I tend to trust even if
>> climatology isn't my field of study - not the idiots the industry
>> interest groups trot out to cause simpletons to feel secure, and cause
>> doubt.
>
>So you believe people who became millionaires promoting the trillion
>dollars per year "carbon taxes" like say NASA's Dr. Hansen? So here is
>some of Dr. Hansen's scary data:
>
>http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSJUNE.htm
>
>We'll wait while you point out the "warming" that has taken place in the
>last decade that used to take millions of years.
>
>Just who do you think is fooled with your anonymous bullshit?
>
Care to put some provenance behind your post? Exactly who is:
>>> And you expect any person with normal intelligence to believe this
>>> patent nonsense from some totally anonymous self-appointed "authority"?
>>> Excuse me I live in the North and the snow does NOT melt that way!
>>
>> You live in the north? and the snow isn't melting fast enough to suit
>> you, and from this single observation you presume to know what is
>> happening on a global scale?
>>
>> You may actually get colder weather and more snow in some locations
>> but that is not what is happening on a global scale.
>>
>> The "authorities" are not "totally anonymous," why would you think
>> that? All the media hype that tends to jack up the hyperbole while
>> attributing the data to something like "scientists say!"?
>>
>> The scientists that actually do research into climate change are peer
>> reviewed climatologists. Those scientists I tend to trust even if
>> climatology isn't my field of study - not the idiots the industry
>> interest groups trot out to cause simpletons to feel secure, and cause
>> doubt.
>
>So you believe people who became millionaires promoting the trillion
>dollars per year "carbon taxes" like say NASA's Dr. Hansen? So here is
>some of Dr. Hansen's scary data:
>
>http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSJUNE.htm
>
>We'll wait while you point out the "warming" that has taken place in the
>last decade that used to take millions of years.
>
>Just who do you think is fooled with your anonymous bullshit?
>
"mrk-inc.com/users/bspam"
Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Or better for decade resolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
Source: giss.nasa.gov
sound of crickets.....
>
>>> The fools are all the people you are trying to "sucker" with your lies.
>>> I'm still waiting for the climate nyquist diagram. I'll allow you to
>>> provide it anonymously.
>>>
>> Why wait? The data is there if you care to plot it. Too much noise
>> in the baseline to see the exponential rise?
>
>I'm not making any "positive feedback claims. You are. And yet when
>cornered you are already laying ground work for your excuses!
>> Now if you actually were to do a nyquist plot, ala control system
>> feedback, you would have to live for several millennia to see the
>> system reach an extreme and return to normal. Like someone already
>> said - the negative feedback is there, we just have to let it work -
>> humans make the planet uninhabitable for humans, they die off and
>> nature returns to equilibrium.
>
>Oh, I see, it's all super-scary end-of-the-world "peer-reviewed"
>"climate science", but it's all unmeasurable! And it's millienia in the
>future, but we need that TRILLION dollars per year energy tax NOW to
>"save" us all! And you have the anonymous gall to whine about "industry
>interests"? Can you spell hypocrite? I KNEW that you could.
mine. The difference between us is that I want others to be able to
experience what I have in my lifetime.
I am not taking the selfish inconsiderate approach to life that seems
to characterize republicans and evangelicals these days.
If that isn't important to you I'd say you lack empathy.
AS for the money... Governments will waste trillions of dollars no
matter what. It is what they do. Even when they are claiming to
"help" they find ways to pocket the money and channel it into the
least efficient solutions their corporate pay-masters dictate.
sucking politician in my opinion who quite coincidentally got it right
one time in a row.
'Even a blind squirrel gathers a few acorns'
Brad Guth
Nov 4, 2012, 11:42:14 AM11/4/12
to
On Nov 4, 7:36 am, default wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:18:02 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
> Or better for decade resolution:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-201...
> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-...
> >Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.�"
offering acorns to those of the blind AGW naysay persuasion.
Actually, I favor a culling of those unable to reason with any regard
to the best available science, because what if any honest good are
they.
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:18:02 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
>
> >Which shows what liars the peer-reviewed so-called climate scientists
> >are; in this case Dr. Mann of hockey stick fame.
>
> >IPCC responds to latest propaganda efforts to erroneously portray Dr.
> >Mann as a Nobel laureate. Dr. Mann did not renounce such fraudulent
> >efforts.
>
> >"The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any
> >individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to
> >any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel
> >laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a
> >scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way:
> >�X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the
> >Which shows what liars the peer-reviewed so-called climate scientists
> >are; in this case Dr. Mann of hockey stick fame.
>
> >IPCC responds to latest propaganda efforts to erroneously portray Dr.
> >Mann as a Nobel laureate. Dr. Mann did not renounce such fraudulent
> >efforts.
>
> >"The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any
> >individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to
> >any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel
> >laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a
> >scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way:
> >Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.�"
>
> >This kind of scandal based on perjury and prevarications is typical of
> >the AGW crowd. And you as an honest working engineer want to defame your
> >reputation by hooking your wagon to that bunch of fraudsters? You aren't
> >thinking very straight. No wonder you stay anonymous! Think you can stay
> >that way forever?
>
> >> Or right on target: an analog adjustment to something with a 5 minute
> >> time constant. Make a small adjustment and the meter goes from one
> >> extreme to the other - five minutes after it was adjusted - very hard
> >> to zero the baseline under that circumstance.
>
> >So your argument is that such "ajustements" are impossible, but we
> >should try to make them anyway? By your OWN arguments doing NOTHING is
> >FAR better and far SAFER than trying to "fix" things! Think about it.
>
> That seems to be the presentation to Al Gore - just another lying scum
> sucking politician in my opinion who quite coincidentally got it right
> one time in a row.
>
> 'Even a blind squirrel gathers a few acorns'
Then perhaps we should cut our social and political losses by only
> >This kind of scandal based on perjury and prevarications is typical of
> >the AGW crowd. And you as an honest working engineer want to defame your
> >reputation by hooking your wagon to that bunch of fraudsters? You aren't
> >thinking very straight. No wonder you stay anonymous! Think you can stay
> >that way forever?
>
> >> Or right on target: an analog adjustment to something with a 5 minute
> >> time constant. Make a small adjustment and the meter goes from one
> >> extreme to the other - five minutes after it was adjusted - very hard
> >> to zero the baseline under that circumstance.
>
> >So your argument is that such "ajustements" are impossible, but we
> >should try to make them anyway? By your OWN arguments doing NOTHING is
> >FAR better and far SAFER than trying to "fix" things! Think about it.
>
> That seems to be the presentation to Al Gore - just another lying scum
> sucking politician in my opinion who quite coincidentally got it right
> one time in a row.
>
> 'Even a blind squirrel gathers a few acorns'
offering acorns to those of the blind AGW naysay persuasion.
Actually, I favor a culling of those unable to reason with any regard
to the best available science, because what if any honest good are
they.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 4, 2012, 12:18:37 PM11/4/12
to
On 11/4/2012 11:36 AM, default wrote:
> That seems to be the presentation to Al Gore - just another lying scum
> sucking politician in my opinion who quite coincidentally got it right
> one time in a row.
>
> 'Even a blind squirrel gathers a few acorns'
Pretty good assessment of Algore, except for the part about "getting it
> That seems to be the presentation to Al Gore - just another lying scum
> sucking politician in my opinion who quite coincidentally got it right
> one time in a row.
>
> 'Even a blind squirrel gathers a few acorns'
right".
35 scientific errors at least nine of them established in a court of law!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Seems he was gathering pebbles telling everyone they were acorns.
default
Nov 5, 2012, 9:55:19 AM11/5/12
to
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:42:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Then perhaps we should cut our social and political losses by only
>offering acorns to those of the blind AGW naysay persuasion.
>Actually, I favor a culling of those unable to reason with any regard
>to the best available science, because what if any honest good are
>they.
I think your solutions tend towards the draconian and overly
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Then perhaps we should cut our social and political losses by only
>offering acorns to those of the blind AGW naysay persuasion.
>Actually, I favor a culling of those unable to reason with any regard
>to the best available science, because what if any honest good are
>they.
simplistic.
Humans, like most animals, have a complex DNA code. What scientists,
or more appropriately the media's interpretation of what scientists
say, is that there is "junk DNA" simply because they could see no need
for it.
But if you look at adaptation among animals, they seem able (within
narrow margins) to make some relatively large evolutionary changes
within small time frames. For example the birds that evolve different
beaks for different food sources, lizards that change their color to
blend in better with their environment, etc.. Seemingly
"evolutionary" changes that take place in a few decades, not millions
of years.
I think the same holds true for humans. We have a lot in our DNA that
isn't "activated" but remains dormant in most people. when you start
to say things like "culling" humans to select for specific traits or
reject others, you can inadvertently remove traits that may come in
handy some day - removing our ability to adapt, resist diseases,
develop physically, etc..
We have a lot of, ostensibly, "useless" people, but those people are
still a repository for DNA that could be advantageous. And who would
decide? You may say that musicians, or artists, or just people that
are hard to get along with should go.
As someone once wrote: "Prima donnas aren't paid for their
personalities, they are paid for their singing." Who decides who gets
to stay and who goes?
Like breeding plants for "desirable" characteristics, while losing the
hardiness of the "primitive" versions.
In the case of people, you can bet it would be politicians making the
choices.
default
Nov 5, 2012, 10:06:19 AM11/5/12
to
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:18:37 -0500, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 11/4/2012 11:36 AM, default wrote:
>
>> That seems to be the presentation to Al Gore - just another lying scum
>> sucking politician in my opinion who quite coincidentally got it right
>> one time in a row.
>>
>> 'Even a blind squirrel gathers a few acorns'
>
>Pretty good assessment of Algore, except for the part about "getting it
>right".
>
All career politicians are greedy antisocial scum sucking liars in my
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 11/4/2012 11:36 AM, default wrote:
>
>> That seems to be the presentation to Al Gore - just another lying scum
>> sucking politician in my opinion who quite coincidentally got it right
>> one time in a row.
>>
>> 'Even a blind squirrel gathers a few acorns'
>
>Pretty good assessment of Algore, except for the part about "getting it
>right".
>
opinion. I think the job and selection process only admits those who
have those traits.
>
>35 scientific errors at least nine of them established in a court of law!
>
>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
>
>Seems he was gathering pebbles telling everyone they were acorns.
There are errors in the errors too.
>35 scientific errors at least nine of them established in a court of law!
>
>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
>
>Seems he was gathering pebbles telling everyone they were acorns.
I remember listening to some political hack "scientist" (only by
virtue of the PhD he had on his wall) wax poetic about the abundance
on earth and why we shouldn't worry about running out of critical
resources. Seemingly ignorant of the fact that while "production" has
indeed increased for the metals he was crowing about, the measures
taken to extract the minerals have become more advanced, much more
expensive, and more harmful to the environment.
HVAC
Nov 5, 2012, 10:09:48 AM11/5/12
to
On 11/5/2012 9:55 AM, default wrote:
>
>
> We have a lot of, ostensibly, "useless" people, but those people are
> still a repository for DNA that could be advantageous. And who would
> decide? You may say that musicians, or artists, or just people that
> are hard to get along with should go.
>
> As someone once wrote: "Prima donnas aren't paid for their
> personalities, they are paid for their singing." Who decides who gets
> to stay and who goes?
I volunteer myself for this difficult job.
>
>
> We have a lot of, ostensibly, "useless" people, but those people are
> still a repository for DNA that could be advantageous. And who would
> decide? You may say that musicians, or artists, or just people that
> are hard to get along with should go.
>
> As someone once wrote: "Prima donnas aren't paid for their
> personalities, they are paid for their singing." Who decides who gets
> to stay and who goes?
Then we would truly have some change. At least 99% of all people on the
planet would be culled. Most continents would be laid to waste after I
was done. A few of my friends and family, plus a lot of hot girls, would
be left. Everyone else would be expunged from the human record.
--
"I'm Harlow Campbell and I approved this message"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg
Brad Guth
Nov 5, 2012, 10:49:28 AM11/5/12
to
On Nov 5, 6:54 am, default wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:42:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:42:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
>
but then our species lost most of the really nifty DNA code that would
have been highly advantageous as to improving our survival quality of
life and improved intelligence within this changing environment.
Apparently humans have been getting negative breed in order to
eliminate a fair number of highly desirable biophysical attributes, as
well as reduced intelligence seems to be the most recent evolutionary
process.
HVAC
Nov 5, 2012, 11:09:54 AM11/5/12
to
On 11/5/2012 10:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> Apparently humans have been getting negative breed in order to
> eliminate a fair number of highly desirable biophysical attributes, as
> well as reduced intelligence seems to be the most recent evolutionary
> process.
Certainly that is true...At least in *your* case.
>
> Apparently humans have been getting negative breed in order to
> eliminate a fair number of highly desirable biophysical attributes, as
> well as reduced intelligence seems to be the most recent evolutionary
> process.
Brad Guth
Nov 5, 2012, 12:21:06 PM11/5/12
to
On Nov 5, 7:05 am, default wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:18:37 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
Apparently the spilling of our blood and the secondary issues of a
forever damaged and/or depleted environment isn't a problem for the
Oligarchs and Rothschilds, and therefore the lower 99.9% of us should
just buck-up, pay whatever's the going price and stop our whining.
Just because Al Gore, Clinton and ourselves care about the here and
now, as well as what future generations will get to pay dearly for, is
apparently not a good enough reason for anyone else to give a tinkers
damn.
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:18:37 -0500, "bjac...@teranews.com"
forever damaged and/or depleted environment isn't a problem for the
Oligarchs and Rothschilds, and therefore the lower 99.9% of us should
just buck-up, pay whatever's the going price and stop our whining.
Just because Al Gore, Clinton and ourselves care about the here and
now, as well as what future generations will get to pay dearly for, is
apparently not a good enough reason for anyone else to give a tinkers
damn.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Nov 5, 2012, 6:14:53 PM11/5/12
to
[Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.5{3.14.PM.Seattle.2012}] H⋅Vac ( Hard⋅Vacuum ) is a teenage boy who never grew up, he likes his women DUMB and young. His idea of fun is harrassing old men, day in and day out ! Like Uncle "Idiot" Al, he advocates killing everyone but his friends, family and "hot girls". Suppose the girls get old and/or won't fuck him, would he kill them too ? ! He's a SERIOUS RETARD, no lie. Welcome to my my "Avoid:" list, H⋅Vac.
Brad Guth
Nov 5, 2012, 7:36:33 PM11/5/12
to
On Nov 5, 3:14 pm, Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
> [Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.5{3.14.PM.Seattle.2012}] H⋅Vac ( Hard⋅Vacuum ) is a teenage boy who never grew up, he likes his women DUMB and young. His idea of fun is harrassing old men, day in and day out ! Like Uncle "Idiot" Al, he advocates killing everyone but his friends, family and "hot girls". Suppose the girls get old and/or won't fuck him, would he kill them too ? ! He's a SERIOUS RETARD, no lie. Welcome to mymy "Avoid:" list, H⋅Vac.
Harlow is getting brain-drained, fluid bypassed and hydrated via
> [Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.5{3.14.PM.Seattle.2012}] H⋅Vac ( Hard⋅Vacuum ) is a teenage boy who never grew up, he likes his women DUMB and young. His idea of fun is harrassing old men, day in and day out ! Like Uncle "Idiot" Al, he advocates killing everyone but his friends, family and "hot girls". Suppose the girls get old and/or won't fuck him, would he kill them too ? ! He's a SERIOUS RETARD, no lie. Welcome to mymy "Avoid:" list, H⋅Vac.
tubes, plus otherwise medicated, so he dreams a lot.
You on the other hand seem to get your kicks out of topic hijackings.
What did your reply have to do with "Sea Level Rising Faster"?
0 new messages