Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Back to USSR

Expand Messages
  • potkonyak
    Les: [I have not been in Sydney for 41 only 33 years. But, statistic shows that we had our hottest day on record in 2006 and before that in 2001. Apart from
    Message 1 of 24 , Feb 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Les:
      [I have not been in Sydney for 41 only 33 years. But, statistic shows that we had our hottest day on record in 2006 and before that in 2001.
      Apart from that the World average temperature is going up year by year. 2009 was the hottest ever before 2010 and now 2010 is the hottest ever on record.]

      When I began playing stock market, I developed some chart analysis tools but, initially, I was looking at a short time span movements and getting some rather misleading indicators. I learnt the lesson quickly and stretched my charting horizon, with some amazing results - not frequent though.

      The same is with the weather statistics: what is 100 or 200 years on the global scale? We have a too short history to be able to predict any trends whatsoever. Short-term trends, perhaps but nothing further than that.

      After all, if the weather warms up the evaporation of the earth's waters will increase, the cloud cover will increase, as a result the weather will get cooler or, at least, we will be getting rain in the dry areas of earth, thus getting vegetation where there was little or none, which will produce more envirnomentaqlly friendly gases etc... etc...

      Even if the "global warming" is so bad, Russia, Canada, Scandinavia, Britain, Ireland, Iceland south part of South America northern part of USA, northern and central Europe - all will welcome it. Who cares about Africa, Australia, Indonesia and a good part of India?

      cheers,
      george
    • kenhaining777
      [The idea that longer growing seasons is a positive is nonsensical. Let s remember what global warming is. A lot of light from the sun gets transmitted back
      Message 2 of 24 , Feb 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        [The idea that "longer growing seasons" is a positive is nonsensical. Let's
        remember what global warming is. A lot of light from the sun gets transmitted
        back out into space. Certain chemicals, like carbon dioxide, trap that light in
        the atmosphere. That light has heat associated with it.

        One of the aspects of this "perfect balance in nature", that you and others use
        is that it only requires a small shift in any direction along any dimension to
        all of a sudden make it not such a perfect balance. So maybe a longer growing
        season will result, what longer growing of what? Why assume that every staple
        product will respond positively to a rise in temperature? I suppose tropical
        food might be easier to grow in temperate conditions, but what other factors
        such as the water table. Higher temperatures mean higher evaporation rates.

        It's just too complex to tell. We really are going to have to adopt a "wait and
        see" approach.

        Cheers,
        Perry]

        Yes, there is a bit of debate about this.  Here's a report that reflects your own concerns.

        http://climatechange101.blogspot.com/2009/05/growing-season.html 

        If farmers are used to growing certain types of foods under certain types of conditions, then they would tend to not adapt well to changing conditions. 

        To use a human example, the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had a fondness for corn.  So, he ordered that the farmers in the Soviet Union switch from growing wheat to corn.  The farmers were ill prepared to do this, and there was a major crop failure, and ensuing famine.  Different estimates of how many starved to death in the famine float about, and Khrshchev kept it quiet at the time. 

        In a sense, nature is doing something similar to what Khrushchev did, but in reverse.  Instead of changing the crops, nature is changing the conditions.  The need for adaptability is there, but as you say, it is hard.  For one thing, the changes are not consistent enough to predict. 

        On a side note, much of the US is very cold right now, and some places have been getting record snow.  Some think that the climate may be shifting to extremes, rather than simply getting colder or warmer.  It is hard for people to take global warming seriously when their face is freezing off and their car is stuck in snow and ice. 

        New York is one of those places that tends to have hot Summers and cold Winters.  It is funny how people will wish for Summer in the freezing cold of Winter, and then wish for Winter in the boiling heat of Summer. 

        Live Long and Prosper
        Ken

         

         



      • Loki
        There s a disturbing trend in science these days: politicians prefer to invest exorbitant amounts of money in overly complex predictive models regarding
        Message 3 of 24 , Feb 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          There's a disturbing trend in science these days: politicians prefer to invest exorbitant amounts of money in overly complex predictive models regarding climate instead of simply paying scientists to go out and have a look.

          Some scientists actually do go out and take measurements, but their findings are usually at odds with our predictions.

          While we are all occupied with arguing back and forth about whether global warming is man made or not and whether global temperatures are indeed rising, we can all remain blissfully unaware of just how bad the problem is.

          Cheers,
          Perry

          --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777 <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > [The idea that "longer growing seasons" is a positive is nonsensical.
          > Let's
          > remember what global warming is. A lot of light from the sun gets
          > transmitted
          > back out into space. Certain chemicals, like carbon dioxide, trap that
          > light in
          > the atmosphere. That light has heat associated with it.
          >
          > One of the aspects of this "perfect balance in nature", that you and
          > others use
          > is that it only requires a small shift in any direction along any
          > dimension to
          > all of a sudden make it not such a perfect balance. So maybe a longer
          > growing
          > season will result, what longer growing of what? Why assume that every
          > staple
          > product will respond positively to a rise in temperature? I suppose
          > tropical
          > food might be easier to grow in temperate conditions, but what other
          > factors
          > such as the water table. Higher temperatures mean higher evaporation
          > rates.
          >
          > It's just too complex to tell. We really are going to have to adopt a
          > "wait and
          > see" approach.
          >
          > Cheers,
          > Perry]
          >
          > Yes, there is a bit of debate about this. Here's a report that reflects
          > your own concerns.
          >
          > http://climatechange101.blogspot.com/2009/05/growing-season.html
          > <http://climatechange101.blogspot.com/2009/05/growing-season.html>
          >
          > If farmers are used to growing certain types of foods under certain
          > types of conditions, then they would tend to not adapt well to changing
          > conditions.
          >
          > To use a human example, the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had a
          > fondness for corn. So, he ordered that the farmers in the Soviet Union
          > switch from growing wheat to corn. The farmers were ill prepared to do
          > this, and there was a major crop failure, and ensuing famine. Different
          > estimates of how many starved to death in the famine float about, and
          > Khrshchev kept it quiet at the time.
          >
          > In a sense, nature is doing something similar to what Khrushchev did,
          > but in reverse. Instead of changing the crops, nature is changing the
          > conditions. The need for adaptability is there, but as you say, it is
          > hard. For one thing, the changes are not consistent enough to predict.
          >
          > On a side note, much of the US is very cold right now, and some places
          > have been getting record snow. Some think that the climate may be
          > shifting to extremes, rather than simply getting colder or warmer. It
          > is hard for people to take global warming seriously when their face is
          > freezing off and their car is stuck in snow and ice.
          >
          > New York is one of those places that tends to have hot Summers and cold
          > Winters. It is funny how people will wish for Summer in the freezing
          > cold of Winter, and then wish for Winter in the boiling heat of Summer.
          >
          > Live Long and Prosper
          > Ken
          >
        • hairy_hun
          Ken: [On a side note, much of the US is very cold right now, and some places have been getting record snow. Some think that the climate may be shifting to
          Message 4 of 24 , Feb 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Ken:
            [On a side note, much of the US is very cold right now, and some places have been getting record snow. Some think that the climate may be shifting to extremes, rather than simply getting colder or warmer. It is hard for people to take global warming seriously when their face is freezing off and their car is stuck in snow and ice.]

            Les:
            Yes, it is hard for people to understand that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Worming) can and do produce record snow and blizzards. Especially, when not being educated about it, but deliberately confused, to serve the interests of a few.

            But, if you think about it, it is simple. Where winds are come from? Where the energy, which drives the winds is originate?
            As you may heard, QLD just been hit by cyclone Yasi. The big ugly sister of cyclone Anthony, which hit QLD a few day before. This is the third cyclone which hit QLD in two months. Where all this energy comes from?

            Well, the Sun's high frequency electromagnetic radiation heats up the earth and the water in the oceans. Being high frequency most of it passes through the greenhouse gases layer in the atmosphere. Just like it goes through the glass of a greenhouse. When the earth and the water absorb these rays, they heat up and re-radiate some of this energy, but with a lower frequency. If there was no greenhouse gas layer, this energy would radiate into space. But, the greenhouse gas layer reflects some of this low frequency energy back. Just like the glass in the greenhouse. More greenhouse gases we have in the atmosphere, more of this energy is reflected back.

            This energy heats up the air. When the air is hot it expands and its pressure lowers. The air pressure difference between the cold air and hot air makes the cold air flow into the hot air. The pressure difference is larger if air temperature difference is higher. This is the wind. The wind is stronger, if the pressure difference is larger. Normally the wind would take a straight line, but at the tropics, because of the Coriolis effect it becomes a twister, cyclone.
            That is how we got Yasi the biggest cyclone on record in Australia.

            If the air heats up South of the USA, the cold air from the Arctic will rush into it with great force. This will cool down North of the USA and you get a blizzard.

            Now you can see, if there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the air and the oceans get warmer. This makes more and stronger winds. This explains the climate shift to extremes. The more usable energy (low entropy) in a system, the more violent it is.

            Regards,
            Les
          • kenhaining777
            [There s a disturbing trend in science these days: politicians prefer to invest exorbitant amounts of money in overly complex predictive models regarding
            Message 5 of 24 , Feb 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment

              [There's a disturbing trend in science these days: politicians prefer to invest
              exorbitant amounts of money in overly complex predictive models regarding
              climate instead of simply paying scientists to go out and have a look.

              Some scientists actually do go out and take measurements, but their findings are
              usually at odds with our predictions.

              While we are all occupied with arguing back and forth about whether global
              warming is man made or not and whether global temperatures are indeed rising, we
              can all remain blissfully unaware of just how bad the problem is.

              Cheers,
              Perry]

              People don't realize just how fragile the world food supply is in relation to climate.  A shift could cause literally billions of people to starve.  We just don't stockpile food like we should. 

              The story of Joseph in the Bible is an interesting story in relation to this.  Whether the story is literally true or not, it illustrates how "years of plenty" can be followed by "years of famine."  In fact, the Old Kingdom of Egypt, which was before the time that Joseph would have lived, was virtually wiped out by a 140 year drought.  Even that magnificent kingdom of ancient times, one of the greatest, couldn't deal with the inability to grow sufficient food due to a climate change. 

              Civilization is squarely built on being able to produce enough food so that most people are free to choose an occupation other than chasing after some animal on the plains with some kind of weapon.  Without a sufficient food supply, civilization falls apart. 

              Live long and Prosper
              Ken

               

               

            • kenhaining777
              [Now you can see, if there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the air and the oceans get warmer. This makes more and stronger winds. This explains
              Message 6 of 24 , Feb 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment

                [Now you can see, if there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the air
                and the oceans get warmer. This makes more and stronger winds. This explains the
                climate shift to extremes. The more usable energy (low entropy) in a system, the
                more violent it is.

                Regards,
                Les]

                What do you think about the theories that say that we could start off with global warming, but then trigger an ice age?  There was a movie, The Day After Tomorrow, that was based on that theory.  And there are a lot of variations of it as well. 

                Shalom
                Ken

                 

                 

                 


              • hairy_hun
                Ken: [People don t realize just how fragile the world food supply is in relation to climate. A shift could cause literally billions of people to starve.] Les:
                Message 7 of 24 , Feb 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ken:
                  [People don't realize just how fragile the world food supply is in relation to climate. A shift could cause literally billions of people to starve.]

                  Les:
                  Yes. This is from:
                  http://www.garynull.com/home/nafeez-ahmed-the-great-unravelling-tunisia-egypt-and-the-pro.html

                  Which in connection with the Egypt riots, paints a very dark picture:

                  Global Food Crisis: 2011

                  In many of these countries, certainly in both Tunisia and Egypt, tensions have simmered for years. The trigger, it seems, came in the form of food shortages caused by the record high global prices reported by the FAO in December 2010. The return of high food prices two to three years after the 2008 global food crisis should not be a surprise. For most of the preceding decade, world grain consumption exceeded production -- correlating with agricultural land productivity declining almost by half from 1990-2007, compared to 1950-1990.

                  This year, global food supply chains were again "stretched to the limit" following poor harvests in Canada, Russia and Ukraine; hotter, drier weather in South America cutting soybean production; flooding in Australia, wiping out its wheat crops; not to mention the colder, stormier, snowier winters experienced in the northern hemisphere, damaging harvests.

                  Climate Change

                  So much of the current supply shortages have been inflicted by increasingly erratic weather events and natural disasters, which climate scientists have long warned are symptomatic of anthropogenic global warming. Droughts exacerbated by global warming in key food-basket regions have already led to a 10-20 per cent drop in rice yields over the last decade. By mid-century, world crop yields could fall as much as 20-40 per cent due to climate change alone.

                  But climate change is likely to do more than generate droughts in some regions. It is also linked to the prospect of colder weather in the eastern US, east Asia and northern Europe -- as the rate of Arctic summer sea-ice is accelerating, leading to intensifying warming, the change in atmospheric pressure pushes cold Arctic air to the south. Similarly, even the floods in Australia could be linked to climate change. Scientists agree they were caused by a particularly strong El-Nino/La-Nina oscillation in the Tropical Pacific ocean-atmospheric system. But Michael McPhaden, co-author of a recent scientific study on the issue, suggests that recently stronger El-Ninos are "plausibly the result of global warming."

                  Read the rest!!! It is very comprehensive.

                  Regards,
                  Les
                • hairy_hun
                  Les: [What do you think about the theories that say that we could start of with global warming, but then trigger an ice age? There was a movie, The Day After
                  Message 8 of 24 , Feb 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Les:
                    [What do you think about the theories that say that we could start of with global warming, but then trigger an ice age? There was a movie,
                    The Day After Tomorrow, that was based on that theory.]

                    Les:
                    Yes, it could happen. We need a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to keep the Earth warm. If AGW would kill most of the people and animals, it would reduce the greenhouse gases. That would lead to global cooling. That too, with positive feedback, could be quite quick. The positive feedback would be, that ice and snow reflects the Sun's electromagnetic radiation. More area covered by snow, more heat reflected.

                    Regards,
                    Les
                  • kenhaining777
                    Les wrote: [Les: Yes. This is from: http://www.garynull.com/home/nafeez-ahmed-the-great-unravelling-tunisia- egypt-an d-the-pro.html
                    Message 9 of 24 , Feb 5, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Les wrote:

                      [Les:
                      Yes. This is from:
                      http://www.garynull.com/home/nafeez-ahmed-the-great-unravelling-tunisia-egypt-an\
                      d-the-pro.html


                      Which in connection with the Egypt riots, paints a very dark picture:

                      Global Food Crisis: 2011

                      In many of these countries, certainly in both Tunisia and Egypt, tensions have
                      simmered for years. The trigger, it seems, came in the form of food shortages
                      caused by the record high global prices reported by the FAO in December 2010.
                      The return of high food prices two to three years after the 2008 global food
                      crisis should not be a surprise. For most of the preceding decade, world grain
                      consumption exceeded production -- correlating with agricultural land
                      productivity declining almost by half from 1990-2007, compared to 1950-1990.]

                      Nothing like a food shortage to start a revolution. See France, i.e., "Let them eat cake."   

                      Currently, we haven't reached the real crisis level yet.  Food producing countries can grow a lot more food, but supply and demand factors cause them to limit production.  So, they only plan to grow a certain amount of food every year.  If there are events in the weather that cause them to produce less than they had planned, that causes a shortage in countries that are not necessarily accustomed to shortages, and that causes revolutions. 

                      It's a long subject, but the ideal situation would be for food producing countries to produce as much food as possible, and for their governments to buy up the surplus to bring the food that is for sale to a profitable marketable supply.  They would then stockpile the rest.  But the human race has never been very intelligent about these things, and there would be all kinds of complaints made by all kinds of different special interest groups as to why we shouldn't do that. 

                      The story of Joseph in Genesis, whether legend or real, (probably a legend based on a true story) shows what should be done.  Sometimes I think that some of those ancient kingdoms had a thousand times more wisdom than today's politicians.  These people in charge of our "democracies" seem mentally retarded to me. 

                      Shalom
                      Ken

                       

                    • potkonyak
                      Ken said: [It s a long subject, but the ideal situation would be for food producing countries to produce as much food as possible, and for their governments to
                      Message 10 of 24 , Feb 5, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ken said:
                        [It's a long subject, but the ideal situation would be for food producing countries to produce as much food as possible, and for their governments to buy up the surplus to bring the food that is for sale to a profitable marketable supply. They would then stockpile the rest. But the human race has never been very intelligent about these things, and there would be all kinds of complaints made by all kinds of different special interest groups as to why we shouldn't do that.]

                        This brings about the question on which Ken and I cannot agree: Ken is in favour of "freedom of the individual", meaning that, supposedly, in his endeavour to enrich himself each individual will thus contribute to the wellbeing of all.

                        On the other hand I am I am in favour planning and acting for "collective good".

                        Let's put it this way: the time will come, and perhaps is not that far, when there will not be enough resources to sustain the life of everybody. Guess what will happen? Those individuals who have empowered themselves (usually on the backs of others) will simply purge the society of those who can no longer contribute to the wealth of the ruling class, thus will reduce the "waste" of the resources on the "unproductive" people.

                        If we start reigning in the "individualism" in favour of the "collectivism" here and now, we can plan for a better future of the mankind rather than wait for the moment when a man will eat his neighbour. It is already happening (not yet literally though) in these "democracies" where the individualism and property are sovereign.

                        shalom,
                        george
                      • kenhaining777
                        [Let s put it this way: the time will come, and perhaps is not that far, when there will not be enough resources to sustain the life of everybody. Guess what
                        Message 11 of 24 , Feb 6, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment

                          [Let's put it this way: the time will come, and perhaps is not that far, when
                          there will not be enough resources to sustain the life of everybody. Guess what
                          will happen? Those individuals who have empowered themselves (usually on the
                          backs of others) will simply purge the society of those who can no longer
                          contribute to the wealth of the ruling class, thus will reduce the "waste" of
                          the resources on the "unproductive" people.

                          If we start reigning in the "individualism" in favour of the "collectivism" here
                          and now, we can plan for a better future of the mankind rather than wait for the
                          moment when a man will eat his neighbour. It is already happening (not yet
                          literally though) in these "democracies" where the individualism and property
                          are sovereign.

                          shalom,
                          george]

                          Collectivism is like one of those areoplanes that looked good on paper, but wouldn't fly. 

                          Individualism, in it's enlightened form, actually produces such a surplus that the collective of society actually does better than with a system based on collectism, as you call it.  It produces an excellence that collectivism never achieves.  Sure, it's nice that the Amish are a collective society, but don't look for any high powered scientists, great leaders, powerful individuals, and other such people to come out of their nice little collective society.

                          Collectivism shifts power from the most powerful, talented, and productive individuals to governmental low lifes who oversee the resources.  Take the US Congress for example.  They have voted themselves amazing pay and benefits, at the taxpayers expense.  They work 81 days a year.  Yet, these are the people overtaxing the people who work a lot more than 81 days a year for "the good of all."  Garbage. 

                          Enlightened capitalism is the system that produces the most benefits for the most people.  You will never completely do away with people who are on what might be called the low end.  However, if you create a society that is sufficiently prosperous, even the low end will be good. 

                          There is a dark side to capitalism, with individualism, that must always be controlled.  It doesn't take that many creative laws to make sure that the abuses are minimized.  There will always be human parasites in any system.  We experienced how, in Western society, religious parasites can greatly prosper at the expense of others.  However, Mitch and his gang of merry religious men much more resemble socialist leaders than capitalist leaders.  The line in the fellowship is to give more and more for the propagation of "the gospel," and look who is really benefiting.  Mitch doesn't have to do any of the work.  As a high ranking government official of Waymanland, he lets the "comrades," or "brethren" do the real work, while he just gives speeches.

                          The combination of socialist programs and run away free trade has greatly diminished opportunity in America.  Sure, you need some socialist programs, and sure you need some trade, but nothing like what we have now.  Essentially, we have the worst of socialism and capitalism here in the US these days.  If not dealt with, America's economy is going to collapse.  

                          The stockpiling of food makes sense from a capitalist point of view, if the capitalist takes the long perspective.  That's what Pharaoh did when he put Joseph in charge of collecting food during the years of plenty, referring to the story in the Book of Genesis.  Then, when the famine hit, Egypt was enriched by selling food, not to just their own people, but to the peoples of the entire region.  Had Egypt not stockpiled food during the years of abundance, many people would have starved who were instead able to buy food.  So, lives were saved and Egypt prospered.  A win/win situation.  

                          Shalom
                          Ken

                           

                           

                            


                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.