PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum
Jazz Guitar Discussion
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

how is the weather where you are?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rolland Harrison



Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 95
Location: Houston Texas

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just terrible today in Houston...
73 and sunny.... Razz

Unfortunately heading to the frozen north next week. Temps aint supposed to get out of the 20's in the Hoosier state...Damn... Laughing
_________________
Composers shouldn't think too much - it interferes with their plagiarism. - Howard Dietz
http://www.soundclick.com/rollandharrison
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Phrygian Dominant



Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 583
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seattle 54 and partly sunny and it didn't even rain today Laughing Laughing

Re, Global warming:

There may not be a 100% perfect proof that global warming is now occurring or will occur soon (If there is I would love to see it). But neither is there 100% perfect proof that global warming is not or will not occur if we stay on this path.

So look at it this way. In a United States court of law you don't even need 100% perfect proof to send a human being to the electric chair. What are the burdens of proof in a court of law? Beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal court) and by a preponderance of the evidence (in a civil court) (Basically a 51% preponderance of the evidence or more leaning towards guilt).

So is global warming going to occur beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence? Well the real scientific data looks like we are at the very least well beyond the 51% preponderance of the evidence mark and flirting with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

After all aren't we talking about a global catastrophe when it comes to the effects of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere? Read the next sentence very carefully. The stakes are just too high. Now go back and read that sentence again. Common sense dictates that it's not very wise to play "Russian Roulette" with the entire planet (the only one we've got by the way) Wink when it's well within our power to take actions that will avert the likely global catastrophe; If we start now.

Conclusion:
To continue going down the road we're on in this regard is dumb, just plain dumb.

Couldn't resist chiming in on this. Now I'm going to go play my guitar Very Happy

Arrow
_________________
LISTEN!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:

no effort at all. but we really don't agree on everything. the devil is in the details. and i believe that there really is a debate.


lgiro, a review of our series of exchanges reveals you conceded the following...some of it you quietly dropped to concede by default, and some of it you asserted yourself:

A. There is a trend toward global warming/climate change.

B. There is a likely anthropogenic component to global warming/climate change.

C. We need an alternative to fossil fuel.

D. Emperical evidence for disaster is only available after disaster.

E. There can be no guarantees for the future.

F. Scientific research and theory is only meaningfully "vetted" by scientists.

You then added your own supporting argument, toxic air pollution, to the list of reasons we should reduce fossil fuel consumption.

You requested "concrete and concise" recommendations for combatting global climate change with a "time horizon" and some estimates of cost/sacrifice/risk to weigh against benefit. And I provided you three.

To all of which you can now only respond: "The devil is in the details."

It's pretty clear...you know the evidence is compelling.

But you also reveal through your posts the level of emotional investment you have in the leadership of a political faction who have determined to do nothing and that have decided the best way to project an image of sober, responsible, respectability is to do nothing about a looming disaster while an industry they're inextricably tied to racks up record profits.

And until, or unless, the leadership of this faction is replaced by new leadership and mouthpieces who will address these issues, you're going to stick with their "do nothing," strategy.

That has to be uncomfortable, because you are intelligent enough to recognize the risk, but your own self image as a principled, intellectually tough skeptic is also on the line.

I sympathize. My political leanings are to the opposite side of the spectrum...I'm a liberal Democrat. The damned Democrats aren't doing anything substantive about climate change and fossil fuel depletion either.

But they have, at least, taken the first tentative step by acknowledging the scale of the problem. So it may prove less difficult to goad the Democrats toward taking the next step...even though there will then be extraordinary resistance within the Democratic Party toward acceptance of the reality that only fission can provide the industrial scale solution required.

Never-the-less, that first step has been taken, in that the Democrats are stepping back from the policies of oil industry laissez faire, and pre-emptive war in support of the multi-national oil industry's financial position.

Sooner or later, as history demonstrates, the conservative leadership will embrace a position, first established by liberals, as their own.

After that happens, you and I (and more to the point -- millions like us) will be on the same page -- if nothing else, we'll be reading the same chapter if not the same verse...

Does it make you wonder what we will find to disagree about then?

Don't worry, there will be plenty of other issues. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phrygian Dominant



Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 583
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dmittedly I came into this debate late and have not read all of the posts here. So I'm just offereing my opinions on global warming. THe evidence of a looming catatrophe related to global warming is very strong. So what are we going to do about it?

What we need is a NASA type program to develope alternative energy sources. But that will require strong leadership from the white house on the issue. In no small part because it will take some legislative "persuasion" to break big oils addiction on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a huge cash cow for them and they won't let go of thier addiction without some "tough love".

And don't cry for big oil they will be fine. They are in an excellent position to capitalize on the next generation of energy sources in some way. And the economic data shows that a huge NASA type program (involving both private industry as well as the government) will actually be a huge boon for the economy. Some jobs in big oil may be lost eventually but many more high paying jobs will be created along the way developing and implementing the new technologies.
_________________
LISTEN!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phrygian Dominant



Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 583
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Admittedly I came into this debate late and have not read all of the posts here. So I'm just offering my opinions on global warming. The evidence of a looming catastrophe related to global warming is very strong. So what are we going to do about it?

What we need is a NASA type program to develop alternative energy sources. But that will require strong leadership from the white house on the issue. In no small part because it will take some legislative "persuasion" to break big oils addiction on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a huge cash cow for them and they won't let go of their addiction without some "tough love".

And don't cry for big oil they will be fine. They are in an excellent position to capitalize on the next generation of energy sources in some way. And the economic data shows that a huge NASA type program (involving both private industry as well as the government) will actually be a huge boon for the economy. Some jobs in big oil may be lost eventually but many more high paying jobs will be created along the way developing and implementing the new technologies.

I've got to add that the democrats are the only ones I hear talking in this way. If they ever get the white house again we will see what they actually do about it.
_________________
LISTEN!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ed norton



Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:
cjm wrote:
lgiro wrote:

no effort at all. but we really don't agree on everything. the devil is in the details. and i believe that there really is a debate.


lgiro, a review of our series of exchanges reveals you conceded the following...some of it you quietly dropped to concede by default, and some of it you asserted yourself:

A. There is a trend toward global warming/climate change.

B. There is a likely anthropogenic component to global warming/climate change.

C. We need an alternative to fossil fuel.

D. Emperical evidence for disaster is only available after disaster.

E. There can be no guarantees for the future.

F. Scientific research and theory is only meaningfully "vetted" by scientists.

You then added your own supporting argument, toxic air pollution, to the list of reasons we should reduce fossil fuel consumption.

You requested "concrete and concise" recommendations for combatting global climate change with a "time horizon" and some estimates of cost/sacrifice/risk to weigh against benefit. And I provided you three.

To all of which you can now only respond: "The devil is in the details."

It's pretty clear...you know the evidence is compelling.

But you also reveal through your posts the level of emotional investment you have in the leadership of a political faction who have determined to do nothing and that have decided the best way to project an image of sober, responsible, respectability is to do nothing about a looming disaster while an industry they're inextricably tied to racks up record profits.

And until, or unless, the leadership of this faction is replaced by new leadership and mouthpieces who will address these issues, you're going to stick with their "do nothing," strategy.

That has to be uncomfortable, because you are intelligent enough to recognize the risk, but your own self image as a principled, intellectually tough skeptic is also on the line.

I sympathize. My political leanings are to the opposite side of the spectrum...I'm a liberal Democrat. The damned Democrats aren't doing anything substantive about climate change and fossil fuel depletion either.

But they have, at least, taken the first tentative step by acknowledging the scale of the problem. So it may prove less difficult to goad the Democrats toward taking the next step...even though there will then be extraordinary resistance within the Democratic Party toward acceptance of the reality that only fission can provide the industrial scale solution required.

Never-the-less, that first step has been taken, in that the Democrats are stepping back from the policies of oil industry laissez faire, and pre-emptive war in support of the multi-national oil industry's financial position.

Sooner or later, as history demonstrates, the conservative leadership will embrace a position, first established by liberals, as their own.

After that happens, you and I (and more to the point -- millions like us) will be on the same page -- if nothing else, we'll be reading the same chapter if not the same verse...

Does it make you wonder what we will find to disagree about then?

Don't worry, there will be plenty of other issues. Wink



so thats it huh? i'm conceding? i'm agreeing?

i must having an aneurysm...

If Igiro concedes , history is made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ed norton



Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:
cjm wrote:
lgiro wrote:

OK.
1. i think you are hanging onto my words pretty closely. ("Guarantee", economy" etc).


My mistake. I assumed that you choose your words with reasonable care, and that when you post something in a discussion of this sort, you mean pretty much what you write.

If you don't mean what you say, and if you don't say what you mean, then what we're going to have here is a failure to communicate.

Quote:


you see, you and i have heard some pretty high demands about policy changes havent we?. so before any such ideas are made into law, the American people need to know that their decisions and sacrifices are worth making. same as any "contract", legal or otherwise. didnt the report that came out last week say that we will have global warming for centuries, and that no matter what we do from here, we can only impact the extent of that warming very modestly? so, i am still asking for concrete proposals with estimated results. you hint at some possibilities and potentials, but i dont recall anything concrete and concise.


First, I must insist on reminding you that my argument for policy change is NOT BASED on an assessment of the risks of global warming alone, but rather that a combination of risk factors, including the risk of anthropogenic global warming, but also including fossil fuel depletion, wars for oil resources (and others that I've touched upon lightly), taken together, inform us of an immediate need to reduce and then eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.

But also, that our unchecked population growth requires that this cessation of fossil fuel use be accompanied by building an industrial scale infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel industry. And since "concrete and concise" ideas are called for -- ideas that can be translated into immediate policy change and action -- there is only one industrial scale alternative to fossil fuels known to science, and that's the way we are going to have to go for the foreseeable future.

Fission.


For the sake of argument, let's temporarily stipulate that anthropogenic global warming is not in dispute, because so stipulating will eliminate the need for repeated and cumbersome qualifying statements, so that we can get right to the "concrete and concise."

The report did point out that anthropogenic global warming is not preventable because it is already underway...and that the effects of global warming will be with us for a very long time (by human standards). That's pretty obvious -- we've already elevated atmospheric CO2 levels (although CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas from human activity addressed in the report), and it will take time for natural processes of permanent carbon sequestration to work, even if we were able to immediately halt all CO2 emissions.

The report focused on the additional global warming effects of continued excess greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to reduce these emissions. Differences of a few degrees in average global temperatures and a few meters of mean sea level rise are hardly "modest." If it is possible to maintain smaller polar icecaps than we have today, rather than lose them entirely, and if haline circulation patterns in the world's ocean basins are weakened, but not entirely broken, the climate patterns that led to the rise of modern civilizations, and that billions of people depend on for survival, are less disrupted than if we simply sit by and allow a worst case scenario to develop.

Quote:


so my question stands - to what lengths are you asking us to go, in what time frame, and at what cost/risk? and what should be the expected outcomes, with some detail, including time horizon?


With regard to the United States, I argue for a 50 year time horizon and an overall reduction of risk.

Clear and concise (although only scratching the surface, because you hate long posts, so I'm only going to mention three):

Immediately...today, this week, next month, whatever, but very soon...a return to reduced highway speed limits and enforcement of those reduced speed limits to reduce consumption as well as production system , distribution system and end-user tailpipe emissions.

We're in a "war on terra." In WWII, FDR signed a national 35 MPH speed limit into law. When OPEC reduced production in response to the October War, Nixon signed a bill imposing a 55 MPH speed limit. We are at war in two theaters of operations and we're wasting fuel by blasting around at 75 MPH. A return to 55 mph would reduce overall risk by improving highway safety, reducing dependence on foreign oil imports, by deferring petroleum depletion, and by immediately reducing the rate at which we compound the problems of global warming.

Not much of a sacrifice.

Then, before Bush leaves office, and during this Congress, mandatory increases in fuel efficiency for new vehicles as well as tax incentives on both the supply and demand sides of the automobile equation to encourage production and purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles. (And the production side might be one of the few places where pollution credits could be applied -- and make sense.)

That sounds like a big sacrifice and a hit to our economy, but the automobile companies that have taken a few proactive steps to improve fuel efficiency, aren't at the verge of bankruptcy like Ford is, so maybe we need to help them help themselves.

Maybe keeping the American automobile industry (and employment) afloat wouldn't be such a huge sacrifice and risk.

Finally, an aggressive program for a combination of the government and the private sector to build a fission based replacement for fossil fuels able to eliminate fossil fuel use within the next half century. Private capital would focus on thermal reactor designs, while government spending and operation would be primarily directed toward fast reactors to consume thermal reactor spent fuel (including existing stockpiles) at a ratio on the order of 1 fast reactor for every four or five thermal reactors.

The cost of the war in Iraq -- not counting operations in Afghanistan -- is roughly $200 billion per year with no economic spinoff benefit, no fossil fuel consumption reduction benefit, no greenhouse gas emssion reduction benefit.

That sort of spending could build new reactors at the rate of about 60 per year.

As to how that fits into a "time horizon," and when we would have sufficient electrical power to begin synthesis of, for example, hydrogen and DME as non greenhouse gas emitting combustion fuel substitutes for fossil fuels, is something you can do the math on.

As to risk and sacrifice, domestic employment growth through domestic construction projects and technology exports, would seem to require little sacrifice compared to the alternatives. A "guaranteed" domestic energy supply would also seem to be a minor sacrifice. Getting rid of spent fuel wastes would seem to fall into the catagory of risk reduction, as would improving national security by reducing dependance on foreign energy supply.

But someone might have to sacrifice...perhaps the management and ownership of multinational oil companies would see this as both an increased risk to their elite
status and a sacrifice of monumental proportion.

Oh well.
Quote:

2. the science can be presented for other bona fide, independent experts to review, can it not? so, let it stand on its own. i wasnt suggesting that i would do the vetting. we both know that there are other legit scientists who are being trashed for being skeptical.


The science has been accepted after review, because the majority of climate research scientists, who are not a bloc, but rather scientists from all over the world, have already looked at each others work and have come to a consensus view that the probability of anthropogenic climate change is at least 90 percent...

...There is a small minority of "legit scientists" who dispute these findings, and they're not growing in number.

It is sort of like the respected skeptics of manned heavier than air flight. Their numbers tapered off after the Wright brothers buiilt and flew an airplane.

Quote:


3. i am not disputing warming. i'm not even debating that man has some level of contribution. the debate has to do with the extent to which man is driving it.



Nothing to argue about then. The scientific community assesses the probability of a signficant anthropogenic component at 90 percent. Case closed, because that has been vetted by the majority of climate research scientists.

Quote:


4. i am not disputing a push to develop alternative energy sources. i am sure as hell not disputing energy independence from the middle east.



So, I'm right again. Cool.

Quote:


5. i am not disputing that we should attack pollution - regardless of warming. i lived in LA for awhile, and Mexico City for awhile. you cant see further out than a quarter of a mile there on some days.


That is an excellent, if self-evident, supporting argument.

By God lgiro, I can't see why you waste so much effort arguing about this, since you admit you agree on virtually every major point



no effort at all. but we really don't agree on everything. the devil is in the details. and i believe that there really is a debate.

cjm, I don't have any replies, but your knowledge makes me wonder if this is something you do for a living.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ed norton wrote:

cjm, I don't have any replies, but your knowledge makes me wonder if this is something you do for a living.?


This is an issue that from a career/financial standpoint I am a disinterested, but not uninterested, party.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:



so thats it huh? i'm conceding? i'm agreeing?

i must having an aneurysm...


I don't know whether you're having an aneurysm or not, but I do note you aren't addressing the 6 points (or "A through F" if you prefer) I identified as concessions and/or adopted assertions of yours in this discussion.

The only real area of disagreement remaining is that you appear to agree with the neo-conservatives that nothing should be done about the problems of global warming and fossil fuel depletion...but no real explanation for this is given.

Just vague complaints about sacrifice without guarantees.



The neo-conservative faction within the GOP came to power with extraordinarily close ties to big oil and with PNAC as a playbook.

Refusing to implement any policy that substantively addresses global warming or dependance on fossil fuels in the face of fossil fuel depletion is to be proactive in bolstering big oil's position for the next several decades.

The absolutely compelling evidence for that is that without any new technology breakthroughs, and without any new sources of supply, and with recent hurricane damage to infrastructure, and with big oil's favorite Judas Goat, OPEC, leading the way by setting all oil prices, including American domestic reserves, and with no sudden increase in demand, except in Asian markets, big oil is posting record breaking profits...most of which is untouchable by the American tax system, even as American troops and tax payers pay the price in blood and borrowed treasure (borrowed against our children's generation) to pacify southwestern Asia and to bring what is the only underproducing oil patch in the middle east under big oil's control...to serve the Indian and Chinese markets via Persian Gulf ports (since the hoped for pipeline route through Afghanistan ain't happenin' because the Taliban's determination was just one more thing that was "misunderestimated" long before the problem of Iran was even really considered).

So, aneurysm or not, we agree except for whether or not this last part is an example of good energy policy.

And if you can't address PNAC ("Plan for a New American Century") embraced by George Bush and Dick Cheney as not only President and Vice President, but also as the highest ranking members of the neo-conservative faction of the GOP that relied on PNAC as a guide, then you really aren't in much of a position to argue the Administration's motives for inaction to address the problems of global climate change and fossil fuel depletion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:

maybe ill get back to this someday but for now am busy with other things cjm. powering down


Quite a "co-inky-dink," as Bugs would say. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's something that might be of interest to those who have been suffering a winter cold snap recently -- a weather map covering most of North America and including Greenland.

It may be dynamic content -- in other words, if you click on the link a few hours or days from now it will probably display the conditions at the time you check it.

But if you hurry and check the map now (February 12, 10:00 UTC) you'll see what I'm referring to.

http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/jet_stream/index_e.html

Note: The temperatures are given in degrees Celsius, rather than Farenheit, which most people in the States are more accustomed to.

Notice how the southern coast of Greenland is hovering at or just below the freezing point, as is much of Labrador.

Look to the west, in Alaska, and observe how temperatures west of Anchorage on the Alaska Penninsula are actually above freezing in mid-February.

As you look at temperatures across this portion of the Arctic and extreme northern temperate latitudes from Greenland to Alaska, note how near the freezing point much of it is, and consider how these relatively warm winter temperatures affect the formation and maintenance of ocean pack ice, where salty ocean water has to be frozen at the surface, and remain frozen while floating on salt water...and then, how quickly a relatively thin layer of relatively warm ice will respond to late spring through summer thawing temperatures a few short months from now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I suspected, the URL provided is to dynamic content, so if you look at the map today you will see today's conditions.

But the conditions as of today, Tuesday, February 13, 2007, are little changed and the unusually warm thaw on the Alaska Pennisula can still be seen, as well as temperatures barely below freezing along much of the Greenland coast.

http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/jet_stream/index_e.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nezumi



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cool site, cjm

My husband is a golf course superintendent, or as he hates to be called: an educated grass cutter.
As you can imagine, the course's conditions are tied to the weather. My husband is an avid weather watcher, has a weather station at the course, and frequents many websites relating to weather.
-doppler radar sites for local weather These are a favorite on rainy days.
-hurricane reports just for curiosity's sake
-local forcasts
-national forcasts
-international temperature sites
and more.
this is probably why i'm so plugged into weather and climate.
_________________
hey, hey, hey
play every day BiteLip
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gorecki
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 62518
Location: Davis, CA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm the same way, once I became a pilot a natural interest in weather evolved. So I have tools and resources most people don't. You wouldn't believe how many people around me come looking for what's going to happen because they don't trust the local weather man. Laughing
_________________

Forums Admin for PlayJazzGuitar.com.

Do you know where all of your F'n B flats are?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dux



Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 14
Location: Hawai'i

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I live out here in Hawai'i. I guess this speaks for itself. It has been cold for us as of late however, and this will probably make most of you laugh...but it got down into the mid 50's last night. Very cold for us. This won't last. Generally our nights are in the low 70's, and days in the mid 80's in the winter; and unless you have lived here a long time as I have, you would not even notice the difference in our seasons. For the most part it stays pretty uniform throughout the year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group