Gunner's Status

Did you run the numbers? You are taking a position.

Wes

Frank:

Now THERE'S an idea. Just today someone asked me what happened to Frank Carbone. Does anyone know for sure?

My position is that neither Larry, you, or me are up to taking a position on the sources of global warming. When he quotes percentages of gases in the atmosphere and the relative timing of temperature rises versus increases in the percentage of CO2, suggesting that they mean something that leads him to his conclusion, one might want to know how he's arrived at that conclusion. Then, when he says he's arrived at his position by "logic" but doesn't understand the physical principles behind the gas greenhouse effect, which is the only relevance for bringing up the CO2 percentage, I might question what kind of logic he's using.

d8-)

-- Ed Huntress

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:48:34 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress" scrawled the following:

Pass. I'm just a simple masturbator while you're the master debater. ;)

Why, I read it on the Internet, Ed. It _must_ be true! ;)

No, yours.

Inferences from their statements and actions.

Any more, yes. I got so fsking sick of the alarmists that I couldn't stand it any more.

Who the hell is Tom Gogola?!? Oh, I found it:

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Interesting excerpt, Mr. Little.

Are you confusing Crichton's fiction with his stance?

No, of course not...

I got crosseyed (and got a headache after several hours) the last time I tried to delve into it. It requires a new language before you can go very far.

Why have they been adding so many new calculations to the models and tweaking the existing calcs for so many years if they've know all about it since the 20s, Ed?

Ed, do you feel that the computer models they're working with are running true, producing factual output which can be tracked backwards in time for proof, and are -complete- in their scope? If so, you're as lost as you think I am, so go ask a climatologist to run his model for you. Let me know what you find.

What portion of "moot" do you not understand? The alarmists say that the massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing warming, and the massive reduction of said injection by turning off the coal burning will effectively reduce that by 66% (WAG)

Never mind. I'll take my punting tee home now.

-- Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- George S. Patton

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:03:21 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress" scrawled the following:

They're going along with it, aren't they? And you call anyone speaking out against them fanatics, too. Lose/Lose, wot?

-- Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- George S. Patton

Amen.

WAIT! First somebody has to explain the gas greenhouse effect itself. It's like learning the alphabet before learning to write words.

You go first.

-- Ed Huntress

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:17:41 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand scrawled the following:

...or in the ocean, liquified, as some fool now want to try. Here's what happens:

I'm right with you on everything so far, Mark.

Mum's the word.

-- Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- George S. Patton

Sadly I recently had to do that. I'd asked my gentleman friend quite some time ago if he would want me to post on misc.survivalism if something were to happen to him. He gave me the OK. It was a very hard post to make. Sue misc.survivalism

No, they're not. George is building a strawman. And you aren't aware of that because all you read is the antis, as you said.

I don't call them fanatics. The people who write the popularized books arguing against global warming are on the fringes of mainstream science or beyond, but that doesn't make them fanatics. Surely there are a few fanatics among them.

-- Ed Huntress

I have a living will, pretty well laid out, as to who is to be notified,and how, Who is to get called in to inventory and dispose of my various machine tools, firearms (there are master lists by serial numbers), etc. Several close friends have first dibs on their choices of handguns, rifles,knives, reloading equipment, etc etc (beqeithed free and a fixed number to each) and so forth. "Joe" gets his choice of (1) Drilling, "Bob" gets his choice of one shotgun, "Bubba" gets his choice of one lathe, "Sally" gets her choice of one vintage camera etc etc. "Sam" will be asked to dispose of the boats, for very fair percentage, and so forth.

Ive bought way too much stuff from widows who didnt have a clue what to do with the old mans Stuff and got reamed financially by "friends". And Ive been the executor of several estates over the years, so have tried to cover as many eventualities as possible.

My living will covers DNRs etc. Im very much realist, and while an optimist...understand what the concept of "borrowed time" means.

A number of posters and lurkers here are mentioned in my will..shrug and their seconds and thirds if I survive them, down the line. Both as benificiaries and as requested executors of portions of my Stuff.

The wife, or next of kin simply has to open the book, and start contacting people.

My next of kin for the most part, has little interest in most of my gear except financially, and after the wake has been paid for...there wont be a hell of a lot of cash left to distribute. Pipers and hookers cost a lot when catering a good old fashion drunken everybody has a Really good time wake.

Gunner

Sue:

Somehow I missed that. I've been distracted with some serious health issues of my own the last few months. Anyway, please accept me belated regrets for your loss.

Jeff Mc

Damn, it's a rare moment when I think I shouldn't be a role model for my children, but I'd sure like to attend your wake.

The bypass operation gunner just went through is going to give him another 15 years to live. So don't hold your breath ;-)

He will heal up on his own. That's what Mother Nature does for a living: heal wounds. And then he'll be back in the saddle, with _some_ restrictions. Other than that...those few restrictions...he can go back to a *normal* Life. God willing.

Lg

Will any of these bequests tick, and will they all pass a "sniff test" for C4, Tetrytol, RDX, etc etc?

Ya wanna tickless (electronic) time delay fuze design, lemme know hee hee. Last long time work real good cost guppla bux.

Cites, please? Limited data I've seen would make that seem very optimistic -- but then I'm told that recent research has found that 15 years might be quite realistic if the subject does "the right stuff" re exercise, cholesterol control and no smokin'. Just recounting what I've been told, not lookin' for an argument.

It ain't all that complicated in principle, the devil is in the details which are important for precise modelling and predictions but not for basic understanding. The gas greenhouse effect has to do with how some gasses (CO2, water vapor, methane, etc) are transparent to visible radiation but absorb energy from infrared radiation. The planet is irradiated with visible light from the sun that passes right thru these gasses. Earth is warmed by this radiation, so it re-radiates IR as a black body. The gasses absorb this IR rather than let it escape to space, so the warmth is retained in the atmosphere. The complex details have to do with pressure spreading effect on quantum absorption and the chaotic nature of convection -- which simply means that we can't yet model the thermodynamics of our planet and atmosphere in a deterministic fashion because things change faster than the computer models can assimilate and simulate. FEA models based on Napier-Stokes equations can deal with the fluid dynamics and thermodynamics but there does not yet exist a computer that could run such a model in anything close to real time, nevermind constructing such a model. This will happen eventually, though not in my lifetime nor yours and perhaps not in those of our children.

It is clear that CO2 concentraton has increased in recent times. It is also clear that the planet is warming. What isn't clear is whether or not there is a causitive link, since climatic changes do occur and have occurred for other reasons. A strong correllation between greenhouse gas concentrations and global avg temp would suggest a connection, but the suggestion is far from a proof and the correllation is not that strong. Therein lies the fertile ground for argument, debate, political noise and pseudoscientific babblebullshit. You're sure right that neither you nor Larry are gonna "run the numbers" using calculators or personal computers.

I just added an open invitation to all MS/AMC/RCM members to the book.

Gunner

"Not so old as to need virgins to excite him, nor old enough to have the patience to teach one."

None will tick, all will be disarmed...they may or not pass the sniff test...depending on what you consider "passing"

you mumba One Giii!

Gunner

"Not so old as to need virgins to excite him, nor old enough to have the patience to teach one."

One side claims warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases Another side claims greenhouse gases are caused by increased warming.

Since CO2 tends to show up AFTER warming events, not before.....

Anyone notice that if you let a soft drink, cold from the fridge, sit for a while..as it warms..the CO2 starts bubbling out more and more?

according to the GWKs....its the CO2 bubbling out that makes the drink warm up. Despite the laws of thermodynamics and expanding gases....

Gunner

"Not so old as to need virgins to excite him, nor old enough to have the patience to teach one."