OT: American National Academy of Science on Climate Change

burner&...

il

to

the

now

It would - of course - be convenient if anthropogenic global warming were an utterly simple and predictable phenomena. Sadly, it is an aspect of physical reality, and the signal is noisy, the processes involved are complicated and the predictions that can be made are relatively coarse-grained.

I haven't noticed you complaining about Johnson noise in resistors and shot-noise in minority carrier devices - somehow you have managed to come to terms with this kind of irritating unpredictablity - but you bitch like fury about stuff outside of electronics where you don't get the instant predictability that you seem to feel that you deserve.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Those are wood bees. I have heard apocryphal stories of a large industrial fan* set on high near them. They think it's a really big bee and attack it. The blades squash 'em flat.

• formatting link

The story is purely apocryphal, but if you have a large industrial fan , the cost of trying it is low.

-- Les Cargill

Good idea! So far I've used fly swatters but it is difficult to get them with those. And they break.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

So do badminton rackets but the idea is not to swat them, rather serve 'em up. ;-)

If it's cold enough to need wood for heating, the ants and termites will probably be somewhat sluggish, if not dormant or hibernating.

But I grew up in Minnesota - the worst critters we got in our woodpile were roaches with vestigial wings; we called them "woodroaches," because even the _name_ "cockroach" is disgusting. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Maybe you should go to the pet store and find him a mate! ;-)

Or her, of course. The pet shop herpetologists should know how to tell. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Apparently, a HELL of a lot more than has taken place in real life so far.

But, you've got the faith and refuse to see the facts in front of your face.

Sorry. Rich

Wait! What does "regular weather pattern" mean?

John

Her. The males aren't hazardous in any way. They may buzz you, but that's all they can manage. It's the females making a nest for their eggs that will destroy a house.

burner&...

il

to

the

now

In your case, the way the sequence of cyclones and anti-cyclones move in from the Pacific and progress inland. The path of the centres determines how much rain you get, and where. It is in't regular - in the sense of being strictly periodic - but it is predictable enough that the rainfall is close enough to the same from year to year for particular patterns of farming to work. Global warming may well shift the paths enough that the farmers may have to do something different.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I was talking about the lizard, you idiot.

Thanks, Rich

Of course! It "may well" do crazy shit. And God "may well" decide to send Jesus on a cloud on 11/11/11.

Or not.

But you're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that if we don't tax everyone into slavery to enrich the likes of Al Gore, that we're all doomed to die, and it's all the fault of Big Oil and their paid mouthpieces, the Denialists like me.

By the way, where do I apply to get that big fat payoff check that you're so ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I'm getting from Big Oil?

Thanks, Rich

As I've pointed out before Rich, your enfeebled brain can't distinguish between knowledge that reflects an evidence-based scientific consensus, and relevations handed down by some freak who claims that God told him.

My preferred policies do involve raising the price of energy produced by burning fossil carbon to reflect the long term costs to the environment, which would roughly double the price of energy, which is currently about 8% of our GNP. This falls a long way short of taxing everybody into slavery. It doesn't involve carbon credits, which is where Al Gore was apparently hoping to make some money.

It's unlikely that run-away global warming will kill any singnificant number of people who are now alive. It could kill more of the next generation, and could well instigate a population crash within a few more generations if everybody continued to concentrate on their short- term advantage.

sts like me.

Big coal also seems to be spending money on denialist propaganda. I don't think either big oil or big coal is actually paying you - you haven't got a reputation to sell, and your arguments against anthropognic global warming are too pathetic to form part of any organised campaign. You are just one of the gullible mass targetted by the denialist propaganda, and are a depressing reminder of how vulnerable the stupid are to slickly packaged lies.

As I've mentioned before, Big Oil can afford competent propagandists - they wouldn't waste money buying your services, when they've won them for free by playing to your - numerous - weaknesses.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Right. That explains the drought that cleared the Anasazi, and those that wiped out the Mayans, the South American drought of 562-594 A.D. that extinguished the Moche, the 950 A.D. drought that annihilated the Tiwanaku, the Dust Bowl, etc.

All those SUV-driving predictable-climate prehistoric bastards ruined the planet.

AGW--it explains a lot.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Insane. Railfall varies wildly from year to year here. On its own, farming might work some years and not work other years. Water stored in big, artificial reservoirs, distributed by thousands of miles of man-made canals, makes growing fruits and rice and nuts possible in the Central Valley.

John

Our lizards are quite behaved. They don't destroy stuff. Occasionally a baby lizard shows up inside, one of our dogs points it out and we carry it outside.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

eedburner&...

-mail

e e

eem to

of the

San

y

f snow

er,

Figures?

"The long-term average for the 86 years of record from 1892 to 1978 is

17.93 in (45.5 cm), but the standard deviation is very great: 7.1 in (18 cm), or 40% of the mean."

That's modern iindustrial farming, and it doesn't seem to be sustainable even if anthropogenic global warming weren't going to mess with the mean.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

It's a wild card. It's anything you want it to be. Want to blame "it" in AGW? ...then it's climate, Don't want to include it in the data? ...well, it's just the weather.

to

the

snow

And note that there have been droughts since the one of 1785-1810, which is likely the first one that documentation is available for. Reservoirs and distribution lowpass filter the variation and spread the variations between regions, but another decades-long long drought, which we've had for as long as records are available, would hurt.

I don't know why it wouldn't be sustainable. Or why you think AGW is going to "mess with the mean." Or which direction you think the messing will be.

I think you're just gloomy. You seem to hope that things will get worse. Pretty common syndrome.

John