Less than 24 hours away from hum day. That means it’s time for a little linkdump.
A Brian Vernor documentary on touring Africa… “Where Are You Go”:
Which brings me to the question I often ponder: Is there any place in Africa that doesn’t resemble hell?
from: Mr. Sparkle
Hey up, big man. Que pasa, as we say in England. I did the SSUK 09 event the other week and it was great! Here’s a video my 16 yr old lad, Will, made of it:
Hope you and yours are well and that you are staying away from the ‘naughty boys’!
The SSUK09. I’m going to guess that it was a right-proper time from the looks of that.
Now, Taylor brings up the scientific analysis of how fucked we are, which will now be the point at which this post takes a turn towards sucky:
This was released today… And suggests to me some disturbing convergence of bikes, politics and God
That’s from GlobalChange.gov. And there isn’t any doubt in my mind that there’s some shit coming down the pipe and this place is going to be reminiscent of the proverbial hurt locker pretty soon, give or take a few decades. Which brings me to the following visual argument that holds a certain truth:
Not that “Europe” or the “EU” is any type of saint, but the point is somewhat valid because who of any of us has seen more of the right than of the left here in the good ‘ol States lately? At the very least, there needs to be a weight limit imposed on Thong usage because trust me honey, I’m not looking for your panty-lines.
Which brings me to the point that the bicycle could pretty much be all the salvation we need to trim a little fat while knocking down a little CO2 but we’ve got this insurmountable ratio of stupid people the world over so there’s just going to have to be a little “sweating of the fat” before anything really changes for the better – everywhere… except for maybe Africa which probably wont notice much difference.
That, or we could just accept the Republican refugees who are denying global anything. while blaming everyone else for our problems. How American. Or, another option might be to just eliminate that whole party entirely. Who would really miss anything but the name if that was done? But Hell, they even hate cyclist in Canada so its futile.
from: Theo
Dear god, things are tough all over. Check out the hate on for cyclists in our local broadsheet:
Prime Quotes from this looser:
“The onus for change can only come from cyclists.” and “moving obstacles that pay no tax” Last time I checked I still pay federal provincial and municipal tax. Unfortunately this reporter missed the issue completely: Our city is designed around cars, pathways were built for recreation not commuting. So rather than finding the actual issue and making people aware this fellow though he might endanger a few more
cyclists on the road. Alberta is Canada’s Texas. T.
Apparently you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to be a politician in Canada either. How bout that? Better yet, how bout the rest of the Linkdump:
Beer Hydrates Better than Water: backpacker.com
The Cougars of Camelback Mountain: picasa.com
Big Hair Band off hook: Steel Panther (my new personal fav, and oh snap! Thanks Anna Robic.)
Happy Tuesday.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Seriously? touring on a hippie tall bike. That looks like hell.
There are two things we need to do to deal with climate change: 1) Make serious attempts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions… yesterday. Small changes aren’t going to do it. 2) Prepare for the fact that things are going to change. Droughts and floods will get worse, sea level is going to rise, and the effective starts of “spring” and “winter” are going to change. Bird migrations and plant blooms are already changing.
The jingoists will always decry the US becoming more like Europe, but much of Europe has it pretty good. Health care, shorter work weeks, more vacation, less obese people…
Beer decreases scientific productivity: http://www.citeulike.org/user/brockkirwan/article/2581193
Oikos is actually a really good journal, but I take issue with it because they did the study in Czech, which has the highest per-capita beer consumption in the world… (sorry, we’d all be considered lightweights there)
WTF is Camelback Mountain, and why is a 10 year old the first picture?
Steel Panther may be my new favorite 80s anachronism.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Ah yes, apologies for the tweeners mixed with the milf’s. I had no control over that. Camelback Mountain is in the heart of Phoenix… which is arguably the cougar capital of the world. The Cougars prowl that place on the daily.
Meow. Rar.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Gnome , the new cycling news site is a joke ! Can you get on that……
June 16th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Hell, that there is a fine site. I mean, in a matter of seconds, I found Hamilton got suspended for eight years. Man, I hope he can make a comeback after that.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I wonder when the Intervention episode comes out on him….
(Speaking of Intervention, I used to get my ass handed to me by Gerlach on the River Ride. He was the dude we all looked up to. Pure, unconstrained talent. Addiction can happen to anyone… “Cocaine… it’s a powerful drug…” The dude has had his battles…)
Maybe it’ll just take me a few days to get used to the new cyclingnews site. Right now, it just seems a little less intuitive in its organization.
meow.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:58 am
“Is there any place in Africa that doesn’t resemble hell?”
Hell, I thought you boys were a little more enlightened. Best you stay behind the old comfort curtain and yap, at least you know you’ll be safe there.
The video is great.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:29 am
All those greenhouse gasses haven’t done shit for Chicago…coldest June in recorded weather history here. But wait…look at the sun…least amount of solar flares in observed history…we all better start riding our bikes more so them flares will come back! gimmeafugginbreak.
First global cooling in the 70s, then global warming of late, now CLIMATE CHANGE. Yawn. If you believe this bullshit, naiviety might be a problem. Now that the gubbernment has jumped on the bandwagon, you can be SURE 90% of what your hear/read is…polluted.
I’m fully aware that I’ll probably have to get rid of my boat in the near future simply because the gov’t will legislate it out of existance…and no matter which way you cut it, that ain’t too cool in “The Land of the Free.”
June 17th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I don’t think the US Canadian and Mexican. . . the North American Union will help us one bit. This does not make me a jingoist, I’m just not drinking the NWO cool-aid. Change isn’t always that great, it helps to think things through if you have the chance. Do you think the Bildeburger Group are your savior? Kissinger and all his buddies are not really interested in much but controlling your every thought. Most “Europeans” are not that big on the EU, as far as I can tell. Ask yourself, what exactly is Europe, because it is not an actual continent. Notice how the Eastern border is made up. It’s high time to cut the fucking bullshit.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:31 am
sfb, read some actual scientific literature on the topic, which is what I try to do, and quit confusing weather with climate. You have no idea what you are talking about. Much of the solar flare theory has been based on some serious hand waving and sketchy stats. Also, even if there is some, or even a lot, solar forcing of the climate, the theory in NO WAY negates AGW by CO2. Solar flare cycles are on about an 11 year pattern. That in no way explains the increasing temperature trend over the past 100 years. Again, I’d point you to RealClimate, since it’s written by climate scientists for the educated layperson, but since I’ve done that before and you haven’t done it, I doubt you will this time…
shultz… I’m not suggesting we should go to a NAU like the EU, and you’re making very little sense otherwise. For many places in Europe, when you read the surveys, they are “happier”. Sure there are problems, but there is less crime, people are healthier, workloads are more reasonable… What are people in the US so afraid of?
June 17th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Thing is jefe, I HAVE read up. Which is why I find it all so funny. Try “The Chilling Stars” on for size, as I’ve said before. Might just knock you off that high horse your sitting on, bro.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Goddamn AS, that was a fucking question mark at the end of that one and not a period.
That said, I’ve never seen anything about Africa that wasn’t related to suffering. Of course there’s pretty things there. I just haven’t found the right channel yet.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
sfb, Svensmark’s book isn’t science. It is a piece of sensationalist literature by someone who is bitter that his theory got panned by the larger scientific community and that his papers have been called out for shaky statistics and incorrect assumptions (Yes, I’ve read them). The theory he promotes was discredited in 2004 (Rahmstorf, S., et al., 2004: Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide and climate. Eos, 85(4), 38, 41.) and again in 2007 (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A; 2007), and there is a summary in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html). You say that much of what we hear is polluted. Yes, in the popular press which you are so fond of. Open your eyes. There is no cabal of climate scientists promoting propaganda. The best scientists in the field agree that AGW is real. When it comes to listening to them or you, I’m going to go with them. I’m going to go with papers published in Nature, Eos, and Proceedings of the Royal Society A, three of the best journals in the world, over a non-peer reviewed book, written by someone with an axe to grind. Call me crazy, but I think they know more than you, me, or both of us put together. When someone comes up with a better theory, I’ll change my tune. That’s how science works.
BTW, no-one is going to come for your boat, truck, or guns. Don’t buy into that bullshit.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
People can be entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Jefe- Yeah…I’ve done a bit of research in the area…you hear the facts you want and believe them, I’ll hear the facts I want and believe them. You act as if there is no “other side” to the arguement…(sounds a bit like today’s little news story about ABC not allowing a Republican commentary/counterpoint on their upcoming coverage of the Obama health plan). I DO, in fact, believe that the climate is changing (and yes, I’m smart enough to know it has nothing to do with the weather…the weather is just a major point of frustration for me right now because too much rain = no mountain biking)…I just don’t believe that it’s entirely man-made. READ – YES I agree that SOME of it has to be caused by man (we are, after all, a parasitic organism when it comes to the planet)…but I don’t think a SmartCar or a bike is the solution.
As for coming to get my cars, guns, and boat…I’m not worried about them “coming to get them” per se…I’m worried about them being legislated out of existence. I don’t own a gun, but I have a couple cars that aren’t exactly Priuses, plus the boat…and I enjoy them in much the same way I enjoy a fine singlespeed. It’s really the principle of the the thing that is so bothersome…the idea that a government could come in and obliterate thru regulation an entire industry on the basis of an unproven THEORY is scary stuff to me..and should be to you as well.
Forgive my ignorance and my opinion if you please, it probably won’t change because you say it should. Now, I’m off to burn some fossil fuels.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
gnomish… two comments
1) anna robic — any relation to jure?
2) nice camelback pics thanks…
June 17th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Fat Bastard,
anna robic is a first time caller. Is “she” related to this dude? No idea. I thought those raam dudes were anamatronic robots anyhow. Show’a what I know.
Yea, the Camelback Cougar habitat appears to be fantastic. Perhaps I need to return to the valley.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
tina.
was she on this thread?
June 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
SOmetimes I just don’t know wtf ya’ll be talk’n bout.
And sometimes, I’m comfortably ok with that.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:32 am
EJ, you are brainwashed. You’re making very little sense. What is the cause of our cold winter and spring if not the waning of solar flares? According the the global warming “science” the whole greenhouse effect is not that quick to cool. The reduction in solar flares giving us cooler temps during the last couple seasons just makes sense.
To create a police state based on green taxes is no good. Too many of the people pushing global warming are suspect, the thing has become less about preserving life and more about power grabbing.
The neodems are in control now and they’re right in line with the neocons. If you don’t understand that you’re completely brainwashed.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Hey Gnome, good call. Get yer ass over here and I’ll show you some places that might make ya wanna stay.
There’s heap of crap on the continent, but also a heap of great stuff (not to mention a few places to ride see this: http://www.freedomchallenge.org.za/
June 18th, 2009 at 8:42 am
schulz, talk to me when you’ve actually read up on the science of it. You’re the one who’s brainwashed. Weather is not the same as climate. Look it up. A cool summer doesn’t mean much in relation to long term climate trends. Solar intensity peaked in 1985-1987 and since then the trends in flares, sunspots, and cosmic ray trends have all been in the opposite direction needed to explain global warming. You are talking about completely different cycles. This year might be cooler than last year, but if you look at the past 100 years, we are on a upward trend. Solar flares, El Nino, The Pacific Decadal Ossiclation, may all effect local and regional patterns on a short cycle of approximately 10 years give or take. None of these patterns or covariates in any way discount the hard science behind AGW. That’s the whole problem with the discussion. Everything that might have the slightest complicating influence gets played by the right wing and the media as a complete refutation of AGW. It’s not, its an additional part of the puzzle. The scientists who are suspect are those industry shrills like Singer and Svensmark, who selectively analyze data and make press releases and comments overstating the impact of their work. The power grab is by those in power wanting to stay in power. Again, do some actual reading of reliable scientific material. Go to your local library and start searching through Nature and Science, maybe Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and Proceedings of the Royal Society if they have them. These are the top four science journals in the world. The popular press gets it wrong on both sides. They dumb it down and oversimplify it on the left, which leaves things open to attack from the one percenters on the right who scream about how it’s all bullshit.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:03 am
The journals you recommend are known to alter mathematical theories intended to lock us into basic 3 dimensional physics. The irresponsible quantity and quality of emissions we expel into our ecosystem is inexcusable, but the staticizing of physics equations by your beloved scientific journals may have had a worse impact on the environment for the last 100 years than any other thing. I’m concerned about handing responsibility off to the NWO and their friends who run those journals to tell us how to go about cleaning up the planet. Give our Universities these advanced formulae to study so that we can advance beyond simple Newtonian physics. Set up better banking and business regulations, not give them more power and less responsibility.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Lay off the acid for a little while Schultzy…
June 18th, 2009 at 11:45 am
infowars and prisonplanet are not reliable sources of information…
Seriously, 95% of the publications in scientific journals is work produced at universities.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
It is not reliable to you because it does not maintain the grand illusion. I feel like I’m on acid when I see people accept those with less accountability to run our economy. This article is perfectly credible:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-regulatory-reform-plan-officially-establishes-banking-dictatorship-in-united-states.html
Read the articles they link to, get the facts.
US money is a predatory lending practice to we the people.
The NWO is real, and they’re really making strides with Obama. I wish I didn’t have to say that but it’s true. Don’t believe me if you don’t want to, but the changes Obama is making aren’t really all that great.
University researchers often work off earlier journal articles, so if there were a limitation in one it would be carried on until the shortcoming becomes evident. This problem is worse when the “mistake” is made intentionally.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Again, back off on the paranoia a little. Maybe it’s the meth. Many of the people I see who listen to Alex Jones, seem like they’re tweaking… He’s a nutjob. If you’d ever had the misfortune of sitting next to him in a restaurant you’d agree. I’ve had him start yelling in my face about how safety measures like speed bumps and chicanes in roads were government mind control experiments. (no, they couldn’t possibly be ways so that fewer kids got run over by people speeding in Austin neighborhoods…)
Mistakes happen in science, but those who get caught fudging their data are most often suffering from the financially beneficial poor eyesight that industry wants. Why do you think guys like Singer shrill for the oil and gas industry?
June 19th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Alex definitely goes way over the top with reckless abandon. Playing devil’s advocate is not easy but there’s no question that the bankers are fucking with us and if you don’t think so then whatever. I can only reference my own experience and here in Bismarck there’s a new fucking bank on every fucking corner. 80-90% of the banks that were already standing have been *totally* remodeled on top of that. The unique North Dakota State bank was torn down because it did not give our banker governor nice enough views when he went down to count his money.
The last local creamery in the state was bought by a bank and despite the fact that the industry professionals who they hired to manage the place told them their ideas weren’t going to work, they were told to implement them anyway. A bit over a year later the place was shut down and the farmers were not paid for their milk.
I’m 100% certain that I’m not being too paranoid about the bankers that want to take over everything. The meth thing certainly has to do with the fight or flight response one gets when one considers such issues with any kind of sincerity.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Gnome and El Jefe,
I don’t really know why I come back to this site, but I do. It’s kind of like visiting San Francisco. Some beauty, some surreal stuff, some points of view very different from mine. Anyway.
Don’t know much about you, Gnome, but as a phd candidate El Jefe doesn’t have much of an excuse for accepting this AGW crap at face value. Perhaps that point of view is a pre-req for obtaining the degree — have to fit in and all.
It used to be that we laughed at scifi movies where the villain had constructed a device to control weather. It was too absurd to be taken seriously, but it made a good plot vehicle.
Wait. Isn’t that what Al Gore is doing — using a climate control scenario in the attempt to garner wealth and power?
Let’s consider that idiotic graph you posted from globalchange.gov.
The first thing that struck me about that graph was that the starting point is only 800,000 years ago. Since the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, why not consider CO2 concentration over a longer period of time than just the last 800,000 years?
Why indeed? If you do, you end up with a nice hockey stick graph culminating in an apparent present day catastrophe that would justify some governmental action such as funding stupid research or public works projects like highways and bridges to nowhere. (And before you get your shorts in a knot, the Republicans did it too to an appalling extent when they held Congress and the White House. Appalling until Obama blew the repubs out of the water in comparison.)
Oh yeah, and give the graph authority by appealing to authority by invoking a .gov domain name.
Back to the point. What does the graph look like on a longer timeline — say, the last 600 million years or so?
600 million years ago: about 6900 ppm CO2
500 million yrs ago: about 4000 ppm CO2
300 million yrs ago: about 350 ppm CO2 (hmm about the same as today)
150 million yrs ago: about 2000 ppm CO2
100 million yrs ago: about 1000 ppm CO2
Today: about 280 ppm CO2
That long-horizon graph varies and over the last 100 millions years has been sliding closer to 0 than to 1000 ppm, which your graph suggests is the catastrophic level. But wait, in the past it has been as high as 7000 ppm, and yet humans still managed to eventually arrive on the scene.
Source of my data: Summary: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Peer reviewed paper: American Journal of Science 2001 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
For an objective review of purported AGW science, check out http://www.wattsupwiththat.com.
That you opine that there is a paucity, or rather utter lack, of evidence contrary to AGW is the result of your choosing to ignore anything that contradicts your point of view.
Hell, that’s one reason I come back here. To read a contrary point of view.
Finally, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether you find the above persuasive. I have no mission to change your mind. If some solid science demonstrates AGW, then I will accept it. It doesn’t exist yet.
But since you permit comments, your ill-conceived opinion mocking the disbelieving AGW point of view begged for a response.
Best regards,
Smarter Thanyou
p.s., re: wattsupwiththat.com. One of the author’s issues is the unreliable U.S. temperature data on which AGW is based. The weather stations are often comically inept.
One afternoon I had some time waiting for a daughter to finish her dance class, so I checked out the weather facility that produces data for SLC. The temp station was located on the north side of the building on a patch of gravel adjacent to a nice asphalt parking lot. To the immediate northwest was about a square mile of asphalt and concrete known as Salt Lake International airport. The prevailing winds in SLC travel over that patch before encountering the SLC weather station. Would you suppose that all that asphalt and concrete might impact the ambient temperature measured by that facility? Would you suppose that all that asphalt and concrete might radiate heat at night to an extent that might affect the data taken at that facility?
Would you be surprised to find out that such bungling is not rare in the U.S.?
I snapped some photos of the SLC facility if you’d like to judge for yourself. Let me know and I’ll post them somewhere.
June 21st, 2009 at 11:42 am
SMY, good stuff, but here…
“… your choosing to ignore anything that contradicts your point of view.”
My Choosing? Laughable. Sorry, but it’s not that overt. My resources are indeed the internets and the media as with most of the world. Call me an imbicile because I don’t have the magical ability to dig up a data report one of your bro’s at MIT posted in a forum on the C02 emissons historical data record back in 93′ or wtf ever. Attempting to “lay blame” on others in this way only exposes hubris.
The more accurate place to point fingers would be at the media, those who pull the strings of dis/information, or perhaps those who, apparently of scientific mind such as yours, choose to “withold” (through their own impotence or otherwise) critical information such as what you have provided here that indicates all is well in the world if looked at via an out of context historical record. If the Iranian people can twitter against their oppressors, I ought to be able to find data arguing against AGW with more ease. It ultimately is your fault or those who can validate the absurdity of AGW for letting this AGW NWO happen.
Otherwise, I have to give consideration to AGW and the seemingly undeniable effect of humanities gluttonous consumption credit for affecting AGW. At the lowest recorded point of atmospheric C02 that you cite which was approx. 300 million years ago, how were the living conditions? If we could all magically transport to that time, would we be wishing for better? What are reasonable C02 limits. Will it all be ok if C02 reaches past 1000? Will my ice cream melt? Is it possible that our contributions to AGW are legitimate and if left unrestrained would effectively push us back to that type of climate or worse/better. Is it more appropriate to think that C02 content is/was more than just a number. A number that can be arbitrarily manipulated (as with any stat) in order to validate a position or opinion?
I have no desire to change your mind, but you go ahead and tell me what to think as you are smarter and seriously, I don’t know much about this other than what I read through the obvious channels. fundamental to me, I have no desire to believe in any fallacy.
June 21st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
smy, I don’t take it at face value, and I expect our understanding of the processes to develop and change in the future. That’s what happens. We used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that spontaneous generation was how life formed. At least you believe the world is 4.5Byr old. There’s a little hope. I do tend to accept the prevailing theory of the vast majority of climate and environmental scientists, and will continue to do so until someone shows data that strongly suggests they are wrong. That data isn’t there. Period. As I said before, every little uncertainty or problem gets used by the media and the (generally) right wing to throw out the entire theory. Often they focus on processes which are on completely different time or spatial scales.
The time-frame argument is a red herring. Humans have been around for a couple million years give or take, so looking at the past 800K is reasonable, given our evolutionary history. Even modern humans have only been around for about 200K, and we’ve only been widespread for about 40K-70K. Just because there were VERY different conditions at some point in the past, doesn’t mean that we will survive the changes in the future. And that’s what we are really talking about. 99% of every species that has lived, has gone extinct, so it doesn’t really matter. We’ll be gone someday, but the earth will continue until it gets burned up by the sun. The problem is, and the real question is: Are we doing it to ourselves? So the global mean temperature was 20°C and the CO2 concentrations were at 3000ppm 400M years ago. While that is interesting and certainly had some effect on the evolution of life on earth, and thus our evolutionary history, it has little bearing on what we have done in the past 100 years. The conditions which we need to worry about are those that currently effect us. Those in which our societies developed. The range of conditions which humans (and the species with which we share the planet and depend on) can continue to survive in. We can manage for a 20°C/3000ppm world, but I don’t think we are going to like the results. Again, just because conditions were different, and we can learn about what is currently happening by studying that, doesn’t mean that AGW isn’t real. It’s the lies of false equivalency and mutual exclusion.
I don’t expect you to change your mind. Nor do I really care if you do. I’d just laugh at the paranoia of the NWO by AGW if it wasn’t promoted by people with bigger platforms than they deserve, and if it didn’t detract from the actual science of the debate.
By the way, I think you should actually read the pdf you linked to (it’s actually an interesting paper, if not dated). The end of the second to last paragraph says this:
Let that sink in for a minute. They’re talking about long-term cycles, the exact values can’t be taken literally, and there there is a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature. How does this discredit AGW again?
June 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Eurotrash are happier. Whoopty-fucking-do. That don’t prove shit. Family down the street has a kid with Downs syndrome. Happiest little kid you ever saw.
June 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Let’s be clear on the paper that STY linked: It is a modeling paper (mostly) that at no point mentions “global warming”, “global climate change”, or “anthropogenic”. They do mention the “greenhouse effect”, which was one of their model factors. It is an undisputed phenomenon, whether you believe in AGW or not. In fact, they directly say there IS a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature. The authors make NO claims about their data somehow discrediting the theory of AGW. The claims of that are made by others, who misrepresent and overstate the author’s data, and take their work out of context, a common problem when attempting to have a discussion with someone skeptical of the science.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I’ve just got to ask, SMT, what is your point of view? You are already well aware of mine. At least as much as I write here. Yours, however, is a bit, well, cloudy. Other than disagreeing in the strongest possible terms each and every time you tap them keys, we know little else. You apparently practice law in SLC and graduated high enough in your class to think it still, years later, defines you. Awesome.
So, odds on, you’re white, Mormon, late 30’s/early 40’s, married the first girl you fucked, chip in your 10% to the church, drive an import, most educated of your siblings and dabbled in mtb racing.
Anywhere near the mark?
June 21st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Smarter than…
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The National Academy of Science
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/
Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/
The American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/
The Royal Meteorological Society
http://www.rmets.org/index.php
The European Meteorological Society
http://www.emetsoc.org/news_meetings/news_meetings.php
The World Meteorological Society
http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html
…who?
What’s your problem, Kazanski?
Sounds a lot like this:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12597475
Again, and as Chu said, people can be entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Even in Utah.
June 21st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Yeah, what’s your problem, Kazanski?
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 am
Maybe it’s just a Utah thing.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12597475
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Well, he thinks he smarter than all of the scientists in those groups… because they are all part of the conspiracy…
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
BJ, El Jefe, Gnome, and Taylor,
I’m tweaked on too much ephedra and cap’n crunch, but here goes.
El Jefe is correct about the paper I cited not discussing causation. The paper was the source of the data for the graph I cited. That is all. The graph Gnome posted was alarmist and suggested an unprecedented spike in CO2. That was misleading, but I don’t think it was Gnome’s intention to mislead. Look again at what I wrote. I didn’t assert the paper refuted AGW.
Oh. 300 million years ago was when the dino’s arose in force and took over.
Arbitrary time periods in graphs can be exceedingly misleading. For example, consider mean tropospheric temps over the last 30 years. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend
The troposphere is the ground atmosphere, which is most important to me when I ski Alta or host a bbq. That plot suggests atmospheric temp increase of 0.15 degrees C per decade, or 1.5 degrees C per century if the trend continues.
But look at the graph of the same data set for just the last 12 years. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
That linear regression line is flatter than Keira Knightly, which is remarkable. There’s a reason you never posted her pic on this site. If that more recent decade of data is extrapolated, we’ll have no increase in temps while we’re still respiring out pollutive CO2.
And Taylor, none of that data was generated or compiled in Utah, least of all by Gov Herbert, about whom no one knows anything because he got the job when Obama named RINO Gov Huntsman to be ambassador to China. Good riddance. Let the Chinese deal with that RINO silver spoon kid.
So what to do about it all? Assume the longer data set portends doom and cripple our carbon-based economy immediately, or hold off a few more years and see whether the temps have diverged from human CO2 production. Based on the last 12 years, there is sharp divergence. How can you read that same data and honestly disagree? 30 years is insignificant in a geologic time frame. So is 12 years. So is 100 years. Choose a different time frame and you get a different conclusion. If one looks at a curve closely enough, it is indistinguishable from a plane. If we step back and look at the last 700 million years, CO2 is at a minima. Life thrives at least up through 3,000 ppm. So what is the panic?
The doom and gloom scenario is predicated on the assumption that humans will not be able to adapt to higher temperatures. So the coastal folks will have to move inland a few miles. At least the streets of NYC will be a little cleaner. If someone from the Obama school is in power, the gummint will bail out and underwrite the move inland.
Another thing is constant: the earth is constantly changing. Temps go up and down, geologic features wear down and arise anew. In all of this, puny man can do little about macro temperatures and geology either way.
I agree that we should keep the water and dirt clean for ourselves, our children, and their posterity. These “we can change the weather” folks are up to no good or are out of their minds. They are the shits who ran for student body office in jr high — they can’t do anything but feel good being “in charge.”
Obama’s statement that he’ll tax coal plants into oblivion while raising billions from those taxes is very, very telling. Economically stupid, too. If they can’t afford to stay in business, how will they remit billions in taxes on non-existent profits? If Bush said that crap, you’d hang him by the scrotum. Why is it different for Obama?
You folks have made it very clear that you like what Obama is doing. How are you going to feel when it is a republican holding the controls on the machinery Obama is emplacing? Will you prefer that much Repub gummint control over the economy and your DMV health care? I don’t want a repub having that much power either. So don’t give it Obama unless you’re willing to let him be dictator for life.
I understand your concern about global warming. If I lived in freaking desert Arizona I’d be concerned about heat too. What did Sam Kinison say about starving Africans? It’s a f’n desert! There’s no food there! Move somewhere else! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNoJ2BzSRU
So stop bitchin’ about the heat! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKIN’ DESERT!
Want a personal observation? In the early 80’s Utah was in a drought.
In September 1982 it began raining hard in the valleys, and snowing in the mountains. I totaled my Dad’s pickup hydroplaning on rain water. The resorts opened on Halloween. Epic snow year. Absolutely epic. And then May came with record snow pack, high heat, and rain. Mudslides and street rivers ensued. You can google photos of people fishing on State Street in downtown SLC.
The Great Salt Lake rose to higher levels than since the Mo’s arrived in 1847. Someone put a waterskiing park next to I-15 just north of SLC. So, big emergency, right? Utah spent $300 million or so to place HUGE pumps near the lake to pump the excess water into the Salt Flats. And they were never turned on. Why? The wet trend ended, the lake receded, and Utah went into a drought along with the rest of the West. Until the last 20 months.
Change is inevitable. Global mean temps have been flat for 12 years. At what point do the global warmers capitulate and acknowledge that maybe the trend line hit an inflection point somewhere in the last decade?
El Jefe, the burden is not on us to disprove AGW, it is on its proponents to prove AGW. Al Gore didn’t prove it. We won’t fall for the post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy. Over the extent ice record, CO2 levels follow temperature, not precede it. Has that pattern changed in the last 100 years? Humans turned up carbon emissions supposedly around 1900 — nevermind that most home heating was generated by burning wood and coal. Twenty years ago there was a panic in Utah county because of pollution from re-opening the Geneva steel mill, which was built there for protection from coastal attacks during WW2. Panic was generated by showing photos of the air after the plant opened, and after it was closed. Then someone produced a photo from before the turn of the century when the population was 1/20 of 1984, yet the air was even worse from wood-burning for heat and cooking. Where is the proof of AGW besides A preceded B therefore A caused B?
My grandmother recently died of acute respiratory distress. She brushed her teeth the morning that the symptoms began. Therefore, toothpaste caused her death. Right?
BJ, you missed the mark for the most part. Don’t be insecure about comparing your grades to mine. That’s not where I derive self-esteem. And no, I was not law review. I found that in my first job, I received the same salary as my newly-hired mates saddled with ten times my education debt from ostensibly more prestigious schools. I had fun kicking ass in court against law review editors from Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, etc. Didn’t care for it when I got my ass kicked. The only place grades matter is in law school and on campus interviews. After that, no one gives a rat’s ass what you did. It’s what can you do for me now? Although if you are aiming for a lawfirm career, this blog will come back to bite you in a bad way. Sanitize this bitch before you go job hunting.
Again, you pretty much missed the mark you prejudiced bastard. Less than 50% of SLC is Mo. Yes, Ima cracker, married to a Catholic girl with a centerfold body who was a Mexican migrant field worker as a young girl, wait, let me check, yep, she’s still a Mexican, drive a big-ass SUV because I need all eight seats, am more educated than my siblings, a bro with an mba who has made a fortune buying bad debt and another bro who’s a chiro, which is nice at family gatherings, do marathons and tris, road bike to cross train and risk my life for the adrenaline rush, and mtb the wasatch crest trail because it is there and fun. I’m a wuss and walk the spine because I am not stupid or skilled enough. But to not ride the crest would be like living in California and not surfing. Have kids. Choke on Alta powder often. Get laid frequently. Own three businesses. 6′2″ 215 lbs (Bing!) Enjoy tweaking you liberal, skinny-armed cycle-weenies. Haven’t you guys heard of a pushup? Anything else you need to know?
Smarter TY
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
For reference:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Thanks for proving the point.
A little global cooling would make her more interesting.
Just sayin’.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Utah would be very cool if it wasn’t for all the goddamn mos. They lie straight to your face about their beer, and that’s just sick and wrong, even more sick and wrong that 3.2% (by specific gravity) “stout.”
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Oh, and another thing, when I was in Utah in May, I brought all my own beer, fuck you very much, and the only place in “civilization” I stopped was the USGS map store on North Temple in SLC, that place is wicked cool.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Mikey,
Step away from the six pack so no one gets hurt.
Beer apparently makes you mean. Try some weed instead — it’ll mellow you out, man.
Agree that Utah’s liquor laws are retarded. That’s why God made Wyoming where everything goes.
Ok, if you think the USGS store is the coolest thing in Utah, perhaps you might visit Big or Little Cottonwood Canyons. Best on a powder day. As an acquaintance commented one fine powder day at Alta when the clock struck the hour to return to wifey, “This is better than sex. You can get sex anytime, but days like this are rare!” And he stayed. Hate to think how long he had to forego sex after that choice.
Never heard anyone say that about the USGS store.
Yet.
SMY
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
…and we find out about Mikey’s inner nerd. We all have one.
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“Beer apparently makes you mean. Try some weed instead — it’ll mellow you out, man.”
STY- no man, fucking mos and weak-ass beer make me mean. I’ve done business in Utah since the early 90s and have long since gotten used to their bald-faced greed, hypocrisy and blatant discrimination, but I still find it distasteful. And I doubt we’ve met- I’m among the “mellowest” and “safest” riders out there. Keep the rubber side down, dude.
‘ if you think the USGS store is the coolest thing in Utah, perhaps you might visit Big or Little Cottonwood Canyons. Best on a powder day.”
I spent a week at Alta in March. We had some good days and some pretty windy, scratchy days too. We waited 75 minutes one morning for the lifts to start turning and somewhere out by Razor Back it was pretty blown in and I skied into the mythical White Room— always cool to have to hold your breath until the sky reappears above the snow.
“Never heard anyone say that about the USGS store.”
Have you ever been? They keep EVERY quadrangle of Utah IN STOCK. The lady at the counter always insists on folding the quads for you because she hates to see them folded wrong as almost every civilian does. (You’re not supposed to fold charts at all, but for backpacking, compromises are made.)
We are fond of the slot canyoneering down in the San Rafael Swell. Real easy to get lost out there, GPS and maps are genuine safety tools. We still get rimrocked all the time. The young bucks out there these days are serious hard men- they call the smooth-sided, cold water-filled potholes “keepers” and Kelsey’s tech guide describes routes with over a dozen consecutive “keepers” to abseil into and climb out of. That’s just sick. In May, we spent six nights in the Mussentuchit Badlands and saw exactly zero vehicles or humans the whole time.
Can’t wait for the October trip. I’ll bring all my own beer and yeah, probably stop at the map store.
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Oh, and the Kokopelli Rim in September… part or all of that is in Utah, right? Maybe partly AZ or CO? Not sure, I’ll show up when and where I’m told, ready for a three-day ride. (Yes, we’re old and fat and we only ride 40-50 miles a day.) You all stay safe, y’all.
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Gnome, BJ, El Jefe,
As I ran this afternoon, I thought about this human CO2 issue and wondered if anyone had done the math on what is the human contribution to atmospheric CO2.
I didn’t find a peer-reviewed published paper on point readily, but came across a blog where the math was done. It appears to be rigorous and lacked any apparent public policy agenda, so I’ll assume it is credible. The rest of the blog contains some political point of view, but I didn’t take the time to read it. So again, I’ll assume the guy is sincere and his data and analysis sound until demonstrated otherwise.
That said, paraphrasing, from 1880 through 2007, 99.6% of the variance (i.e., variability) in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is completely accounted for by anthropogenic carbon emissions. http://oto2.wustl.edu/bbears/trajcom/carbon3.htm (Not peer reviewed or published other than self-published on the web.)
On the other hand, despite the accelerating growth rate of fossil fuel CO2 emissions comparing the 1990s to years 2000 through 2006 (1.3% annually to 3.3% annually) (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full), nevertheless the mean global tropospheric temperature has remained flat since 1997. (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend)
In plain English, despite humans emitting carbon in to the atmosphere at an increasing rate since 2000, and despite rising CO2 accumulation that is almost exactly accounted for by human carbon emissions, mean global troposhpheric temperatures have not risen since 1997.
Ok, assuming Gary Harding’s analysis of human contribution to accumulated co2 fraction is correct, why isn’t mean global temperature rising?
If A is deemed to cause B, but later the B effect does not follow a more vigorous continuously occurring A event, then A has not been demonstrated to cause B. Other factors are in play.
At a minimum, those proposing reduction of human CO2 emissions damn well better have a more compelling reason to curtail economic activity that generates CO2 emissions than that CO2 is causing atmospheric temperature because that has not been happening since 1997.
This isn’t a global warming blog. If this is the end of this thread so be it.
Thanks for the discourse.
SMY
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
good job ya bunch of drunkcyclists, just don’t accept as fact anything that the government and mainstream media tell you. yes that does include the great law reviews and scientific journals. handing off responsibility to the unaccountable will not solve our problems, that is why we’re in the shit we’re in already.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
You can’t tell me you wouldn’t tap that… She’s on the exceedingly short free pass list. She may be skinny, but I’d put up with the bruises from the corners. Hell, she might be one of the few that the GF feels the same way about…. Anyone have her number… dayyam…. with two y’s.
Any-hoo… SMY, I’m willing to put a little time into this because you appear to be willing to look at actual data. One thing that needs to be clarified, is that in the framework of how science is done, we NEVER prove anything in the positive. For the most part we work in the philosophical framework of Karl Popper: A hypothesis can never be proven, it can only be falsified. Hypotheses that are non testable are irrelevant, and proofs only happen in math. We can be very confident in a result. The probability that a result can be explained by random chance alone can be very small (a low p-value in statistics vernacular), but we never prove something, we only fail to reject a hypothesis. If this happens enough it becomes a theory, like gravity or evolution. Are the theories static? Of course not. The specifics of what we know about evolution change every day, but the general framework holds. If the scientific literature doesn’t satisfy your need for positive “proof” that’s why. So, yes the burden is on everyone to disprove the hypothesis. So far that hasn’t be done. Parts of it get adjusted regularly, as our understanding of the complexities improves.
1998 is often thrown around as “the year” when global warming stopped. 1998 was the hottest year on record. If you consider 1998 as an outlier, then the regression line has been increasing up until 2008, which was anomalously low. That’s why smoothed curves are generally used, so that one anomalous data point doesn’t have undue influence. Straight-line regression is particularly susceptible influence from individual data points. Was 2008 anomalously low or has the trend changed? Too soon to tell. It was about the same as 1999. Again using only a 10 year dataset, when there are known 6-10 year confounding cycles is dangerous. My eyeball-o-metrically derived guess (using graphs from one of the sites you linked to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/15/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-3/) is that we are in one of the regular ~7 year troughs (’78, ‘85, ‘94, ‘01, ‘08?) Their data only goes back to ‘79, but the trend generally continues back to about 1880, with the mid ’30s – mid ’40s being unusually warm (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/). Yeah, I wish good high frequency data went farther back than that. It doesn’t change the fact that one or two years cooler than the few years previous doesn’t mean that the general trend has stopped. CO2 is by no means the only driver in the temperature (look as some of the models…) We know about some of these drivers, but there are many which we don’t. How the different cycles interplay is an open area of research.
Again, you are missing the point about CO2 levels. Yes life can persist, and even thrive at 3000ppm. Will we be part of that? I doubt it. That’s ten times the CO2 that we have today. Have you ever tried to breathe air with CO2 at that level? I actually have caving and it’s called bad air for a reason. It gives you a massive headache, and can be deadly. There is approximately 18% O2 in our atmosphere. If that percentage goes down below about 16%, you feel disoriented. Below 15% and you die. We don’t have a wide range of conditions that we will live in. That said, it would be a long time (hopefully) until we ever got to that level, but you can’t just say that things live under those conditions, so we’ll be fine.
Again, it doesn’t matter in geologic time, but it sure matters to me whether we continue to exist. Engineering and technology will not solve all of our problems. Moving coastal cities would be an economic disaster. Also, don’t confuse change in one region with the global average. Most of the models show different effects in different areas, with a general trend towards more extreme weather and a warmer global average. As for the past, just because one local area had bad air pollution, doesn’t mean that that’s what is driving the entire planet. Wood and coal burned for personal heating, never equaled the amount of increase in CO2 released from industrial usage.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Dismissing peer-reviewed basic scientific research as “having an agenda” amounts to willful ignorance, and is one of the few things really intolerable about the Human Condition [sic] today.
The popular example recently is evolution. I am currently wading through Richard Dawkins _The_Selfish_Gene_, and anyone— even a religionist— who actually reads and understands this book cannot dispute that life on earth has and is adapting (evolving). To do so is to be willfully ignorant, and to persuade others of this misapprehension— especially on pain of eternal torment— is just plain wrong.
Science is not political, no matter what the politicians tell you.
As for global warming, it appears we are on an climatic temperature upswing. Human activity may be exacerbating it. Can we change it? Maybe. Will we? No. Hear that tinkling sound? It’s the sound of our urine falling on our children’s heads. Have a great day, y’all.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Anyone that worried about human CO2 should eat their gun now or they are a fucking hypocrit. And no, I would not “tap that”. I’m a married man with a daughter about that age.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
SMT, I may have, as you say, missed the mark. But I was aiming at the whole damn building. You did pen up nearly 1,500 words in reply. That was fun. Since I wanted some meat, and got it, maybe the mark wasn’t missed after all?
And believe me, sir; I am not looking to compare my grades to anyone’s. Let alone yours. But, you already know all that. I have, in fact, never inquired about any kind of comparison. By asserting a negative response to an un-asked question, you can shape the dialogue in a way that suits your interest. Bully for you.
As for grades, I fully realize they are meaningless. I know several people from my wife’s class, and there is an interesting lack of correlation between GPA, class rank and fifth year income. In short, graduating near the middle of your class seems to be an excellent target.
If you know me even a little bit, you know I am completely uninterested in the, as you say, “lawfirm career”. They wouldn’t have me any more than I them. Someone else can sweat it out vying for that crappy piece of real estate as far as I’m concerned. I’m looking to go solo. And I will.
As for your height and weight… I’m bigger than you. So there.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Dave, are you saying you’d rather tap your own daughter? That’s pretty disgusting man.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Smarter Than You:
There’s no apostrophe used when making “Mo” plural.
(As if Mo ever needed the help of an apostrophe to become plural.)
When I have more time I’ll post the long, long list of (non-conspiratorial and sincerely objective) professional scientific organizations whose positions contradict yours.
Taylor
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
One more thing on climate.
This…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/hansen-of-nasa-arrested-in-coal-country/?hp
…is badass.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
God damn it. I tried. I really did. SMT is claiming “6′ 2″ 215 lbs”. I claimed I could beat ‘em.
Alas, I cannot.
I ate a big lunch. I’m fully clothed. I need to drop a duece. My pockets are full of all kinds of shit; car keys, cell phone, even a tape measure. I just drank three (3) pints of water.
I can’t get past 214.8!
Advantage: SMT.
But I’m bringing it at 6′ 4 1/2″ all day, baby! (and yes, that’s without socks and shoes.)
Advantage: Big Jonny.
It’s a draw, ladies and gentlemen.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Gnome, I am saying I’m old enough to be your pinup girl’s father. I’d be a dirty old man. In other words, a man my age having a sexual laison with a girl that age would not be proper. It’s the difference between being an ethical man and being a moral man. It’s a matter of decency; something your lot couldn’t begin to comprehend.