Weird little serendipity
kat >^.^<
to go to the "final panel." As I started typing in the webpage,
the radio started playing "Arms of an Angel" by Sarah McLachlan.
Eerie, sad, and Karmatically appropriate.
--
kat >^.^<
Lurker
Welcome to Malaria Gardens
Mosquito rides Now CLOSED for the Season
You may release your grip on small children and pets
Please stay off the ice--it's not as strong as it looks
Night Owl
> After reading the Opus final (http://www.gocomics.com/opus) today I decided
> to go to the "final panel." As I started typing in the webpage,
> the radio started playing "Arms of an Angel" by Sarah McLachlan.
> Eerie, sad, and Karmatically appropriate.
>
> --
> kat >^.^<
> Lurker
So my first reaction to this was Confusion, followed by "What the
hell?" It took me several minutes to try to understand what has
happened here.
I can most likely guarantee that most people didn't see this one
coming. I thought it was going to be either the time warp where he
gets sucked into the 1980's and has to relieve his life all over
again. Or that he was going to be assumed into cartoon character
heaven.
S
p
o
i
l
e
r
S
p
a
c
e
So final question. Does Steve get to keep the book he is holding
there?
Tove Momerathsson
And so the world ends.
Not with a bang, but a WTF.
Tove
Dann
news:yvOdnedQT4LaQJDU...@posted.localnet.
> Night Owl wrote:
I thought it was a satisfying ending for Opus. He has spent decades as
an innocent waif, a stranger in a stranger land, looking for safety,
security, and a modicum of common sense.
In the end he found it. A place where you are warm, safe, fed, and
comforted. By Mom.
He found his way home. It is nice that someone did.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
D. D. Degg
http://joshshalek.blogspot.com/2008/11/great-minds.html
D.D.Degg
Tove Momerathsson
That was home?
My druthers for the ending was for Opus to be reunited with his mother.
But somehow, I pictured Antarctica as being, well, a little more snowy.
OTOH, given global warming, that might just be a reasonable picture of
what it's like these days.
Tove
Paul Ciszek
In article <aeSdnavEEc5fk5PU...@posted.localnet>,
Tove Momerathsson <to...@voyager.net> wrote:
>
>That was home?
>
>My druthers for the ending was for Opus to be reunited with his mother.
>
>But somehow, I pictured Antarctica as being, well, a little more snowy.
>
>OTOH, given global warming, that might just be a reasonable picture of
>what it's like these days.
Opus has been to Antarctica, and he's met his mother. I can't blame
him for wanting to live in a children's book instead.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Dann
> That was home?
It was 'home' as Opus envisioned it.
>
> My druthers for the ending was for Opus to be reunited with his mother.
>
> But somehow, I pictured Antarctica as being, well, a little more snowy.
>
> OTOH, given global warming, that might just be a reasonable picture of
> what it's like these days.
After a two year downward trend in global temperatures? Pfft.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 02 Nov 2008, Tove Momerathsson said the following in
>news:aeSdnavEEc5fk5PU...@posted.localnet.
>
>> That was home?
>
>It was 'home' as Opus envisioned it.
>
>>
>> My druthers for the ending was for Opus to be reunited with his mother.
>>
>> But somehow, I pictured Antarctica as being, well, a little more snowy.
>>
>> OTOH, given global warming, that might just be a reasonable picture of
>> what it's like these days.
>
>After a two year downward trend in global temperatures? Pfft.
Where, Earth 2? Here on Earth Prime, it's still getting hotter . .
.
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Sherwood Harrington
> On 3 Nov 2008 02:40:54 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 02 Nov 2008, Tove Momerathsson said the following in
>>news:aeSdnavEEc5fk5PU...@posted.localnet.
>>> OTOH, given global warming, that might just be a reasonable picture of
>>> what it's like these days.
>>
>>After a two year downward trend in global temperatures? Pfft.
> Where, Earth 2? Here on Earth Prime, it's still getting hotter . .
> .
In this era when one can count on precious little, Dann provides an island
of solace on which we can be sure that a) he will deny that global warming
is happening, or, in moments of weakness when he can't escape noticing it,
will b) continue to maintain that it hasn't been proven to be
human-caused.
BLACK KNIGHT:
'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
No, it isn't.
ARTHUR:
Well, what's that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I've had worse.
Yes, we've had worse. Trouble is, not as bad as we'll have it down the
line.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Dann
news:gem1jd$kn0$1...@blue.rahul.net.
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2008 02:40:54 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>On 02 Nov 2008, Tove Momerathsson said the following in
>>>news:aeSdnavEEc5fk5PU...@posted.localnet.
>
>>>> OTOH, given global warming, that might just be a reasonable picture
>>>> of what it's like these days.
>>>
>>>After a two year downward trend in global temperatures? Pfft.
>
>> Where, Earth 2? Here on Earth Prime, it's still getting hotter . .
>> .
>
> In this era when one can count on precious little, Dann provides an
> island of solace on which we can be sure that a) he will deny that
> global warming is happening, or, in moments of weakness when he can't
> escape noticing it, will b) continue to maintain that it hasn't been
> proven to be human-caused.
>
Oh Sherwood. I'm hurt. It was just a little joke.
Any idiot with a thermometer....or better still access to global
temperature records....can tell you that things have been warming up for
some time now. At what point have I denied that such a thing was
happening?
By the same token, those global temperature records indicate that global
temperatures have fallen in the last 2-4 years. The NASA database
suggests that the cooling has wiped out any increase in temperature since
1970. [Thus the little joke.]
Thirty years of warming is gone...pfft....just like that.
Now I have to admit that the interesting thing about that sudden cooling
is that none of the climate models we've been using projected such a
cooling.
And the really, really interesting thing is that this sudden decline in
global temperatures coincides with a signficant reduction in sunspot
activity. Reduction defined as all the way down to none for an extended
period of time.
The last time such a thing happened...the Maunder Minimum...we also had a
mini-Ice Age.
We we have substantial growth occuring on glaciers. We have arctic ice
that is back with a vengeance. We have cold weather records being set
across the globe at a pace that should cause people to take notice.
And it all coincides with a signficant decrease in sunspots.
<snip Monty Python>
> Yes, we've had worse. Trouble is, not as bad as we'll have it down
> the line.
Yes, we've had worse...in both directions....without the assistance of
human activity.
And while human activity will probably play some role in future changes,
it is a safe bet that we won't know what that role is until we develop
computer models that accurately reflect how the climate operates.
Something we clearly lack at the present time.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
What's that? No links? No cites? Just pulled out of someone's
posterior? Yeah, thought so . . .
><snip Monty Python>
>
>> Yes, we've had worse. Trouble is, not as bad as we'll have it down
>> the line.
>
>Yes, we've had worse...in both directions....without the assistance of
>human activity.
>
>And while human activity will probably play some role in future changes,
>it is a safe bet that we won't know what that role is until we develop
>computer models that accurately reflect how the climate operates.
>Something we clearly lack at the present time.
No matter what, don't take responsibility! *Nothing* is our fault!
Sherwood Harrington
> On 3 Nov 2008 12:33:31 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>And the really, really interesting thing is that this sudden decline in
>>global temperatures coincides with a signficant reduction in sunspot
>>activity. Reduction defined as all the way down to none for an extended
>>period of time.
>>
>>The last time such a thing happened...the Maunder Minimum...we also had a
>>mini-Ice Age.
>>
>>We we have substantial growth occuring on glaciers. We have arctic ice
>>that is back with a vengeance. We have cold weather records being set
>>across the globe at a pace that should cause people to take notice.
>>
>>And it all coincides with a signficant decrease in sunspots.
>>
> What's that? No links? No cites? Just pulled out of someone's
> posterior? Yeah, thought so . . .
Actually, Antonio, he's right about recent anomalous sunspot behavior and
about the Maunder Minimum and the "Little Ice Age."
>>And while human activity will probably play some role in future changes,
>>it is a safe bet that we won't know what that role is until we develop
>>computer models that accurately reflect how the climate operates.
>>Something we clearly lack at the present time.
> No matter what, don't take responsibility! *Nothing* is our fault!
I have trouble with that, too. I'd take a more conservative (heh)
approach to dicking with our atmosphere: don't mess with it until we
understand it, not keep messing with it until we understand it.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2008 12:33:31 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>And the really, really interesting thing is that this sudden decline in
>>>global temperatures coincides with a signficant reduction in sunspot
>>>activity. Reduction defined as all the way down to none for an extended
>>>period of time.
>>>
>>>The last time such a thing happened...the Maunder Minimum...we also had a
>>>mini-Ice Age.
>>>
>>>We we have substantial growth occuring on glaciers. We have arctic ice
>>>that is back with a vengeance. We have cold weather records being set
>>>across the globe at a pace that should cause people to take notice.
>>>
>>>And it all coincides with a signficant decrease in sunspots.
>>>
>
>> What's that? No links? No cites? Just pulled out of someone's
>> posterior? Yeah, thought so . . .
>
>Actually, Antonio, he's right about recent anomalous sunspot behavior and
>about the Maunder Minimum and the "Little Ice Age."
>
Of course, one of the basic rules of propaganda: sprinkle a
little truth with the lies!
>>>And while human activity will probably play some role in future changes,
>>>it is a safe bet that we won't know what that role is until we develop
>>>computer models that accurately reflect how the climate operates.
>>>Something we clearly lack at the present time.
>
>> No matter what, don't take responsibility! *Nothing* is our fault!
>
>I have trouble with that, too. I'd take a more conservative (heh)
>approach to dicking with our atmosphere: don't mess with it until we
>understand it, not keep messing with it until we understand it.
We mess with it enough, it'll start messing with us!
--
- ReFlex 76
Dann
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2008 12:33:31 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>And the really, really interesting thing is that this sudden decline
>>>in global temperatures coincides with a signficant reduction in
>>>sunspot activity. Reduction defined as all the way down to none for
>>>an extended period of time.
>>>
>>>The last time such a thing happened...the Maunder Minimum...we also
>>>had a mini-Ice Age.
>>>
>>>We we have substantial growth occuring on glaciers. We have arctic
>>>ice that is back with a vengeance. We have cold weather records
>>>being set across the globe at a pace that should cause people to take
>>>notice.
>>>
>>>And it all coincides with a signficant decrease in sunspots.
>>>
>
>> What's that? No links? No cites? Just pulled out of someone's
>> posterior? Yeah, thought so . . .
>
> Actually, Antonio, he's right about recent anomalous sunspot behavior
> and about the Maunder Minimum and the "Little Ice Age."
Thanks much, Sherwood.
And just in case anyone missed it, I mentioned a coincidence of factors,
not causation. There's lots more research to be done on this issue.
>>>And while human activity will probably play some role in future
>>>changes, it is a safe bet that we won't know what that role is until
>>>we develop computer models that accurately reflect how the climate
>>>operates. Something we clearly lack at the present time.
>
>> No matter what, don't take responsibility! *Nothing* is our
>> fault!
>
> I have trouble with that, too. I'd take a more conservative (heh)
> approach to dicking with our atmosphere: don't mess with it until we
> understand it, not keep messing with it until we understand it.
Sure. I'm for that, too.
In all honesty, I continue to be a skeptic because the predictions of so
many models end up being wrong by a comfortable margin. Speculation on
just why that may be is way OT for this froup.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Sure. I'm for that, too.
>
> In all honesty, I continue to be a skeptic because the predictions of so
> many models end up being wrong by a comfortable margin. Speculation on
> just why that may be is way OT for this froup.
>
Though the atmospheric models may not be 100% accurate, the heat-
trapping capability of carbon dioxide is based on solid science. The
conservative (!) approach would be to assume the worst case scenario
and act appropriately until further testing and modeling can show
other wise.
Jim Strain
Does anyone else see the inherent irony in the original subject of
this thread and what it morphed into? Mornings like this, I envy
Opus.
. . . jim strain in san diego.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Which is akin to saying that the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was
not an unqualified success.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
> In the previous article, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> > Though the atmospheric models may not be 100% accurate,
>
> Which is akin to saying that the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was
> not an unqualified success.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here- that I am speaking in
doubletalk?
Modeling uses observable data to attempt to mathematically predict
future response. Any deviation from the equation suggests that either
incorrect assumptions of the relation between the data was made or
that modification of the equations must be made. nevertheless, even
faulty models can provide an idea of trends and possible outcomes.
Dann
news:4dc430af-7997-4e54...@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com.
<http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+W
rong/article10973.htm>
The correct approach is the to get the theory right before using it to
justify public policy.
Dann
news:9dc2e0d8-09b6-49dc...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com.
> On Nov 4, 2:08 pm, INVALID_SEE_...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin)
> wrote:
>> In the previous article, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>>
>> <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Though the atmospheric models may not be 100% accurate,
>>
>> Which is akin to saying that the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was
>> not an unqualified success.
>
>
> Not sure what point you are trying to make here- that I am speaking in
> doubletalk?
Apologies to JD for attempting to channel my inner JD. I think he was
trying to suggest that current climate models bear little resemblance to
the real world climate. IHO.
> Modeling uses observable data to attempt to mathematically predict
> future response. Any deviation from the equation suggests that either
> incorrect assumptions of the relation between the data was made or
> that modification of the equations must be made. nevertheless, even
> faulty models can provide an idea of trends and possible outcomes.
That's a fair statement that I can wholeheartedly agree with.
Unfortunately, those don't seem to be the rules of the game as it is
currently being practiced.
When a skeptic, such as myself, points out that actual global
temperatures are continually at the bottom end of every range predicted
by the models in current use, he/she/it is inevitably subjected to all
manners of abusive language. Rather than focus on the problem....namely
the consistent inaccuracy of modern climate models....the focus is placed
on the skepticism rather than on fixing the danged models.
I'll let this go with that.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> > > Though the atmospheric models may not be 100% accurate,
> >
> > Which is akin to saying that the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was
> > not an unqualified success.
>
>
> Not sure what point you are trying to make here- that I am speaking in
> doubletalk?
>
> Modeling uses observable data to attempt to mathematically predict
> future response. Any deviation from the equation suggests that either
> incorrect assumptions of the relation between the data was made or
> that modification of the equations must be made. nevertheless, even
> faulty models can provide an idea of trends and possible outcomes.
Science doesn't work on just any old models, it works on models that
show *value*. Copernicus' model of the solar system, and Newton's
laws of motion, were nailed down pretty firmly when they were combined
to predict events like eclipses. Theories of how the human immune
system works were shown to be correct (in broad strokes) when things
like vaccines were shown to lower infection rates. Long-term climate
science just isn't there.
Anyone who tells you he has a model of earth's climate that actually
predicts what earth's climate will do is a lying sack of shit. Maybe
we'll get one someday soon, but I'm skeptical. The problem with the
"stop arguing and just accept we're right, already" crowd is that
there are *enormous* costs to stopping "greenhouse gas" emissions, and
even by their own admission, very very tiny benefits to same. And
when you point out clear and unambiguous evidence of increased solar
output, they put their hands over their ears and sing "Look for the
Union Label" at the top of their lungs.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
> In the previous article, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> > > > Though the atmospheric models may not be 100% accurate,
>
> > > Which is akin to saying that the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was
> > > not an unqualified success.
>
> > Not sure what point you are trying to make here- that I am speaking in
> > doubletalk?
>
> > Modeling uses observable data to attempt to mathematically predict
> > future response. Any deviation from the equation suggests that either
> > incorrect assumptions of the relation between the data was made or
> > that modification of the equations must be made. nevertheless, even
> > faulty models can provide an idea of trends and possible outcomes.
>
> Science doesn't work on just any old models, it works on models that
> show *value*. Copernicus' model of the solar system, and Newton's
> laws of motion, were nailed down pretty firmly when they were combined
> to predict events like eclipses. Theories of how the human immune
> system works were shown to be correct (in broad strokes) when things
> like vaccines were shown to lower infection rates. Long-term climate
> science just isn't there.
But the ultra-violet passing/infra-red reflecting capablilities of
carbon dioxide are well established. The extent of the effect on the
atmosphere is obviously not well modeled, but this property of CO2 is
well documented and excepted.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> > Science doesn't work on just any old models, it works on models that
> > laws of motion, were nailed down pretty firmly when they were
> > human immune system works were shown to be correct (in broad
> > strokes) when things like vaccines were shown to lower infection
>
> But the ultra-violet passing/infra-red reflecting capablilities of
> carbon dioxide are well established. The extent of the effect on the
> atmosphere is obviously not well modeled, but this property of CO2 is
> well documented and excepted.
Sure. Matter heats when the sun shines on it, too, so why isn't every
non-cloudy day a scorcher? Extrapolating from a single, well-known
physical property to state absolute truths about the behaviors of
unbelievably complex systems with literally billions of inputs is the
*opposite* of science.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
> In the previous article, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> > > Science doesn't work on just any old models, it works on models that
> > > show *value*. =A0Copernicus' model of the solar system, and Newton's
> > > laws of motion, were nailed down pretty firmly when they were
> > > combined to predict events like eclipses. =A0Theories of how the
> > > human immune system works were shown to be correct (in broad
> > > strokes) when things like vaccines were shown to lower infection
> > > rates. =A0Long-term climate science just isn't there.
>
> > But the ultra-violet passing/infra-red reflecting capablilities of
> > carbon dioxide are well established. The extent of the effect on the
> > atmosphere is obviously not well modeled, but this property of CO2 is
> > well documented and excepted.
>
> Sure. Matter heats when the sun shines on it, too, so why isn't every
> non-cloudy day a scorcher? Extrapolating from a single, well-known
> physical property to state absolute truths about the behaviors of
> unbelievably complex systems with literally billions of inputs is the
> *opposite* of science.
I'm not saying absoltues, but I am asking to consider taking a
conservative approach until we know better. Intutitively, it would
seem that an unprecedented geometric increase in free carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere might cause an increase in atmospheric heating.
Mike Marshall
>Anyone who tells you he has a model of earth's climate that actually
The problem with this group is that everyone is afraid to say
what they really think...
-Mike "do I need to add a <g>?"
Dann
news:a85b3443-aec7-4725...@f37g2000pri.googlegroups.com.
> I'm not saying absoltues, but I am asking to consider taking a
> conservative approach until we know better. Intutitively, it would
> seem that an unprecedented geometric increase in free carbon dioxide
> in the atmosphere might cause an increase in atmospheric heating.
OK. I lied. But I swear THIS is the last post in this thread.
If you had read the link I posted, you wouldn't have made that last
statement. The formula regarding CO2 and the potential warming effect is
fundamentally flawed. The method used to derive that formula assumes
that the atmosphere is unlimited.
But as John Glenn can tell you, that just ain't so.
When you correct the computer models so that the CO2/warming equation
reflects reality, the projected warming decreases by a substantial
margin.....right down to the point where the projections are pretty close
to reality.
The other implication of the corrected formula apparently is that the
warming effect of CO2 is self limiting. Rather than experiencing a
geometric increase, we reach a point were further CO2 increases have
little further warming effect.
I realize the above is written as if these two scientists have found the
holy grail. They haven't. What they have done is discovered one factor
that may help to explain why the measured temperatures are consistently
at the low end of any projected temperature range.
"Science" would involve looking into their work rather than dismissing it
out of hand because it jeopardizes federal funding for global warming
research.
The "conservative" approach is to wait until we know that the effort
spent on any solution will have the desired effect. If the current
warming trend is being driven by non-anthropogenic sources, then it is
largely a waste of time to expend resources to "solve" the problem.