Driver to drive?

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:54 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/

I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 3, 2:32 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry



pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

Ever increasing CO2 should lead to a rising baseline trend impressed
on the long-observed year-to-year variations.

 

On Mar 3, 8:59 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:07 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:16 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"

SNIP





No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.”

/end quote- Hide quoted text -

This  is an incomplete quotation. For the full text, look at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/cooler-heads-at-noaa-coming-aro....

where Swanson is quoted as going on to say

"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he
warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing
greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

“When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive
warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative
forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and
be very aggressive.”

which isn't quite the message that your deceitful text-chopping is
intended to convey.

I chopped the wild fantasy.

What you think is wild fantasy, because you don't understand enough to
follow the elementary loic involved.

I understand the AGW argument, it just isn't settled or science.

You claim - unconvincingly - to understand the the AGW argument. If
you actually understood it you would appreciate that the the
scientific argument is over, and we are just filling in the detail.

If these guys are saying they don't know the mechanism for the current
cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10
years ahead.

Actually, they do know the mechanism - ocean currents are moving heat
around, along with the atmospheric circulation.Unfortunately they
don't know enough about the ocean currents to be able to make short
term climate predictions. People are busy sinking strings of flow and
temperature sensors in the oceans in order to get a more detailed idea
of what is going on, but there aren't yet enough of them in place to
give all that much information.

That's a crap argument I've seen many times. Moving the heat around
doesn't affect global temperature. X joules of heat on the planet is X
joules whether it's in the ocean or the atmosphere.

Heat loss by radiation is proportional to the fourth power of
temperature. If there is a larger temperature difference between the
equator and the poles, the earth will radiate more heat than it would
if the difference were smaller.

The top 6 metres of the oceans store as much energy as the whole
atmosphere. The oceans account for 90+% of energy storage. Anyone who
claims AGW without having measured the oceans properly is an idiot.

You may like to think so.

Predicting the broad long term effect of more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is easier - the surface of the earth is going to get warmer
- than precisely predicting which bits are going to get warmer and
when.

Easier and almost irrelevent.  If ocean currents can more than
compensate for CO2 for the next 30 years, according to Swanson, then
CO2 forcing isn't much to write home about.

Swanson's claim was that it might compensate for up to thirty years,
which isn't quite the same thing.
Despite the fact that the oceans can - and do - store a lot of heat,
CO2 forcing does happen to be important.
In the long term, the heat the earth absorbs from the sun has to
balance the heat it radiates, and various greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere determine the surface temperature, despite the thermal
inertia of the oceans and the body of the planet.

Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

The AGW climate predictions up until the last couple of years were for
continuous warming. Can't say their predictions have been accurate or
useful.

You are mistaken. The climate modellers involved in predicting the
effects of anthropogenic global warming don't claim to make short-term
weather predictions, and the claim they do make - a warming of 1.1 to
6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century - isn't
particularly precise.

Whiat is important is the rather more reliable prediction that if we
do keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we will eventually raise
global temperatures by 4°C and make something of a mess of our world.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html

I'm aware that you don't want to believe this, but your scepticism is
not well-founded.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 3, 10:07 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

"Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently
ignorant."   As in those who believe in AGW ?

No. those who deny it.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

 An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question
 unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their
 behavior is of a religious nature. Thus, like all religious nut-
 cases, they should be culled from the fraternity and dispatched.

Jim's "inquisitive mind" seems to give him an almost religious
confidence that he can explain the behaviour of leftist weenies in
terms that don't require him to take them seriously. If he has ever
attempted to prove such a case, I've yet to see his proof. I don't
expect to ever see it. I could imagine that Jim might cull himself if
he ever got to realise that his denialism was not well-founded, but
only if my imagination gets to be a lot more flexible and creative
than it is at the moment.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 3, 4:03 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:27:12 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 11:32 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance..
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

The AGW claim is that ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
should - over the long term - give increasing global temperatures.

The distinction between "long term" and "short term" can be seen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Would you like to find a different straw man argument?

As you quoted earlier:

"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years."

Is that long term enough for you?

10 years would be long enough for me. 10 years from now.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:31:38 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:54 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/

I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

Thanks,
Rich

They are not against warming or against nuclear power as such. They
are against humanity and any things that aid humanity. They don't want
alternative energy sources, they want less energy to be available to
mankind. So they try to choke off every possible source. If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it.

John

 

[D from BC]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:45:31 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:11:06 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:36:23 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
snip

Yup.. 2V is required in my design..

Ok, didn't know that. That'll be 15 cents extra

I bought 2 coffees today for $4.50.. :O

I'll cheapen up the design later on..


And crack out the old percolator. $4.50 for a coffee is insane ;-)

That was two coffees, so it's half sane. ..or perhaps half-n-half.

I ordered a coffee for myself and another.
It was a new coffee shop in the area and I didn't check the price.
I was shocked at the cash..
For the volume, it was more expensive than Starbucks, Tim Hortons and
McDonalds..
btw..I like McDonalds coffee the best.. Smooth and low caffeine.
Over here, Tim Hortons coffee is like a narcotic.
Drop a caffeine pill in McDonalds coffee and you get Tim Hortons.
Tim Hortons coffee is more consistent than McDonalds..
Occasionally McDonalds coffee is too thin.
Tim Hortons is very consistent.
Starbucks is nice for that occasion funky taste.


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design

 

[krw]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:22:12 -0800, D from BC
<myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:45:31 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:11:06 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:36:23 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
snip

Yup.. 2V is required in my design..

Ok, didn't know that. That'll be 15 cents extra

I bought 2 coffees today for $4.50.. :O

I'll cheapen up the design later on..


And crack out the old percolator. $4.50 for a coffee is insane ;-)

That was two coffees, so it's half sane. ..or perhaps half-n-half.

I ordered a coffee for myself and another.
It was a new coffee shop in the area and I didn't check the price.
I was shocked at the cash..
For the volume, it was more expensive than Starbucks, Tim Hortons and
McDonalds..
btw..I like McDonalds coffee the best.. Smooth and low caffeine.

McDonalds is the *worst* coffee on the planet. <spit> I'd drink
Starbucks first, and that sucks too.

Over here, Tim Hortons coffee is like a narcotic.

Seen 'em, never been in one.

Drop a caffeine pill in McDonalds coffee and you get Tim Hortons.

Don't do caffeine.

Tim Hortons coffee is more consistent than McDonalds..
Occasionally McDonalds coffee is too thin.
Tim Hortons is very consistent.

Dinkin' Donuts is quite good, though usually only lukewarm.

Starbucks is nice for that occasion funky taste.

Ick. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters is the best I've had. We have it
shipped in, though have seen it in grocery stores in the Midwest.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:02:49 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:41:08 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <9kenq4h04bf2s9tcnfd2cml28d64ag5rv4@4ax.com>,
quiettechblue@yahoo.com says...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:10:05 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:58:53 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <a95d21c1-a351-49cc-b176-b0217011ca24
@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, jeffm_@email.com says...
Ian Bell wrote:
Most ISPs these days provide newsnet access for free.
Mine has done for the last 10 years.

JeffM wrote:
...then there are those on this side of the pond
who have posturing "public servants"
who have done their best to make that go away
--especially those folks in the Empire State:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Andrew-Cuomo+Usenet&num=100

In matters of digital freedom, many Democrats are NOT your friend.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:slashdot.org+Feinstein&num=100

krw wrote:
That's an excuse to shut down a loser.

She hasn't gotten any votes from me.
http://google.com/search?q=cache:VkTPXKdEx_kJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2006+c+inc+Green.Party+c+inc+c+Todd.Chretien&strip=1
http://google.com/search?q=cache:5_Ht2gQR4BcJ:www.therealdifference.org/issues.html+*-*-Enron-scandal-*+logging+Green.Party+Failed.to.Act+wiretaps+Weak.Support+marijuana+Minimal.Support+agribusiness+Privatization.of.prisons+*-*-*-Marriage-*&strip=1

...and if I lived in NY, I'd be telling everyone I encountered *there*
about how the *that* posturing idiot
is trying to get it where gov't can control what you can think.

Two *completely* different issues.

Oh really? Both that feinstein and that cuomo are afer all the
control they can get.

So how are the issues all that different?

ISPs shutting down NNTP servers is about costs. Cuomo was a timely
excuse.

Instead of shutting them down completely, they only quit carrying
parts of alt.*, nor does it answer the question.

Leftist weenies power grab has nothing to do with ISPs shutting
down losers (yes, some are shutting them down). NNTP is a loser
and there aren't enough users to complain. Is that clear enough, or
do you need more help?

Failures on your part do not constitute any need on my part. RTFQ

Did you find another of your mom's dirty socks in the hamper, DimBulb?

 

[D from BC]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:56:19 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:22:12 -0800, D from BC
myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:45:31 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:11:06 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:36:23 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
snip

Yup.. 2V is required in my design..

Ok, didn't know that. That'll be 15 cents extra

I bought 2 coffees today for $4.50.. :O

I'll cheapen up the design later on..


And crack out the old percolator. $4.50 for a coffee is insane ;-)

That was two coffees, so it's half sane. ..or perhaps half-n-half.

I ordered a coffee for myself and another.
It was a new coffee shop in the area and I didn't check the price.
I was shocked at the cash..
For the volume, it was more expensive than Starbucks, Tim Hortons and
McDonalds..
btw..I like McDonalds coffee the best.. Smooth and low caffeine.

McDonalds is the *worst* coffee on the planet. <spit> I'd drink
Starbucks first, and that sucks too.

I hope you're not going back to the time when McDonalds coffee was
really offensive. Like burnt solder rosin.
I can't recall when McDonalds switched to better coffee.

Over here, Tim Hortons coffee is like a narcotic.

Seen 'em, never been in one.

Drop a caffeine pill in McDonalds coffee and you get Tim Hortons.

Don't do caffeine.

Tim Hortons coffee is more consistent than McDonalds..
Occasionally McDonalds coffee is too thin.
Tim Hortons is very consistent.

Dinkin' Donuts is quite good, though usually only lukewarm.

Starbucks is nice for that occasion funky taste.

Ick. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters is the best I've had. We have it
shipped in, though have seen it in grocery stores in the Midwest.

I've tried coffee at a few of the truck stops around here and the
coffee is surprising good.
I suppose it takes good coffee to stop the truckers.


D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
BC, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design

 

On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 15:27:12 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 3, 11:32 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time.  A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to.  Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance..
"Why did the crops fail?  Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?"  I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.”

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

The AGW claim is that ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
should - over the long term - give increasing global temperatures.

The distinction between "long term" and "short term" can be seen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Would you like to find a different straw man argument?

As you quoted earlier:

"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years."

Is that long term enough for you?

The IPCC's prediction is of what is likely to happen at the end of
this century. It would seem that thirty years strikes then as a little
too short term for comfort.

As we get a better grip of what is going on in the oceans, the
consequences of the multi-decadal ocean oscillations may become more
predictable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Tim Williams]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tanrq4h36e41g65a1lj7vtldktotr37n7b@4ax.com...

If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it.

Actually, I'm against it too, at least if it is used in the unlimited
quantities that are available to us (about 0.02% of the oceans is a *lot*).
That shouldn't matter as much because, if humans are still around, the Earth
will be a bit of a boring place to be as compared to, say, the Moon or Mars,
but the population and especially energy demand will still be enough to be
worried about.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[krw]

In article <hu2sq4dqvj25oaqjso116opp2ps9qp15nd@4ax.com>,
myrealaddress@comic.com says...>

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:56:19 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:22:12 -0800, D from BC
myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:45:31 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:11:06 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:36:23 -0800, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

D from BC wrote:
snip

Yup.. 2V is required in my design..

Ok, didn't know that. That'll be 15 cents extra

I bought 2 coffees today for $4.50.. :O

I'll cheapen up the design later on..


And crack out the old percolator. $4.50 for a coffee is insane ;-)

That was two coffees, so it's half sane. ..or perhaps half-n-half.

I ordered a coffee for myself and another.
It was a new coffee shop in the area and I didn't check the price.
I was shocked at the cash..
For the volume, it was more expensive than Starbucks, Tim Hortons and
McDonalds..
btw..I like McDonalds coffee the best.. Smooth and low caffeine.

McDonalds is the *worst* coffee on the planet. <spit> I'd drink
Starbucks first, and that sucks too.

I hope you're not going back to the time when McDonalds coffee was
really offensive. Like burnt solder rosin.
I can't recall when McDonalds switched to better coffee.

Last summer we were on the road and stopped for breakfast. It was
their "premium roast". My wife was smart enough to pass on it.

Over here, Tim Hortons coffee is like a narcotic.

Seen 'em, never been in one.

Drop a caffeine pill in McDonalds coffee and you get Tim Hortons.

Don't do caffeine.

Tim Hortons coffee is more consistent than McDonalds..
Occasionally McDonalds coffee is too thin.
Tim Hortons is very consistent.

Dinkin' Donuts is quite good, though usually only lukewarm.

Starbucks is nice for that occasion funky taste.

Ick. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters is the best I've had. We have it
shipped in, though have seen it in grocery stores in the Midwest.

I've tried coffee at a few of the truck stops around here and the
coffee is surprising good.
I suppose it takes good coffee to stop the truckers.

There is big money in coffee. A friend when I lived in NY had a DD
franchise. He said some time in the '80s they went from a doughnut
shop that sold coffee to a coffee shop that sold doughnuts.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:05:33 -0600, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tanrq4h36e41g65a1lj7vtldktotr37n7b@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it.

Actually, I'm against it too, at least if it is used in the unlimited
quantities that are available to us (about 0.02% of the oceans is a *lot*).
That shouldn't matter as much because, if humans are still around, the Earth
will be a bit of a boring place to be as compared to, say, the Moon or Mars,
but the population and especially energy demand will still be enough to be
worried about.

See? What I said.

John

 

[krw]

In article <pan.2009.03.04.00.21.20.485204@example.net>,
rich@example.net says...>

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:39:50 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
...
The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.


"Blame the sun"? Where else, exactly, other than volcanoes. geothermal
heat, and cosmic rays, does ALL of Earth's energy come from?

Leftist weenies think it all should come from the federal
government or, even better, the UN.

And if I ever see one of you fanatics even _acknowledge the existence of_
WATER, ... ah, hell, since it's a sure thing, I'll bet $1000.00* that none
will.

 

On Mar 4, 1:31 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:54 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-prot...

I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

Perhaps warmingists know enough physicis to be aware that nuclear
fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta
and gamma rays. An ignorant savage like Rich may not appreciate that
these constitute emissions, but the more sophisticated may understand
that nobody has yet worked out an entirely satisfactory way of
disposing of this waste in a way that can be guaranteed not to foul
the world we leave to our children.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 4, 2:49 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:31:38 GMT, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:54 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-prot....

I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

Thanks,
Rich

They are not against warming or against nuclear power as such. They
are against humanity and any things that aid humanity.

This description may fit a lunatic fringe, but most people who accept
the reality of of anthropogenic global warming seem to think that we
can use carbon-neutral energy sources to sustain a technologically
advanced civilisation that will be no less comfortable for humanity
than todays society.

They don't want
alternative energy sources, they want less energy to be available to
mankind. So they try to choke off every possible source. If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it.

Do you have any evidence to support this implausible claim? My own
feeling is that ITER now being built at Cadarache in France, is going
to be the last of the proof-of-principle prototypes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

and that once it is up and working - in 2018 - it will lead the way to
commercially viable fusion power. Of course, the economies of scale
will probably have made wind energy competitive with fossil-fueled
power generators by then, and solar power won't be far behind, but
nuclear fusion will remain attractive as a reliable and controllable
power source.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 4, 3:48 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:05:33 -0600, "Tim Williams"

tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tanrq4h36e41g65a1lj7vtldktotr37n7b@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it.

Actually, I'm against it too, at least if it is used in the unlimited
quantities that are available to us (about 0.02% of the oceans is a *lot*).
That shouldn't matter as much because, if humans are still around, the Earth
will be a bit of a boring place to be as compared to, say, the Moon or Mars,
but the population and especially energy demand will still be enough to be
worried about.

See? What I said.

Not exactly. Tim Williams is worried by nuclear fusion only to the
extent that it could produce thermal pollution.
At least in theory, we could build enough nuclear fusion plants to
generate enough heat at the earth's surface to produce direct global
warming. It would take some 0.5x10^^15 watts to match what we are now
contributing by adding greenhouse gases. At the moment we seem to use
about 1.5x10^^13 watts, so we have some way to go.

This is something rather different from your "They are against
humanity and any things that aid humanity. They don't want alternative
energy sources, they want less energy to be available to mankind " and
it is disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:13:22 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 4, 3:48 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:05:33 -0600, "Tim Williams"

tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tanrq4h36e41g65a1lj7vtldktotr37n7b@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it.

Actually, I'm against it too, at least if it is used in the unlimited
quantities that are available to us (about 0.02% of the oceans is a *lot*).
That shouldn't matter as much because, if humans are still around, the Earth
will be a bit of a boring place to be as compared to, say, the Moon or Mars,
but the population and especially energy demand will still be enough to be
worried about.

See? What I said.

Not exactly. Tim Williams is worried by nuclear fusion only to the
extent that it could produce thermal pollution.
At least in theory, we could build enough nuclear fusion plants to
generate enough heat at the earth's surface to produce direct global
warming. It would take some 0.5x10^^15 watts to match what we are now
contributing by adding greenhouse gases. At the moment we seem to use
about 1.5x10^^13 watts, so we have some way to go.

Bill, did you take into account the total heat generation and not just
the useful electrical power generation? I remember a DOE (US thing)
website discussing nuclear power generation in the USA -- it showed
some 8.5 quads of total generation yielding some 2.66 quads (they
showed the total on the left side and the useful generation on the
right, with the rest (as I took it) being waste heat somewhere (in the
power plant and elsewhere in the distribution, I suppose.)

That's not 100X, obviously. But if you missed taking that into
account and if I didn't badly assume from my reading before, then
there may be a not-entirely-insignificant factor of 3 involved, unless
improvements in generation and delivery are applied.

Jon

This is something rather different from your "They are against
humanity and any things that aid humanity. They don't want alternative
energy sources, they want less energy to be available to mankind " and
it is disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:37:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:13:22 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 4, 3:48 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:05:33 -0600, "Tim Williams"

tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tanrq4h36e41g65a1lj7vtldktotr37n7b@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it.

Actually, I'm against it too, at least if it is used in the unlimited
quantities that are available to us (about 0.02% of the oceans is a *lot*).
That shouldn't matter as much because, if humans are still around, the Earth
will be a bit of a boring place to be as compared to, say, the Moon or Mars,
but the population and especially energy demand will still be enough to be
worried about.

See? What I said.

Not exactly. Tim Williams is worried by nuclear fusion only to the
extent that it could produce thermal pollution.
At least in theory, we could build enough nuclear fusion plants to
generate enough heat at the earth's surface to produce direct global
warming. It would take some 0.5x10^^15 watts to match what we are now
contributing by adding greenhouse gases. At the moment we seem to use
about 1.5x10^^13 watts, so we have some way to go.

Bill, did you take into account the total heat generation and not just
the useful electrical power generation? I remember a DOE (US thing)
website discussing nuclear power generation in the USA -- it showed
some 8.5 quads of total generation yielding some 2.66 quads (they
showed the total on the left side and the useful generation on the
right, with the rest (as I took it) being waste heat somewhere (in the
power plant and elsewhere in the distribution, I suppose.)

That's not 100X, obviously. But if you missed taking that into
account and if I didn't badly assume from my reading before, then
there may be a not-entirely-insignificant factor of 3 involved, unless
improvements in generation and delivery are applied.

Jon

This is something rather different from your "They are against
humanity and any things that aid humanity. They don't want alternative
energy sources, they want less energy to be available to mankind " and
it is disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

If we cut off all energy to Slowman, how long would it take him to
croak? Would the remains (ewwwww ;-) emit CO2?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.