I received an e-mail on one of my lists stating he had passed away
Christmas evening at the assisted living facility in which he had been
for the past 11 months. It gave information on services to be held for
Dean as well.
I met him at NMRA 2003 in Toronto - he wasn't afraid of SARS. ;-)
A real gentleman, answered my somewhat obtuse questions in a most
friendly way. I admired his ability to makes credible mdoels out of what
looked like almost nothing.
He will be missed.
Would that be:
* Severe acute respiratory syndrome, a pneumonia-like disease
* The South African Revenue Service, the tax collection agency for
* Sars, the Specialist Anti-Robbery Squad, an elite police unit in
* Sars, a common abbreviation for sarsaparilla in Australia
Having just eaten an anchovy pizza for lunch, I await your answer with
The above. The convention in Toronto took place not long after the
outbreak in the Far East, and some Canadian cases of it had been
reported. There was widespread fear of it turning into a pandemic;
thankfully it didn't. Many NMRA members that had been planning to attend
canceled, resulting in the National Train Show also being canceled as
manufacturers and dealers pulled out. The convention itself was much
smaller than normal that year.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:05:57 -0800, "Roger Traviss"
SARS had a fatality rate of nearly 10% in those infected. Over 700
people died from it. I sure wouldn't call that "nothing."
The World Health Organization advised postponing travel to Toronto
(site of the NMRA 2003 convention) a few months before the NMRA
meeting. The advisory was lifted well in advance of the NMRA show,
but the damage had been done, and show attendance was down that year.
Whitefish Bay, Wis.
The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com /
That's because it's a known factor: the killer is "ordinary flu", to
which most of us have acquired immunity. It's a generational thing: most
of us have acquired immunity to the current flu virus families. Most of
the deaths occur in the very young, who have not yet acquired immunity;
and in the elderly, who have missed out on acquiring immunity to the new
strain(s). It's a true pandemic, but's it not a "killer". If it were,
there would tens of millions of deaths.
The fear with H1N1 was twofold: it was a strain out of the ordinary
sequence, so to speak (in fact, it's related to the Spanish flu, which
did kill millions.) That means it's in a family for which most of us
have no immunity. Two things prevented a vicious killer pandemic: it was
less virulent than estimated; and in the industrialised world
vaccination reduced its effects. Even so, about 20% of the flu deaths in
Canada were H1N1 that year.
A perspective statistic: In Canada, about as many people die of the flu
every year as in highway accidents.
Have a good one,
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:19:30 -0800, "Roger Traviss"
Not a panic, but health professionals around the world are continually
working to control strains of the flu. But back to your original
phrase, I don't belive any normal person would call H1H1 or Swine Flu
These scare campaigns are just to create market opportunities, to get
research grants from gullible governments and ultimately gullible
taxpayers, and to give politicians an excuse to divert public attention
from other issues. Just like global warming.
Indeed. We've had many colder winters than usual. Much more snow then
usual. When I was a kid it rarely snowed in December but for the past
several years it has snowed every December. White Cristmas? You bet we
got 12 inches the day after and we had to reschedule the Eagles-
Vikings game. This global warming thing is out of control. If it gets
any warmer we're all gonna freeze to death.
But 2010 is still the warmest year on record (ie, highest average daily
temperatures in most parts of the N. hemisphere). Paradox, or what?
NYT had an article on why global warming causes snowier winters in the
mid-latitudes. It has to do with increased snow in Siberia. The higher
summer temperatures make more water available for snow, so Siberia gets
more snow, and snow further south. That changes the heat exchange
between ground and air, and one effect of that is that the jet stream
moves south. The jet stream collides with the warmer/damper air in the
mid-latitudes, which causes snow; and the larger than normal temperature
differences cause strong winds. Result: blizzards. Then the snow melts,
a good deal of water evaporates, the air becomes moist again, and the
cycle repeats. Every two weeks or so. IOW, you're in for a few more
storms. If you're lucky, not quite as bad as the last two.
BTW El Nino and La Nina (upwelling of warmer water to the surface of the
Pacific near the equator) both cause increased snowfall in Canada and
the northern USA because both increase the temperature of the air over
the e central and eastern Pacific Ocean. Similar mechanisms, different
So, yes, global warming does cause more snow than usual in the
mid-latitudes. And less snow further north. Much less, in fact. We have
some snow, but not nearly as much as we had 30-40 years ago. And further
north, in the arctic, it's warmer than usual. Much warmer. The forecast
a couple or three years ago was that the arctic ice cap would last at
least until sometime after 2150. Now it looks like it may be gone by 2050.
BTW, for those of you living in the UK: one of the possible effects of
global warming is a change in the flow of warm water from the Caribbean
to the North Atlantic: at present, the Gulf Stream flows "downstream" so
to speak, on top of the cold N. Atlantic water, and warms up the UK and
Iceland. Global warming could warm up the N. Atlantic enough to block
the flow of the Gulf stream, or divert it south. If that happens, the UK
and Iceland would become colder.
Will this happen? Nobody knows for sure. But the experiment is under
way. And you guys are the guinea pigs. All of us are guinea pigs,
actually: a likely effect on Canada will be extended droughts. It may
comfort you to know that. Then again, maybe not.
have a good day,
You don't seem to understand the difference between "climate" -which
can be thought of as the total amount of energy in the system- and
"weather" which is the expression of that energy.
Fact: as the globe continues to accumulate more energy (in the form of
heat) than it gets rid of through radiation, the weather will become
more and more extreme; and this includes having both lower lows and
higher highs. Human beings can insulate themselves from these
extremes to some extent, but the plants and animals that have evolved
to live in certain ranges of temperature extremes cannot; and will go
extinct if they cannot migrate.
Alas, this is the case with most species, and many of those same
species -both plants and animals- are ones that comprise part of the
food chains *we* rely on.
Care to try living on 500 calories a day and having to fight to get
even that much?
Uh, sure. *That* must be it.
A basic understanding of high-school physics, and the fact that I
taught for 12 years at the University of California -and got to know
several guys in the Science Department who have spent their entire
professional lives researching this problem- couldn't *possibly* have
anything to do with it, right?
So tell us: how many climatologists and geophysicists do *you* know?
Oh wait, I forgot: they're all part of this plot to promote something
that you'd rather not admit was true, so they must all be lying.
A lot more than you probably do, because I used to work in close
proximity to a whole department of them.
Almost all the ones I know either were never part of the conspiracy or
have now seen the light. The only ones standing ground are the
recipients of research grants that would dry up if they admitted it is
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.