Giant hole melted in northern ice cap
Jack Linthicum
in the era of "not global warming".
Giant hole melted in northern ice cap
Baltimore Sun
By Frank D. Roylance
September 22, 2006
Something unusual is going on in the Beaufort Sea, a remote part of the
Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. Over the past six weeks, a huge 'lake'
bigger than the state of Indiana has melted out of the sea ice.
Within the past week, this 'polynya' - a Russian word for any open
water surrounded by sea ice - finally melted through a part of the ice
that separated it from the open ocean, forming a kind of bay in the
planet's northern ice cap.
'The reason we're tracking it is because we had never seen anything
like that before,' said Mark C. Serreze, senior research scientist at
the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
Polynyas occur every year in certain parts of the Arctic where warm
currents and persistent winds clear swaths of sea ice.
But this one, covering 38,000 square miles, is unique in the memory of
scientists who watch the Arctic ice closely because they see it as a
bellwether for the effects of global warming. They've found that the
area of the summer ice cap has been shrinking for at least three
decades, and it's getting thinner, too.
Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most extensive
summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record and an acceleration in the
rate of its long-term decline.
In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
accelerating rate.
The ice cap is critical because it helps regulate the planet's
temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
that strikes it, sending it back into space.
Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
fall and winter.
So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
across most of the region.
As of Tuesday, NSIDC reported that the summer sea ice this year had
shrunk to the fourth-smallest September minimum on record. Some
refreezing has begun, but parts of the polynya were continuing to melt,
so the final totals are uncertain.
If current rates of summer melting continue, NSIDC researchers have
said, the Arctic Ocean could be completely ice-free in summer before
the end of this century.
Serreze stopped short of blaming this summer's giant polynya on global
warming. 'To be honest, it's hard to draw a direct link. The sea ice is
inherently quite variable,' he said. 'But to get a big patch of open
water out there in the multi-year ice, which is thinning and loosening
up, it's not a surprising event in the context of global warming.'
Precisely what caused this polynya to open up when and where it did
will remain a mystery until scientists can investigate further.
For climatologist Claire L. Parkinson, a senior scientist at the NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, what's significant is not the
polynya, but the appearance of so much open water.
'The fact of decreasing ice coverage is certainly a concern,' she said.
And 'it's certainly thought to be related to the warming of the Arctic
region which has been occurring for these past three decades.'
Smaller polynyas open up every year in other parts of the Arctic, where
steady winds and warm ocean currents part the ice. Their predictability
attracts many species of animals who rely on them for sustenance,
especially in winter, said Ian Stirling, a research scientist with the
Canadian Wildlife Service.
<snip biology>
Fortunately, this summer's giant polynya is probably not a biological
hotspot or hazard, Stirling said.
First, it formed over deep ocean water, and not the more biologically
productive continental shelf. 'The more open water will stimulate a
little bit of extra primary productivity' among plankton and algae, he
said. But this polynya opened too late in the season to produce very
much new life.
Scientists say it's not certain whether a polynya will reform in the
same spot next summer. But the warming trend that made it possible is
likely to continue.
'We know humans are continuing to insert greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere,' said Goddard's Parkinson. 'As long as we're doing that,
this mechanism for continued warming exists.'
http://www.topix.net/content/trb/0266270802258704272640126094851654533416
.
Earl
news:1159100277.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Polniya 38,000 square miles (Iceland, Indiana size) is a new
> phenomenon in the era of "not global warming".
>
> Giant hole melted in northern ice cap
>
Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming"
We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice Age
ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that the
Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority of
the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980.
The temperature went up, then the CO2 went up. Just as happened
during previous examples of GW.
The sun is a variable star!!
Jack Linthicum
I am wondering if I could put forward the idea of adding "Fe Fe Fe Fe
Fe" to a post to indicate irony
Grey Satterfield
"Earl" <nep...@wt.net> wrote:
Yeah, but it's so much fun to blame it all on George W. Bush, leader of
"Greedy America." :)
Grey Satterfield
Brad Guth
>Earl; Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming"
>Earl; We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice
>Age ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that
>the Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority
>of the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980.
I obviously don't entirely agree with the "not manmade global warming",
as that's been more than proven to have been a contributing factor,
although I'm thinking it could represent as little as 10% of the root
cause.
The rather unfortunate "sun is a variable star!!" logic is only ever so
slightly correct, but not nearly sufficient nor in any way proven as
even having been nearly sufficient to have fluctuated by such an extent
unless you're talking about that sucker going absolutely postal on us,
and otherwise having been a passive bonfire as of those multi-thousand
year ice age dips.
And the infomercial wars of mainstream status quo that's wagging thy
dogs to death continues, as though we've got all the necessary smarts
plus all time in the world, and it's also as though our physiucally dark
moon that has supposedly been with us from the very beginning has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our ongoing thaw from the last
ice age. However, what if our moon had only arrived as of 10,500 BC?
-
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1159098826....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm/thread/98e67584c65b1a1d/b24eeb1ff70466f1?hl=en#b24eeb1ff70466f1
HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
>Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most
>extensive summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an
>acceleration in the rate of its long-term decline.
>In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
>found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
>accelerating rate.
>The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
>temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar
>energy that strikes it, sending it back into space.
> Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
> expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
> solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
> from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
> fall and winter.
>
> So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
> were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
> across most of the region.
I have to concur that's all very true, in that the darker Earth becomes
(especially ocean dark as opposed to snowy white), the more solar energy
gets absorbed, whereas instead of taking in as little as 10%, it goes to
as great as 90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now becoming
extensively thawed is simply adding further insult to injury in more
ways than being of less snow and ice covered, and those expanding dead
zones of oceans are now limited to being populated with jellyfish, if
there's anything.
Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a
somewhat energy collecting/storage environment, whereas by day the solar
energy obtains more access to the darker albedo of Earth, while at night
the added moisture that gets placed into our atmosphere by day becomes
clouds by night which only retains the solar influx more effectively.
But there's also the nearby mascon worth of our physically dark moon to
take into account, and at this point I'm not even talking about whatever
amounts of reflected IR and of it's emitted FIR that's also unavoidably
contributed into our warming environment.
That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of
our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas
either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and
subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of
uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting is how it'll simply
accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later.
0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as potential energy is
worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do you really
think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's gravity force and
of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting converted via
friction into thermal energy?
Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus
terrific tides are not responsible for expediting the ongoing thermal
moderation (hot going towards the cold) of our global environment?
Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force
that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual
super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short
distance below our feet?
Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way
related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent energy release plus
unavoidably contributing gaseous elements that emerge to the surface,
into our oceans and contribute to the atmosphere from time to time?
I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our
goose. I'm simply giving you additional tolls to appreciate the ongoing
demise that's primarily caused by our moon.
In other words, you are 100% correct that global warming is getting
rather badly accelerated because of our own doings, and unless we can
moderate our ways and at the same time obtain greater amounts of clean
energy for our personal use without further pillaging and raping Mother
Earth, as such we're not going to get away with this forever, and
unfortunately most of us can not afford to keep finding higher and safer
ground, along with alternative resources of food and energy.
Unfortunately, our education system is anything but. What we seem to
know is basically infomercial-history that's supported by
infomercial-science, and it's otherwise media driven at the commands of
those encharge.
Your being topic/author stalked, bashed and as much as possible banished
from the GOOGLE/Usenet moderated groups is the extra proof-positive that
you're right, as otherwise why all the Usenet damage-control fuss and
flak each time you've posted another substantiated global warming topic?
There's absolutely no question that Earth's continuing thaw from the
last ice age is transpiring before our mostly dumbfounded eyes, and it's
folks like Roger Coppock that have seen the light of how much of that
thaw can be directly attributed to human factors, though seemingly
unable to translate that into actions that'll make a worthy difference.
Educating the public via this mostly naysay Usenet anti-think-tank is
not going to happen unless the likes of Roger Coppock and others of your
kind can manage to kick a few extra butts, and unfortunately the New
York Times and of similar publications wouldn't so much as dare print
anything you've had to say because of their insider clients and
otherwise sponsors would either sue their socks off or merely extract
any future financial support, the largest of which being our own
government and/or of government sponsored institutions that upon average
is what pays for the most infomercial column inches.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
sanjian
Actually, from what I've heard from the alarmists, we're back to "impending
ice-age" again. See? The '80s -have- come back!
William Black
"Grey Satterfield" <gsatte...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:C13C11B0.3328C%gsatte...@cox.net...
I don't think people blame George for global warming . They blame him for
doing nothing about it and claiming it didn't happen when it certainly is
happening and he could have done something about it.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Andrew Robert Breen
Yes. And at the moment it's in a phase of *decreasing* long-term
activity (I refer you to Lockwood, Stamper and Wild in the February
issue of NATURE, 1999 as a beginning). There's a great deal of
evidence that over the 100000 years up to 1975 global temperatures
tracked the level of long-term solar activity (note: long term.
The approximately 11-year cycle is damped out by the heat capacity
of the system - it's longer period changes which are important).
Since 1975 the long-term trend in solar activity has been level
or (more likely) decreasing. Temperatures, however, have continues
to rise. The cause of these temperature changes is not repeat not
solar activity, nor is it the Milankovich cycle, which would also
put us in a cooling phase.
This stuff is all well written up. Lockwood or Solanki are two
of the most prominent authors, but really all of this is well-
established.
I can't think of a single serious scientist who has any doubt at
all that CO2 release (and the amplifying effects of the resultant
increase in H2O vapour levels) is the driving term in the climate
change we're seeing at the moment. And the more expert they are, the
worried. I recommend that you read (Sir) John Houghton's "Global
Warming: A primer" (Cambridge University Press) for more information.
You are obviously well out of date in your sources.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Brad Guth
own global warming heart.
>Earl; Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming"
>Earl; We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice
>Age ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that
>the Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority
>of the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980.
I obviously don't entirely agree with the "not manmade global warming",
as that's been more than proven via replicated science to have been a
contributing factor, although I'm thinking it could represent as little
as 10% of the ongoing root cause.
The rather unfortunate "sun is a variable star!!" logic is only ever so
slightly correct, but not nearly sufficient nor in any way proven as
even having been nearly sufficient to have fluctuated by such an extent
unless you're talking about that sucker going absolutely postal on us,
and otherwise having been a passive bonfire as of those multi-thousand
year ice age dips.
And the infomercial wars of mainstream status quo that's wagging thy
dogs to death continues, as though we've got all the necessary smarts
plus all time in the world, and it's also as though our physiucally dark
moon that has supposedly been with us from the very beginning has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our ongoing thaw from the last
ice age. However, what if our moon had only arrived as of 10,500 BC?
-
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1159098826....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm/thread/98e67584c65b1a1d/b24eeb1ff70466f1?hl=en#b24eeb1ff70466f1
HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
>Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most
>extensive summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an
>acceleration in the rate of its long-term decline.
>In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
>found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
>accelerating rate.
>
>The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
>temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar
>energy that strikes it, sending it back into space.
>
>Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy
>and expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent
>of the solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that
>heat from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in
>the fall and winter.
>
> So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
> were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
> across most of the region.
I have to concur that's all very true, in that the darker Earth becomes
(especially ocean darkness as opposed to icy/snowy white), the more
solar energy gets absorbed, whereas instead of taking in as little as
10%, it goes to as great as 90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now
becoming extensively thawed is simply adding further insult to injury in
more ways than being of less snow and ice covered, and those expanding
dead zones of oceans are now limited to being populated with jellyfish,
if there's anything.
Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a
somewhat energy collecting/storage environment, whereas by day the solar
energy obtains more unobstructed access to the darker albedo of Earth,
while at night the added moisture that gets placed into our atmosphere
by day becomes clouds by night which only retains the solar influx more
effectively.
But there's also the nearby orbiting mascon worth of our physically dark
moon to take into account, and at this point I'm not even talking about
whatever amounts of reflected IR and of it's emitted FIR that's also
unavoidably contributed into our warming environment.
That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of
our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas
either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and
subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of
uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth is how
it'll simply accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later.
0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as the potential energy
resource is worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do
you folks really think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's
gravity force and of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting
converted via friction into thermal energy?
Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus
terrific tides are not responsible for expediting the ongoing thermal
moderation (warm energy going towards the cold) of our global
environment?
Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force
that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual
super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short
distance below our feet?
Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way
related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent energy release plus
having unavoidably contributed gaseous elements that emerge to the
surface, into our oceans and simply contribute to the atmosphere from
time to time?
I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our
goose. I'm simply giving you folks additional tools to appreciate the
Jack Linthicum
It would have been late for its close-up on the Cueto de la Mina baton
de command
>From the viewpoint of the modern observer, the naturalistic pictorial
representations are easier to interpret than abstract patterns. (Even
if it is not possible to establish what the "meaning" of the pictures
of animals in caves like Altamira or Lascaux was for the ancient
people, and if there had been cave rituals, in which these might have
played a role). (Haarmann 1997: 676). The abstract patterns are harder
to classify than pictures: for example the dot patterns that appear in
between the animal paintings in the cave paintings of Lascaux (HA
51-52). Whatever those "meanings" were, any interpretations will remain
open to argument. One example is the pattern of the "baton de command"
found in Cueto de la Mina in Asturias, minimum age 12,000 years. The
(very controversial) interpretation cited in (HA 54-57) and Marshack
(1972: 213 pp.) sees it as a codification of lunar phases. More
examples for interpretations of abstract symbols are given in Haarmann
(1997: 676). http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/desn22.htm
Grey Satterfield
Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Grey Satterfield" <gsatte...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:C13C11B0.3328C%gsatte...@cox.net...
>> On 9/24/06 10:15 AM, in article Xns98486875...@216.165.192.91,
>> "Earl" <nep...@wt.net> wrote:
>>> Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming"
>>>
>>> We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice Age
>>> ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that the
>>> Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority of
>>> the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980.
>>>
>>> The temperature went up, then the CO2 went up. Just as happened
>>> during previous examples of GW.
>>>
>>> The sun is a variable star!!
>>
>> Yeah, but it's so much fun to blame it all on George W. Bush, leader of
>> "Greedy America." :)
>
> I don't think people blame George for global warming . They blame him for
> doing nothing about it and claiming it didn't happen when it certainly is
> happening and he could have done something about it.
I rest my case. :)
Grey Satterfield
Eugene Griessel
Of course! Who better to take the blame? They've been letting little
tinpot dictator-headed banana republics crap all over them for years -
not to mention sundry other loonies. What's a bit of global warming
in that mess?
Eugene L Griessel
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
Eugene Griessel
>I can't think of a single serious scientist who has any doubt at
>all that CO2 release (and the amplifying effects of the resultant
>increase in H2O vapour levels) is the driving term in the climate
>change we're seeing at the moment. And the more expert they are, the
>worried. I recommend that you read (Sir) John Houghton's "Global
>Warming: A primer" (Cambridge University Press) for more information.
>You are obviously well out of date in your sources.
It hasn't convinced any of the ardent coffee-table conservations of my
acquaintance to downgrade from the huge gas-guzzling, CO2 emitting,
4WD surburban assault vehicles they feel obligated to drive, even if
the things have never had anything but tarmac under their tyres....
Andrew Robert Breen
I resemble that remark!
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/images/thumper.jpg
In my defence I can only say that I have it for boat-towing and
that it doesn't do a big mileage. 3500 in a year is typical for
me, so its footprint is smaller than average-car at average-
mileage.
That said, I've decided that one hefty boat down here for the
year-round stuff and something trailable behind a much less
thirsty car is going to be the way to go.
--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)
William Black
"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ef6im3$3bmg$1...@osfa.aber.ac.uk...
The products of the Land Rover company are odd in the way they impact on the
environment.
For a start they are have aluminium bodies and a real chassis.
They also seem to have exceptional long lives, about 75% of all Land Rovers
built in the past fifty plus years are still on the road.
They're also cheap and easy to maintain and so use less resources in that
area as well.
My Defender is now well over a decade old, has done something over 80,000
miles and has only ever had one major breakdown (the dreaded 'clonk') and
one suite of tyres and shows very little wear and still starts on the first
turn of the key.
Long lived and reliable vehicles with low service overheads, especially
those with aluminium bodies, have a very low environmental impact compared
to saloon cars that die in less than a decade and have a host of complicated
electronic systems to go wrong.
Eugene Griessel
>In article <4516c05...@news.uunet.co.za>,
>Eugene Griessel <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote:
>>a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>>
>>>I can't think of a single serious scientist who has any doubt at
>>>all that CO2 release (and the amplifying effects of the resultant
>>>increase in H2O vapour levels) is the driving term in the climate
>>>change we're seeing at the moment. And the more expert they are, the
>>>worried. I recommend that you read (Sir) John Houghton's "Global
>>>Warming: A primer" (Cambridge University Press) for more information.
>>>You are obviously well out of date in your sources.
>>
>>It hasn't convinced any of the ardent coffee-table conservations of my
>>acquaintance to downgrade from the huge gas-guzzling, CO2 emitting,
>>4WD surburban assault vehicles they feel obligated to drive, even if
>>the things have never had anything but tarmac under their tyres....
>
>I resemble that remark!
>
>http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/images/thumper.jpg
>
>In my defence I can only say that I have it for boat-towing and
>that it doesn't do a big mileage. 3500 in a year is typical for
>me, so its footprint is smaller than average-car at average-
>mileage.
>That said, I've decided that one hefty boat down here for the
>year-round stuff and something trailable behind a much less
>thirsty car is going to be the way to go.
I live in an extremely "green" suburb - in fact the national Green
party headquarters is just down the road. I once stood on the corner
and counted the urban assault vehicles passing and in a random 15
minute count the average was 1 in 4 vehicles. Mostly driven by yuppie
ladies going to the corner grocery store for another packet of fags
and a chinwag with their fellow concerned citizens about the terrible
state the earth is in. Deities forbid that they should curb their
high-energy lifestyles, though. I don't think I've ever driven down
the road without having one of these monstrosities (with obligatory
bull-bars) sitting in my rear-view mirror. Worst is one cannot park
anywhere without being neatly hedged in by two of the things - which
makes getting out of a parking bay extremely hazardous as visibility
is nil.
Sorry - hobby horse there. Will quit frothing at mouth and resort to
a nice double rum to get blood pressure tamed.
Eugene L Griessel
The best way to keep kids at home is to make the home a pleasant
atmosphere ... and let the air out of their tires.
Andrew Robert Breen
Eugene Griessel <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote:
>a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>
>>In article <4516c05...@news.uunet.co.za>,
>>Eugene Griessel <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote:
>>>It hasn't convinced any of the ardent coffee-table conservations of my
>>>acquaintance to downgrade from the huge gas-guzzling, CO2 emitting,
>>>4WD surburban assault vehicles they feel obligated to drive, even if
>>>the things have never had anything but tarmac under their tyres....
>>
>>I resemble that remark!
>I live in an extremely "green" suburb - in fact the national Green
>party headquarters is just down the road. I once stood on the corner
>and counted the urban assault vehicles passing and in a random 15
>minute count the average was 1 in 4 vehicles. Mostly driven by yuppie
>ladies going to the corner grocery store for another packet of fags
>and a chinwag with their fellow concerned citizens about the terrible
>state the earth is in. Deities forbid that they should curb their
>high-energy lifestyles, though. I don't think I've ever driven down
>the road without having one of these monstrosities (with obligatory
>bull-bars) sitting in my rear-view mirror. Worst is one cannot park
>anywhere without being neatly hedged in by two of the things - which
>makes getting out of a parking bay extremely hazardous as visibility
>is nil.
Eugene - I honestly couldn't agree more. Use of car as default
mode of transport unaffected by purported concern.. Yep. Gets
right on my appendages, too.
Having said that, I'm lucky. The bus stops outside my door. And
I mean //right// outside. OTOH that means the main road goes past
right outside, too..
>Sorry - hobby horse there. Will quit frothing at mouth and resort to
>a nice double rum to get blood pressure tamed.
I was less surprised than shocked to find out (via a trial run
with a representitive sample of online "carbon footprint" calculators
to find that - Rangie notwithstanding - I had a lower carbon footprint
than any of my students. Yipe.
Grey Satterfield
Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote:
> I live in an extremely "green" suburb - in fact the national Green
> party headquarters is just down the road. I once stood on the corner
> and counted the urban assault vehicles passing and in a random 15
> minute count the average was 1 in 4 vehicles. Mostly driven by yuppie
> ladies going to the corner grocery store for another packet of fags
> and a chinwag with their fellow concerned citizens about the terrible
> state the earth is in. Deities forbid that they should curb their
> high-energy lifestyles, though. I don't think I've ever driven down
> the road without having one of these monstrosities (with obligatory
> bull-bars) sitting in my rear-view mirror. Worst is one cannot park
> anywhere without being neatly hedged in by two of the things - which
> makes getting out of a parking bay extremely hazardous as visibility
> is nil.
>
> Sorry - hobby horse there. Will quit frothing at mouth and resort to
> a nice double rum to get blood pressure tamed.
But real energy conservation, such as taking public transportation, is not
for those socially concerned ladies, who, after all, are VERY busy with all
of their important and socially aware tasks. Translation: all that really
inconvenient stuff is for the Little People. :)
I drive a six year old Acura, which gets nearly 30 mpg on the road, so I am
not being a hypocrite here.
Grey Satterfield --who is made very tired by the hypocrisy of Limousine
Liberals.
Grey Satterfield
Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
Well, anybody who actually uses public transportation is voting with his
feet -- literally. Thus, Andrew is entitled to curl his lip at the ladies
who decry excessive energy consumption and global warming but still drive
monster SUVs.
Grey Satterfield
Brad Guth
news:1159115837.6...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
> It would have been late for its close-up on the Cueto de la Mina baton
> de command
> From the viewpoint of the modern observer, the naturalistic pictorial
> representations are easier to interpret than abstract patterns. (Even
> if it is not possible to establish what the "meaning" of the pictures
> of animals in caves like Altamira or Lascaux was for the ancient
> people, and if there had been cave rituals, in which these might have
> played a role). (Haarmann 1997: 676). The abstract patterns are harder
> to classify than pictures: for example the dot patterns that appear in
> between the animal paintings in the cave paintings of Lascaux (HA
> 51-52). Whatever those "meanings" were, any interpretations will remain
> open to argument. One example is the pattern of the "baton de command"
> found in Cueto de la Mina in Asturias, minimum age 12,000 years. The
> (very controversial) interpretation cited in (HA 54-57) and Marshack
> (1972: 213 pp.) sees it as a codification of lunar phases. More
> examples for interpretations of abstract symbols are given in Haarmann
> (1997: 676). http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/desn22.htm
Thanks for that link to other research and subsequent documentation,
whereas that's all good stuff that's taking us back to roughly a little
further past 10,000 BC.
However, where's that big old and extremely vibrant moon of our's
depicted, or having been in any other manner associated with humanity
and of our icy cold environment as of anything prior to 10,500 BC?
There's perfectly good art that's established as of existing long before
10,500 BC, all of which is without moon.
I believe that you don't have to even be intelligent above a primitive
heathen status in order to have sufficiently depicted our moon,
especially of such a nicely ice age boosted earthshine of an extra
illuminated moon, that which had to have been closer and therefore
larger than life.
If that early moon of ours wasn't downright knock your socks off
impressive, then I don't know of what else was worthy of depicting along
with all of their local terrain, plants and animals.
What I'm saying is that our moon has only been with us since not more
than 10,500 BC, and as such it has been the primary culprit of our
global warming, and because of the ongoing human contributions is why
our global warming is only going to get worse off no matters whatever we
do, because of that physically dark, reactive and mascon worthy moon of
ours isn't leaving us any time soon, and it's entirely unlikely that the
likes of ExxonMobile are ever going to alter their intentions of sucking
out every last drop of oil at the fastest rate possible.
The best we can hope for is a moderate reduction in the rate of climatic
change, although I believe regardless of our best efforts, Earth shall
continue to thaw out. In other words, it's somewhat too little too late
in the game to make a significant difference. Sorry about that.
Jack Linthicum
May I say bullshit, the location of the moon and its resonance with the
earth require some longer period of propinquity.
http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html
You seem to be off by 3800 million years, more or less.
Brad Guth
> May I say bullshit, the location of the moon and its resonance with
> the earth require some longer period of propinquity.
> http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html
> You seem to be off by 3800 million years, more or less.
That's good news to hear, as then you've got those links to such images
that have our extremely vibrant looking and extra nearby moon depicted
along with the local terrain, plants and animals, as of something prior
to 10,500 BC.
Please share and share alike, as that's all I ask. Or perhaps do you
believe early humans were blind as well as dumbfounded about such
things?
Jim E
> Polniya 38,000 square miles (Iceland, Indiana size) is a new phenomenon
ICE FISHING ??
george
Next year they'll be into nailing jelly to the underside of dining room
tables
Fred J. McCall
:I don't think people blame George for global warming . They blame him for
:doing nothing about it and claiming it didn't happen when it certainly is
:happening and he could have done something about it.
And just what would you and those like you propose that George Bush
should do about global warming if, as seems quite likely, it is simply
a part of the normal variability of climate? Fire the Sun, perhaps?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:But real energy conservation, such as taking public transportation, is not
:for those socially concerned ladies, who, after all, are VERY busy with all
:of their important and socially aware tasks. Translation: all that really
:inconvenient stuff is for the Little People. :)
Actually, you get better traffic flow in most cities if you get the
buses off the roads. Mass transit doesn't work very well in 'new'
cities. The layout is different from the 'old' Eastern cities.
:I drive a six year old Acura, which gets nearly 30 mpg on the road, so I am
:not being a hypocrite here.
Hey, my car gets about that, too. But it's more fun to drive than an
Acura...
--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Brad Guth
> May I say bullshit, the location of the moon and its resonance with
> the earth require some longer period of propinquity.
> http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html
> You seem to be off by 3800 million years, more or less.
By all means, you may of course say anything you like, including
"bullshit", whereas that's perfectly good news to hear, as then you've
got those links to such images that have our extremely vibrant looking
and extra unavoidably nearby moon as depicted along with the local
terrain, plants and animals, as of something that's dated prior to
10,500 BC ??????
Please share and share alike, as that's all I ask. Or perhaps you
believe such early humans were simply blind as well as dumbfounded
heathens about such things?
How the hell is it even remotely possible not to have noticed that big
old moon?
Why do we suppose there's no other replicated science that's in factual
support of this GOOGLE/NOVA and MI/NSA~NASA certified infomercial <
http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html >?
Could it be that there's nothing else that's on their cloak and dagger
event horizon, that'll support their all or nothing ongoing ruse/sting
of the century?
It's sounding as though these good folks and/or status quo rusemasters
encharge of damage-control are into suggesting that it's impossible to
place such a moon sized satellite in orbit about an Earth like planet
(perhaps involving a glancing blow or two). I wonder why that is?
I'd thought we'd placed all sorts of nifty stuff in various orbits about
other planets and moons without involving all that much retro-thrust or
aerobreaking, just a tonne of good math that's related to basic physics
and orbital mechanics.
Jack Linthicum
Stop farting as a way of embrassing new hires?
sanjian
> Grey Satterfield <gsatte...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> But real energy conservation, such as taking public transportation,
>> is not for those socially concerned ladies, who, after all, are VERY
>> busy with all of their important and socially aware tasks.
>> Translation: all that really inconvenient stuff is for the Little
>> People. :)
>
> Actually, you get better traffic flow in most cities if you get the
> buses off the roads. Mass transit doesn't work very well in 'new'
> cities. The layout is different from the 'old' Eastern cities.
That's why I consider mass transit to be a toy and a waste of taxpayer
dollars in most US areas. When I had my truck lifted, it took 5 1/2 hours
to get from my apartment in Newport News down to Va. Beach to pick it up.
Even on the WORST day, it doesn't take that long by car (and if it does, bus
is still SOL, since they have to use the same highways). It's maybe an hour
drive if the HRBT is clear. Three hours is the most I've ever spent.
Nobody wants to give up their car so that they can walk three miles to a bus
station, drive an hour, then walk another three miles to get to their
destination, then turn around and do it all again. That's four hours of
walking, or eighty dollars at my old job.
sanjian
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I don't think people blame George for global warming . They blame
>> him for doing nothing about it and claiming it didn't happen when it
>> certainly is happening and he could have done something about it.
>
> And just what would you and those like you propose that George Bush
> should do about global warming if, as seems quite likely, it is simply
> a part of the normal variability of climate? Fire the Sun, perhaps?
Well, at least hold hearings. What did the Sun know, and when did he know
it?
Grey Satterfield
<san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Actually, you get better traffic flow in most cities if you get the
>> buses off the roads. Mass transit doesn't work very well in 'new'
>> cities. The layout is different from the 'old' Eastern cities.
>
> That's why I consider mass transit to be a toy and a waste of taxpayer
> dollars in most US areas. When I had my truck lifted, it took 5 1/2 hours
> to get from my apartment in Newport News down to Va. Beach to pick it up.
> Even on the WORST day, it doesn't take that long by car (and if it does, bus
> is still SOL, since they have to use the same highways). It's maybe an hour
> drive if the HRBT is clear. Three hours is the most I've ever spent.
>
> Nobody wants to give up their car so that they can walk three miles to a bus
> station, drive an hour, then walk another three miles to get to their
> destination, then turn around and do it all again. That's four hours of
> walking, or eighty dollars at my old job.
I agree that mass transit only works where population density is high but it
can work very well there. I took my grandson to San Diego last month and we
stayed in a motel that was only a short walk from a "Trolley" station, which
is what San Diego calls its light rail transit system. It was GREAT:
cheap, fast, and it got us to the zoo, with the help of a bus, and the
ballpark and back with no problems.
Grey Satterfield
Eugene Griessel
>
>I agree that mass transit only works where population density is high but it
>can work very well there. I took my grandson to San Diego last month and we
>stayed in a motel that was only a short walk from a "Trolley" station, which
>is what San Diego calls its light rail transit system. It was GREAT:
>cheap, fast, and it got us to the zoo, with the help of a bus, and the
>ballpark and back with no problems.
And the more people who use it the better the service can be made.
Trouble is when you have a culture of not using public transport the
service gets worse, the intervals between carriers lengthens and then
it becomes even more difficult to persuade people to use it.
Eugene L Griessel
Every thing on earth and in the Universe has limits
except human stupidity - there is no limit to that.
Grey Satterfield
Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote:
> Grey Satterfield <gsatte...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that mass transit only works where population density is high but it
>> can work very well there. I took my grandson to San Diego last month and we
>> stayed in a motel that was only a short walk from a "Trolley" station, which
>> is what San Diego calls its light rail transit system. It was GREAT:
>> cheap, fast, and it got us to the zoo, with the help of a bus, and the
>> ballpark and back with no problems.
>
> And the more people who use it the better the service can be made.
> Trouble is when you have a culture of not using public transport the
> service gets worse, the intervals between carriers lengthens and then
> it becomes even more difficult to persuade people to use it.
That's true. Too many social planners think that they can build a transit
system and it will magically be heavily patronize and make some money. It
won't. Nevertheless, in addition to San Diego's Trolley, I can attest that
San Francisco's BART system is excellent and the NYC subways are the only
way to travel if you are in a hurry.
Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
The Washington system is a unified arrangement where buses bring people
from spoke like routes into the stations, the major problem now is a
lack of parking because many who drive from far out (40-50 miles) take
the early places. Several attempts have been made to extend the lines
beyond the original plan, to Dulles Airport, or link with Baltimore.
The need for a "beltway" type of line, such as in Tokyo, would
eliminate a lot of the riders coming in on one spoke onto a Metro line
and then taking another Metro line out .
It is one of the most-used systems in the U.S., 564,000 riders daily,
and about 700k users on the weekend. Once you get used to the Farecard
system and the graduated fare it involves it is an easy system. One of
my memories was taking my daughter on a field trip and watching the
suburban housewives trying to get their grarly old bills from the
bottom of their purse to fit in the fare slot.
Grey Satterfield
1159212164.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum"
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was at the Pentagon for an ACTUTRA in the '70s when its light rail system
was being built but have never been there in circumstances where riding it
would have made sense.
Washington's variable priced fare cards sound identical to San Diego's
system. They have from "A" to "E" tickets. Which one you buy depends on
how far you will be riding. My grandson and I had to buy E tickets because
where we were staying was a long way from downtown. Nevertheless, it was
still a real bargain. We bought our tickets from an automated touch-screen
machine at our station. It was very easy to use, just like the machines you
see outside movie theater complexes these days. Just tell it what kind of
tickets, how many of them, swipe your credit card or feed it cash and you
are done.
Grey Satterfield
TOliver
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote >
> The Washington system is a unified arrangement where buses bring people
> from spoke like routes into the stations, the major problem now is a
> lack of parking because many who drive from far out (40-50 miles) take
> the early places. Several attempts have been made to extend the lines
> beyond the original plan, to Dulles Airport, or link with Baltimore.
> The need for a "beltway" type of line, such as in Tokyo, would
> eliminate a lot of the riders coming in on one spoke onto a Metro line
> and then taking another Metro line out .
>
> It is one of the most-used systems in the U.S., 564,000 riders daily,
> and about 700k users on the weekend. Once you get used to the Farecard
> system and the graduated fare it involves it is an easy system. One of
> my memories was taking my daughter on a field trip and watching the
> suburban housewives trying to get their grarly old bills from the
> bottom of their purse to fit in the fare slot.
>
ride the Metro in from DCA to within a few hundred feet of my regular hotel
and a sure fire way to get to the various normal destinations while in town.
We paid for it and all should use it.
TMO
sanjian
Indeed. However, there -are- viable uses for mass transit, even in Hampton
Roads. Imagine if you had a base-transit loop via light rail. People get
on at "park and ride" lots, and board trains that carry them to the bases.
They could even have their own bridge-tunnel across the James River. There
you capitalize on mass-transit's strong point - concentrated destinations.
Grey Satterfield
"TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote:
It's a good idea to use a light rail system anywhere if you can manage it.
You get to see so much more of a city that way than you do when you are
driving a car -- well, except in New York, of course. Further, it gives you
a chance to interact with others, "the roar of the greasepaint, the smell of
the crowd" and all that. Best of all, it's both convenient and cheap.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
:On 9/25/06 6:34 AM, in article ef8ep...@news4.newsguy.com, "sanjian"
It's not even a matter of population density, but rather of city
structure. Old cities grew up with a 'central business district' and
spawned surrounding suburbs. In those cities mass transit can work
fairly well as it all can be set up to feed into and out of the
central business district, where most people work and where most goods
are delivered.
More modern cities (of which San Diego is one) have situations where
mass transit doesn't work as well, must be HEAVILY subsidized, and
most folks still can't get by without a car. Things like light rail
work well for tourists and such, but you never get the situation with
lots of people riding it to and from work day in and day out, as can
happen in older cities.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
sanjian
But you don't have use of your care when you get to your destination, which
sucks.
Jack Linthicum
I feel I should correct one point in your last two entries: the DC
Metro system isn't "light rail" it is full sized, and uses third rail
techniques. Baltimore's system is light rail from BWI to Timonium and
has a station at North Linthicum. Linthicum itself is a an old station
with few parking spaces so it is bypassed.
Lightrail.com's definition of "Light Rail"
For purposes of lightrail.com's page(s), "Light Rail" is defined as
follows:
An electric railway system, characterized by its ability to operate
single or multiple car consists (trains) along exclusive rights-of-way
at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or in streets, able
to board and discharge passengers at station platforms or at street,
track, or car-floor level and normally powered by overhead electrical
wires.
Other "official" definitions offered
APTA Glossary of Transit Terminology definition:
"An electric railway with a "light volume" traffic capacity
compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive
rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or
single cars. Also known as streetcar, trolley car or tramway.
Transportation Research Board definition:
Light rail transit is: "A metropolitan electric railway system
characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains
along exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in
subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge
passengers at track or car-floor level."
Some other definitions and thoughts submitted:
* Light Rail is the child of a streetcar mother and a rapid transit
father. It is a nephew to an interurban line, a cousin to commuter
rail, and a step-brother to a bus.. (Jim Seamon - St. Louis Mo.)
* "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it!"
* "On heavy rail, you board the train from a platform. On light
rail, you board the train from the ground." (Harry H. Conover)
Grey Satterfield
1159267907.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum"
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I feel I should correct one point in your last two entries: the DC
> Metro system isn't "light rail" it is full sized, and uses third rail
> techniques. Baltimore's system is light rail from BWI to Timonium and
> has a station at North Linthicum. Linthicum itself is a an old station
> with few parking spaces so it is bypassed.
>
> Lightrail.com's definition of "Light Rail"
>
> For purposes of lightrail.com's page(s), "Light Rail" is defined as
> follows:
>
> An electric railway system, characterized by its ability to operate
> single or multiple car consists (trains) along exclusive rights-of-way
> at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or in streets, able
> to board and discharge passengers at station platforms or at street,
> track, or car-floor level and normally powered by overhead electrical
> wires.
[snip]
I assume that Jack means the DC system is standard gauge (4' 8.5"). San
Diego has some of that, too, although it's not electrified. They use
passenger cars and diesel locomotives for transportation along the coast to
supplement the Trolley System, which is light rail. The New York Subway
System is standard gauge, too. Oddly, the San Francisco BART system uses an
even broader gauge, 5' 6".
Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
Assume what you will light rail has nothing to do with gauge. Again....
"Definition of light rail
The term light rail was devised in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transit
Association (UMTA) to describe new streetcar transformations which were
taking place in Europe and the United States. In Germany the term
stadtbahn was used to describe the concept, and many in the UMTA wanted
to adopt the direct translation, which is city rail. However, the UMTA
finally adopted the term light rail instead.
Light rail is similar to the British English term light railway long
used to distinguish railway operations carried out under a less
rigorous set of regulation using lighter equipment at lower speeds from
mainline railways.
The American Public Transportation Authority (APTA) in its Glossary of
Transit Terminology defines light rail as: "An electric railway with a
'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may
use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and
multi-car trains or single cars."
The opposing phrase heavy rail for higher capacity, higher speed
systems also avoids some incompatibilities in terminology between
British and American English, as for instance in comparing the London
Underground to the New York Subway
Conventional rail technologies including high-speed, freight,
commuter/regional, and metro/subway are considered to be "heavy rail".
Wiki-reality
Gregory L. Thompson (2003), Defining an Alternative Future: Birth of
the Light Rail Movement in North America, Transportation Research
Board, http://trb.org/publications/circulars/ec058/03_01_Thompson.pdf
Grey Satterfield
1159278307.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum"
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
Jack can't give it up, even in the absence of a significant disagreement.
:)
Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
Please give me a cite, other than your post, that the Washington Metro
system has ever been called "light rail". "Significant disagreement"
requires something beyond a smiley, do you realize that small children
will make reports in the their classrooms describing the DC Metro as
light rail and receive failing grades?
Alan Lothian
<a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
<snippaggio>
>
> I can't think of a single serious scientist who has any doubt at
> all that CO2 release (and the amplifying effects of the resultant
> increase in H2O vapour levels) is the driving term in the climate
> change we're seeing at the moment. And the more expert they are, the
> worried. I recommend that you read (Sir) John Houghton's "Global
> Warming: A primer" (Cambridge University Press) for more information.
> You are obviously well out of date in your sources.
Well, Andy is one of the few people on this or any other ng whose
opinions I will defer to, although generally only when he's speaking
_ex cathedra_ (well, we both share experiences of the ESTEC canteen).
So I will return to my sceptical studies. I will not now name a list of
"serious scientists" who disagree, just add the following:
What is very clear is that "Global Warming Now and it's All Our Fault"
has become a religion, and opposing it is treated as a heresy.
Naturally, I default towards the heresiarchs. I am inclined (wrongly,
perhaps, but not entirely without reason) to associate the whole
movement with the viciously dishonest anti-Enlightenment
West-destroyers, who proliferate everywhere public funding may be
found. [Note to Usians: this opinion does not mean I am a supporter of
GW Bush in any way wise whatsoever.]
Indeed: who's for a long-term (20-year) bet: great scare in 2020 will
be the imminent ice age, just as it was 30 years back, when that
grotesque self-publicist Stephen Schneider was first making his
scarecrow name.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
My .mac. address is a spam sink. If you wish to email me, try a t lothian at
blueyonder dot co dot uk
Jim E
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:1159142682.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I thought that was their plan for this November,
Jim E