> The gist of what is quoted there appears to be that the current > conditions, and those forecast for the next few decades, are nothing > unusual when viewed from a geological time perspective. Well of course > they're not: in the distant past sea levels have been tens if not > hundreds of metres above what they are now, and global temperatures have > been far higher too.
> But so what? That doesn't mean that the forecast sea-level and > temperature rises for this century are any less 'catastrophic', just > because they've happened before. We need to look at things from a short > time perspective, not a long one, because that's what will matter to us > and our immediate descendants, and that's what we have a chance (even if > only a small one) of influencing.
> There is a very telling comment in the quoted article: "Even if > 'catastrophic' AGW is correct and we do warm another 3 C over the next > century, if it stabilized the Earth in warm phase and prevented or > delayed the Earth’s transition into cold phase it would be worth it > because the cold phase transition would kill billions of people".
> Is he serious?
yes. I assume so.
Does he really believe that the catastrophic short-term
> consequences are worth putting up with in the interests of delaying > something thousands of years in the future (by which time mankind will > either have annihilated itself or have developed far better technologies > for preventing the "transition into cold phase").
Er, the cold phase could happen in a few tens of years. Read again. Its happened before.
The point is that we aren't in a catsrophic and unprecedented period of warming, and what warming we have had is nothing special or unusual and greater changes have happened without any need to make everybody feel guilty and stop burning things.
And wasting money on solutions that don't work to solve a problem we didn't make is somehow smart?
-- To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
> In article <kHc6NrOrWB8PF...@amac.f2s.com>,
> Alan <j...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> These days I don't wear a watch as I have a mobile phone in my pocket >> but when I did buy watches I always tried to find one where I could >> actually read the time :) There are too many designs where the hands >> practically disappear when viewed against the other hundreds of mini >> dials on the watch face or the design has black hands on a black face >> etc. Some watches can only be read by someone with perfect vision and >> some can only be read under bright lighting and are somewhat useless in >> dim lighting conditions.
Which is why I still use my father's military issue Cyma. It's 70 years
old and I've worn it daily for the past 30 years. It gains a minute or
so each day, but it really is no trouble to adjust it when it is wound.
> another important thing about a watch is that should tell the right time. > Now that the railways use clocks accurate to the second, it is important to
> me that my watch is as accuarate. That's why I have a Casio Waveceptor.
Whatever clocks the railway use, that doesn't mean the trains run on time
> In article <kHc6NrOrWB8PF...@amac.f2s.com>,
> Alan <j...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <mqfuu79h4ss3vhucr64lcelkjgpuk5t...@4ax.com>,
>> rbel@?.?.invalid wrote
>> >My aged but hitherto excellent Seiko quartz watch has eventually died
>> >and I am faced with selecting from some new (to me) power technologies
>> >including solar (always a popular subject on this ng!) and kinetic
>> >quartz.
>> >Any comments based on experience gratefully received.
>> Kinetic Quartz has major problems - even the expensive models from well
>> known manufacturers. The watch is still electric/electronic and the
>> watch incorporates an offset moving weight attached to a small generator
>> rather than a battery, but it still needs a storage mechanism.
>> The charge is stored in a capacitor. This has the same problems as a
>> battery, especially after a year and left for a week to fully discharge
>> - never to work again. When checking on the Web I found that it was a
>> very common problem. The capacitor fails and unlike a battery it isn't a
>> replaceable component. The fix, after the warranty period, was to send
>> it back to the 'manufacturer' who would swap out the innards at nearly
>> the same cost of a new watch.
>> These days I don't wear a watch as I have a mobile phone in my pocket
>> but when I did buy watches I always tried to find one where I could
>> actually read the time :) There are too many designs where the hands
>> practically disappear when viewed against the other hundreds of mini
>> dials on the watch face or the design has black hands on a black face
>> etc. Some watches can only be read by someone with perfect vision and
>> some can only be read under bright lighting and are somewhat useless in
>> dim lighting conditions.
> another important thing about a watch is that should tell the
> right time. Now that the railways use clocks accurate to the
> second, it is important to me that my watch is as accuarate.
That’s mad. You cant show up for a train anything like that accurately.
> That's why I have a Casio Waveceptor.
I don’t bother with any watch anymore, use the phone when
the time matters and I'm not in the car or the house.
In article <jsq7pl$p2...@news.albasani.net>, djc <d...@kangoo.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/07/12 11:30, charles wrote:
> > In article <kHc6NrOrWB8PF...@amac.f2s.com>, Alan
> > <j...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> These days I don't wear a watch as I have a mobile phone in my pocket
> >> but when I did buy watches I always tried to find one where I could
> >> actually read the time :) There are too many designs where the hands
> >> practically disappear when viewed against the other hundreds of mini
> >> dials on the watch face or the design has black hands on a black face
> >> etc. Some watches can only be read by someone with perfect vision and
> >> some can only be read under bright lighting and are somewhat useless
> >> in dim lighting conditions.
> Which is why I still use my father's military issue Cyma. It's 70 years
> old and I've worn it daily for the past 30 years. It gains a minute or so
> each day, but it really is no trouble to adjust it when it is wound.
> > another important thing about a watch is that should tell the right
> > time. Now that the railways use clocks accurate to the second, it is
> > important to me that my watch is as accuarate. That's why I have a
> > Casio Waveceptor.
> Whatever clocks the railway use, that doesn't mean the trains run on time
It generally does when they leave Waterloo, though
Alan wrote:
> In message <mqfuu79h4ss3vhucr64lcelkjgpuk5t...@4ax.com>,
> rbel@?.?.invalid wrote
> Kinetic Quartz has major problems - even the expensive models from well
> known manufacturers.
> The fix, after the warranty period, was to send
> it back to the 'manufacturer' who would swap out the innards at nearly
> the same cost of a new watch.
These kits were not available when I scrapped a Seiko Kinetic.
The very fact that these kits now are available proves that the technology doesn't live up to its original hype. It was advertised as never having to replace a battery again.
A more reliable technology is probably a watch that needs a new lithium battery (non rechargeable) every 5/10 years.
-- Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
> These kits were not available when I scrapped a Seiko Kinetic.
> The very fact that these kits now are available proves that the
> technology doesn't live up to its original hype. It was advertised as
> never having to replace a battery again.
> A more reliable technology is probably a watch that needs a new lithium
> battery (non rechargeable) every 5/10 years.
well i bought the watch in 2001 and have only replaced the battery once,
but i do wear it every day.
> These kits were not available when I scrapped a Seiko Kinetic.
> The very fact that these kits now are available proves that the > technology doesn't live up to its original hype. It was advertised as > never having to replace a battery again.
well thats correct. It was a capacitor, instead!
> A more reliable technology is probably a watch that needs a new lithium > battery (non rechargeable) every 5/10 years.
-- To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
> harry wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 10:07 am, Andy Burns <usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
> >> harry wrote:
> >>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
> >>> As usual you old fart you know nothing.
> >>> The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.
> >> You benefit mainly from everyone else's wealth, not from solar power, in
> >> other words you're a scrounger.
> > Not all of it comes from the FIT payment.
> > Who pays for nuclear power stations (and the cleanup after them?)
> At the moment no one.
> They are all paid for harry.
> --
> To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
> To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
> that they know how little is really possible -
> and how hard it is to achieve it.
You are mad. If the gov goes ahead with nuclear power it will be
private enterprise and they will want their money back asap. The
government is to insist on up-front payments to de-commision these
power stations in the future so the taxpayer is not left with the
bill.
It will result in massive price increases in electricity, the money
has to come from somewhere.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:43:06 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
> You are mad. If the gov goes ahead with nuclear power it will be
> private enterprise and they will want their money back asap.
No they don't want the rug pulled from under them ona politcal whim, alla Merkel.
> It will result in massive price increases in electricity, the money
> has to come from somewhere.
Energy prices are going to rise fullstop. I'd much rather than price rise paid for a system like the very reliable present one when I can switch on at anytime of day or night and get power.
harry wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> harry wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 10:07 am, Andy Burns <usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> harry wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>>>>> As usual you old fart you know nothing.
>>>>> The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.
>>>> You benefit mainly from everyone else's wealth, not from solar power, in
>>>> other words you're a scrounger.
>>> Not all of it comes from the FIT payment.
>>> Who pays for nuclear power stations (and the cleanup after them?)
>> At the moment no one.
>> They are all paid for harry.
>> --
>> To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
>> To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
>> that they know how little is really possible -
>> and how hard it is to achieve it.
> You are mad. If the gov goes ahead with nuclear power it will be
> private enterprise and they will want their money back asap.
No they wont stupid. They -unlike greedy grubbing little shits like you - will do the job based on standard commercial rates of return.
basically what BETTER investment for a pension fund than a nuclear power station practically guaranteed to return 7.5% for the next 60 years? and then give the money back you lent them.
The
> government is to insist on up-front payments to de-commision these
> power stations in the future so the taxpayer is not left with the
> bill.
yes, but surprisingly enough if you design them to an taken apart, its not a huge amount.
> It will result in massive price increases in electricity, the money
> has to come from somewhere.
Er no. It will result in far cheaper electricity than windmills and solar panels. somewhere in the 6p-8p mark is the best government estimate. Thats more than gas or caol at the monet but is half te price of any reneable/gas combination.
If I want to read blatant lies I don't need to go to the Guardians reprint of renewable lobby claims. I can sit here and listen to you instead.
-- To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
<char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <kHc6NrOrWB8PF...@amac.f2s.com>,
> Alan <j...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <mqfuu79h4ss3vhucr64lcelkjgpuk5t...@4ax.com>, >> rbel@?.?.invalid wrote
>> >My aged but hitherto excellent Seiko quartz watch has eventually died
>> >and I am faced with selecting from some new (to me) power technologies
>> >including solar (always a popular subject on this ng!) and kinetic
>> >quartz.
>> >Any comments based on experience gratefully received.
>> Kinetic Quartz has major problems - even the expensive models from well >> known manufacturers. The watch is still electric/electronic and the >> watch incorporates an offset moving weight attached to a small generator >> rather than a battery, but it still needs a storage mechanism.
>> The charge is stored in a capacitor. This has the same problems as a >> battery, especially after a year and left for a week to fully discharge >> - never to work again. When checking on the Web I found that it was a >> very common problem. The capacitor fails and unlike a battery it isn't a >> replaceable component. The fix, after the warranty period, was to send >> it back to the 'manufacturer' who would swap out the innards at nearly >> the same cost of a new watch.
>> These days I don't wear a watch as I have a mobile phone in my pocket >> but when I did buy watches I always tried to find one where I could >> actually read the time :) There are too many designs where the hands >> practically disappear when viewed against the other hundreds of mini >> dials on the watch face or the design has black hands on a black face >> etc. Some watches can only be read by someone with perfect vision and >> some can only be read under bright lighting and are somewhat useless in >> dim lighting conditions.
>another important thing about a watch is that should tell the right time. >Now that the railways use clocks accurate to the second, it is important to
>me that my watch is as accuarate. That's why I have a Casio Waveceptor.
+1. I've had mine for about 8 yrs and I delight when being asked
"what time do you make it" in replying "it is xx.yy". I travel a bit
so great just to be able to use on of the other time zones. Regularly
use all the different alarms, time and stop-watch. Just wish the
backlight button was easier to push.
I always buy watches with metal straps - got fed up of the plastic
ones breaking but some of the fabric/nylon type lasted well.
> harry wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 6:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> harry wrote:
>>>> On Jul 1, 10:07 am, Andy Burns <usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> harry wrote:
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> renewable energy is almost enough to power a watch.
>>>>>> As usual you old fart you know nothing.
>>>>>> The net benefit it brings to me is nearly £3500/year.
>>>>> You benefit mainly from everyone else's wealth, not from solar power, >>>>> in
>>>>> other words you're a scrounger.
>>>> Not all of it comes from the FIT payment.
>>>> Who pays for nuclear power stations (and the cleanup after them?)
>>> At the moment no one.
>>> They are all paid for harry.
>>> --
>>> To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
>>> To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
>>> that they know how little is really possible -
>>> and how hard it is to achieve it.
>> You are mad. If the gov goes ahead with nuclear power it will be
>> private enterprise and they will want their money back asap.
> No they wont stupid. They -unlike greedy grubbing little shits like you - > will do the job based on standard commercial rates of return.
> basically what BETTER investment for a pension fund than a nuclear power > station practically guaranteed to return 7.5% for the next 60 years? and > then give the money back you lent them.
One that doesn’t have the risk of some fool like Merckel ordering
it to be turned off forever.
>> The government is to insist on up-front payments to de-commision these
>> power stations in the future so the taxpayer is not left with the bill.
> yes, but surprisingly enough if you design them to an taken apart, its not > a huge amount.
Even cheaper to design them to be filled with concrete and left there.
>> It will result in massive price increases in electricity, the money
>> has to come from somewhere.
> Er no. It will result in far cheaper electricity than windmills and solar > panels. somewhere in the 6p-8p mark is the best government estimate. Thats > more than gas or caol at the monet but is half te price of any > reneable/gas combination.
>> You can see right here how prices will rise.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/expense-nuclea... >> Shows how cheap renewable energy actually is.
> If I want to read blatant lies I don't need to go to the Guardians reprint > of renewable lobby claims. I can sit here and listen to you instead.
