So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy?
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
I don't say that you give a shit about GW because then it may
fertilize a beautiful flower; you are actually doing all you can to
fuck up the planet. Please say your humble contribution to GW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The money jungle is as different from the monkey jungle as night and
day"
The Henchman
"TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle"
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5ec3760d-33b1-430b...@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
>
> I don't say that you give a shit about GW because then it may
> fertilize a beautiful flower; you are actually doing all you can to
> fuck up the planet. Please say your humble contribution to GW.
>
>
You are a retard, and not a single one of your POASTS makes sense.
Retard!
TheTibetanMonkey
> "TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ec3760d-33b1-430b...@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> > you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> > perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> > candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
>
> > I don't say that you give a shit about GW because then it may
> > fertilize a beautiful flower; you are actually doing all you can to
> > fuck up the planet. Please say your humble contribution to GW.
>
> You are a retard, and not a single one of your POASTS makes sense.
>
> Retard!
I can make more sense in one paragraph than the whole Bible. But some
mental effort is required.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
(I quote)
Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that
was not predicted to happen until 2040.
...
At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
decision.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
***
HOW MUCH LONGER CAN YOU IGNORE THE SIGNS?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Klipstein
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>
>Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
>are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>
>I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>
>(I quote)
>
>Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
>that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
>summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
>Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
>was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>
>...
>
>At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>decision.
1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
the above.
And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
stretch, if at all).
Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
by most proponents of AGW's existence.
I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
jeff
> In <8908100d-a18c-4880...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>>
>> At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>> (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>> of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>> increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>> decision.
>
> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
> the above.
Of course, the problem is just where those populations are declining
and advancing.
>
> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
> stretch, if at all).
The trouble here is that all evidence is for acceleration, not a
decline. Last year was tied for the warmest in recent history and in the
southern hemisphere, dramatically the warmest ever.
> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
very very long time.
>
> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.
The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
Although they have little to no evidence of that.
The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
not going away.
The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
make no distinction between climate and weather.
What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
throughout the US.
Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.
It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.
What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
will be.
Jeff
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Cindy Hamilton
enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
Outdoor hot tub. We keep it warm all year round in Michigan.
No need to bully cyclists here. Most of them know their place.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
WOULD JESUS EAT POPCORN WITH BUTTER OR WITHOUT BUTTER?
I just discovered the universe of hot air popcorn, and I know the
Christians love waste, junk food and hot air, so HOW WOULD JESUS EAT
POPCORN?
I, the Wise Tibetan Monkey, preach and practice MODERATION and eat my
popcorn plain. WHAT WOULD JESUS THINK ABOUT ALL THAT CHRISTIAN WASTE?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Moderation is the Golden Rule of the jungle, but it's good to spice
things up!"
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> Don Klipstein wrote:
> > In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
There are two areas however where the damage is visible and
irrefutable: ENDANGERED SPECIES and DEFORESTATION, one tied to the
other. The problem is that the Christians don't know there's a WEB OF
LIFE, and they think they are entitled by God to be the TOP PREDATOR.
Here's a partial list...
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Feb 15, 8:57 am, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, furlan <magicus23REMOVE-T...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:42:24 -0800, Mike Painter wrote:
> > "Flavacol
>
> Thanks for the heads up about this product. I have found it through
> Google and will be looking into it...
>
FLAVACOL contains:
Ingredients: Salt, artificial butter flavor, yellow #5 lake (E102) and
yellow #6 lake (110)
The spicy stuff is:
MORTON SEASON ALL... SEASONED SALT
Ingredients: Salt. spices (chili pepper, black pepper, celery seed),
onion, paprika, maltodextrin, garlic, silicon dioxide and annato
color.
I prefer my choice since it's more natural and still cheap. Great with
beer. No plastic butter necessary.
Actually since I propose an EPICUREAN REVOLUTION based on simple,
healthy foods, I propose the Popcorn Revolution for America. Back to
basics, right?
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>> In <8908100d-a18c-4880...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>>> (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>>> of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>>> increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>>> decision.
>>
>> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
>> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
>> the above.
>
> Of course, the problem is just where those populations are declining
>and advancing.
>>
>> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
>> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
>> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
>> stretch, if at all).
>
>The trouble here is that all evidence is for acceleration, not a
>decline. Last year was tied for the warmest in recent history and in the
>southern hemisphere, dramatically the warmest ever.
Make that "almost tied" in some words I have heard, and "tied for 2nd"
in my words:
+.57 degree C above 1951-1980 baseline in 2009
+.57 in 2007
+.63 in 2005
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
That is the GISS index of global temperature anomaly, one of 5 major
ones. 3 of the other 4 have the warmest year being 1998 (big El Nino
spike).
>> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
>> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
>> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
>> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>
> Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
>the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
>counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
>much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
>CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
>very very long time.
That still does not change the fact that about 30% of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas effect we have incurred so far is from increases of
greenhouse gases whose atmospheric concentration we recently stalled,
not from CO2. And you note that the most significant one of these will
soon reverse unless mankind reverts to ways that produced it.
>> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>>
>> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
>> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
>> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>
> The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
>would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
>the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.
>
> The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
>complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
>Although they have little to no evidence of that.
>
> The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
>own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
>trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
>there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
>not going away.
>
> The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
>weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
>make no distinction between climate and weather.
>
> What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
>at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
>throughout the US.
Such as the warm spikes in global temperature in 2009 and 1998.
> Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
>more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
>other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
>what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.
>
> It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
>making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
>gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
>feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.
>
> What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
>is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
>will be.
Except that almost half the global temperature rise and likely a higher
percentage of Arctic temperature rise from mid 1970's to about 2005 is
looking like it was due to upswing of the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation and a low frequency component of the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation. The AMO is noted to warm the Arctic disproportionately when
it runs "high", and it does have a significant effect on global
temperature. How significant is becoming more apparent as global
temperature has been nearly stagnant for close to a decade.
Don Klipstein
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
If you don't know that ride bikes a goodly twice as much as I drive and
drive roughly 1/3 the national average miles per year, you don't know me
well!
>How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
I do have percentage of calories from meat below national average.
You must not have been experiencing m.c.f.l. long if you don't know
by now how much I bike, how little I drive, and what I think of the
low-carb business.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
jeff
Thanks.
>
> That is the GISS index of global temperature anomaly, one of 5 major
> ones. 3 of the other 4 have the warmest year being 1998 (big El Nino
> spike).
>
>>> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
>>> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
>>> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
>>> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>> Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
>> the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
>> counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
>> much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
>> CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
>> very very long time.
>
> That still does not change the fact that about 30% of anthropogenic
> greenhouse gas effect we have incurred so far is from increases of
> greenhouse gases whose atmospheric concentration we recently stalled,
> not from CO2. And you note that the most significant one of these will
> soon reverse unless mankind reverts to ways that produced it.
I haven't seen methane trends, do you have a source?
>
>>> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>>> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>>> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>>>
>>> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
>>> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
>>> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>> The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
>> would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
>> the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.
>>
>> The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
>> complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
>> Although they have little to no evidence of that.
>>
>> The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
>> own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
>> trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
>> there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
>> not going away.
>>
>> The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
>> weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
>> make no distinction between climate and weather.
>>
>> What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
>> at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
>> throughout the US.
>
> Such as the warm spikes in global temperature in 2009 and 1998.
Yes.
>
>> Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
>> more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
>> other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
>> what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.
>>
>> It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
>> making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
>> gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
>> feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.
>>
>> What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
>> is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
>> will be.
>
> Except that almost half the global temperature rise and likely a higher
> percentage of Arctic temperature rise from mid 1970's to about 2005 is
> looking like it was due to upswing of the Atlantic Multidecadal
> Oscillation and a low frequency component of the Pacific Decadal
> Oscillation. The AMO is noted to warm the Arctic disproportionately when
> it runs "high", and it does have a significant effect on global
> temperature. How significant is becoming more apparent as global
> temperature has been nearly stagnant for close to a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
Seems to show it currently near it's median value and has been falling
for years. It's unlikely to have had much impact on Australia's record
warmth.
When you look beyond decades:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
You see the underlying long term trend which tracks with CO2 levels.
I don't doubt that the overall warming may be less than predicted.
But it seems fairly clear that relatively low temperature changes have
profound effects on climate. If it wasn't for the extreme longevity of
CO2, I'd be more optimistic. After all we wouldn't be the first
civilization to have consumed it's way to collapse.
BTW, I've been seeing more and more LED light arrays for "designer"
lighting in the $25 or so range. To my eyes the better ones seem to have
acceptable color. Wonder how long to a price collapse? Just enquiring
because you are the resident lighting expert...
Jeff
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
<With me severely snipping to edit for space>
>When you look beyond decades:
>
>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>
> You see the underlying long term trend which tracks with CO2 levels.
I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70%
of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and
nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing.
I also see the periodic component, correlating well with AMO.
And, I see a periodic component, largely Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation.
That shows up even better in the most-major other of the surface-based
three of the "Big 5" indices of global temperature - namely, HadCRUt3,
which goes back to 1850.
In Fact, Wikipedia used HadCRUt3 until only a couple years ago, then
switched to GISS.
HadCRUT3 global temperature, UK "Met Office" version, is available at:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
> I don't doubt that the overall warming may be less than predicted.
>But it seems fairly clear that relatively low temperature changes have
>profound effects on climate. If it wasn't for the extreme longevity of
>CO2, I'd be more optimistic. After all we wouldn't be the first
>civilization to have consumed it's way to collapse.
>
> BTW, I've been seeing more and more LED light arrays for "designer"
>lighting in the $25 or so range. To my eyes the better ones seem to have
>acceptable color. Wonder how long to a price collapse? Just enquiring
>because you are the resident lighting expert...
It's going to be gradual. It appears to me that LED technology has
historically advanced at roughly 40% of the pace that computer technology
did since the late 1970's.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> In <bfed90df-35e9-41f4-9f04-9a0b9bbeb...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
You are saying here that we should doubt the full extent of the
problem. Say 0 is what the deniers say, and 10 is the max, then you
say a 5. What you do, nothing? We have reason enough to ride a bike
and eat plain popcorn, and if you already do... hey, CONGRATULATIONS!
Why aren't the rest of American joining the club? Fear of the road,
too much junk food around, too many deniers who say it doesn't make a
difference anyway?
Don Klipstein
As for scale of how much AGW I expect as a serious ameteur scientist,
I would say 4, maybe 5.
As for rest of America? I say mostly fear of the hard work like that
which Americans did when America was a rising high star. It appears to me
that American ingenuity has been used lately to make work to be someone
else's labor - preferably offshore or by low-pay illegal immigrants.
Also, I sense too many of my fellow Americans like to depend on
American medical innovation to "try to get away with" ulhealthful
lifestyles, mainly exercising too little, eating too much calorie content,
and eating too little of "veggies".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
jeff
> In article <hld446$7h5$1...@news.albasani.net>, jeff wrote:
>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>
> <With me severely snipping to edit for space>
>
>> When you look beyond decades:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>>
>> You see the underlying long term trend which tracks with CO2 levels.
>
> I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70%
> of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and
> nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing.
I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane).
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/25/noaa-methane-levels-2008/
among others
Long term chart:
http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_of%20methane_concentration_in_atmosphere.htm
>
> I also see the periodic component, correlating well with AMO.
>
> And, I see a periodic component, largely Atlantic Multidecadal
> Oscillation.
>
> That shows up even better in the most-major other of the surface-based
> three of the "Big 5" indices of global temperature - namely, HadCRUt3,
> which goes back to 1850.
I don't doubt the cyclic components. We'll see if temps are still
rising at the AMO low point, and then the next cycle up will be very
problematic.
>
> In Fact, Wikipedia used HadCRUt3 until only a couple years ago, then
> switched to GISS.
>
> HadCRUT3 global temperature, UK "Met Office" version, is available at:
>
> http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Nice.
>
>> I don't doubt that the overall warming may be less than predicted.
>> But it seems fairly clear that relatively low temperature changes have
>> profound effects on climate. If it wasn't for the extreme longevity of
>> CO2, I'd be more optimistic. After all we wouldn't be the first
>> civilization to have consumed it's way to collapse.
>>
>> BTW, I've been seeing more and more LED light arrays for "designer"
>> lighting in the $25 or so range. To my eyes the better ones seem to have
>> acceptable color. Wonder how long to a price collapse? Just enquiring
>> because you are the resident lighting expert...
>
> It's going to be gradual. It appears to me that LED technology has
> historically advanced at roughly 40% of the pace that computer technology
> did since the late 1970's.
That seems to imply a $10 price point in about 7 years and widespread
adoption, where CFLs are impractical in about a decade.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> In <9f0f4b63-9a65-4782-87d7-5e9e57dd4...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
I tend to agree with you but I do think that this laziness and
inclination to junk food is made by design. That's the role the media
and the elites have chosen for us: HAPPY, LAZY CONSUMERS and we
follow.
The few survivors that challenge the status quo around here ride bikes
on sidewalks or walk subject to various dangers. Naturally is better
to be "in the cage" and hop in the car to go to the supermarket.
Cindy Hamilton
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 10:27 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-
>
> > enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> > > you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> > > perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> > > candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
>
> > Outdoor hot tub. We keep it warm all year round in Michigan.
>
> > No need to bully cyclists here. Most of them know their place.
>
> Indoor bikes?
Driving cars. Motown has very little tolerance for bicyclists.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:37 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
>
>
>
>
>
> in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 10:27 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-
>
> > > enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> > > > you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> > > > perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> > > > candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
>
> > > Outdoor hot tub. We keep it warm all year round in Michigan.
>
> > > No need to bully cyclists here. Most of them know their place.
>
> > Indoor bikes?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Competition not allowed in the jungle...
Imagine 10% of people riding bikes, so many people NOT feeding the
system, right?
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
<SNIP to here>
>> I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70%
>> of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and
>> nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing.
>
> I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane).
>
>http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/25/noaa-methane-levels-2008/
>among others
>
> Long term chart:
>
>http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_of%20methane_concentration_in_
>atmosphere.htm
Your short term chart is a bit of news to me, but shows little more than
a decade. Your long term one shows the 20th century increase too
scrunched horizontally to show what happened in the last 10-15 years.
For an inbetween-scale view, unfortunately endingwith 2004, there is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png
Going up to 1780-1790 in the past year or two is disturning, unless
there is reason for that bump-up to be a short term temporary one.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
jeff
Apparently, quite a surprise.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090927151132.htm
However, during the scientists� 2007 measurement of methane for northern
wetland regions, including the Arctic, temperatures for the year were
the warmest on record. This temperature increase coincided with the
large jump in the amount of methane measured in that area.
Lets hope that is not the dominant reason for the increase. There has
been much discussion of whether Global Warming has a negative feedback
component, ie one that mitigates against the increase.
There is a huge amount of methane locked up in hydrates. And that could
be a dangerous positive feedback.
What troubles me is that this is warmer than the globe, and
particularly the arctic has been for some time. This is uncharted
territory, for whatever reasons. The insurance companies, who deal with
pricing risk, are certainly concerned.
I've been reading some of the related stories on Science Daily, I
don't find *anything* there that is comforting. This is not a site I'm
familiar.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> it seems more like God want us to destroy Satan in his place. That
> would explain why he's doing nothing all the time.
Yeah, you got a point there. I know how to get Satan under control,
but then the Christians may accuse me of liberal, socialist or
radical.
All you gotta do basically is to bring the "money jungle" under
control.