pmccarthy

The Cossack sold in Australia for one dollar per cc. So the 600 twin was $600. They had to be rebuilt due to faults like mild steel conrods etc due to Russian production quotas, but the ones still around have been made reliable.

If you get get COVID immunity by eating cockroaches, would you do it?

The world was entering a "big freeze", we would run out of petroleum by 1995, we would have a nuclear war before I grew up (well that wasn't a lie, just a pessimistic forecast), the Japanese would buy up much of Australia, there were very few massacres in Australian history, there were no dinosaurs in Australia, asbestos was pretty much harmless, like smoking.

If I have to eat cockroaches I will go extinct.

Just spoke to three of my grandchildren by video link. They are 7, 10 and 12 and camped in a tent on a mountain on their own property last night with their parents. It rained all night. They were super excited and happy, about to have porridge for breakfast. In lockdown they can play with the dog, help with sheep, and go for long daily walks. Its great.

The mental illness is being caused by the media and the people telling our children that they are on the eve of destruction. It simply isn’t true, and this BS is causing tremendous harm.

If I read that label correctly, it is for use when having sex with ostriches who are too dry. Understandable, I suppose. I wonder what animals the New Zealand version is for, and what is the aviation connection?

This article goes to manipulation or misinterpretation of temperature data. It makes interesting reading. https://clintel.org/new-ipcc-report-resurrects-the-hockey-stick/

Scomo is definitely all BS and no delivery. I haven’t voted labor since Bob Hawke but will next time if Scomo is still there.

Would be $3M today.

The mining companies and the fuel companies seem to be embracing climate change, I haven’t seen much denying. I think they can see profits in it.

Internationally, the carbon traders in particular. Al Gore is a prime example. edit…I didn’t mean to get drawn into the politics, let’s stick to the science.

I guess we each have our own reality. I see the vested interests as those who promote and seek to profit from the scares.

Dax says : Have read the article, it does say diverting the river has helped sea inundation, but it does emphasis it's sea level rises from global warming which is driving the situation. I have re-read the article and still cannot get that interpretation. The causes are given as diversion of the Paraiba do Sul River, and deforestation of mangroves. Then it says "global sea level rise due to melting ice means destruction will continue." So we have two well-established historical causes which have applied over decades, then a speculative comment about a hypothetical sea level rise. The sea level is rising, it has done so since the last ice age, but it is not the cause of the town of Atafona being washed away.

Also in The Age this morning, unde the heading Climate Policy, is the headline ‘The sea swallowed everything’: this Brazilian town is drowning'. You have to read the article to find out that the problem has been caused by a river diversion. Despite this, there are references to climate change in the article. The whole thing is irresponsible scaremongering.

There is an article in The Age this morning about climate change that might alarm readers if they don’t read to the very end. The last paragraph says: Professor Fyfe said the increase in ENSO amplitude because of human activities had yet to be identified in observations. “Everything we are talking about here is in ‘model world’,” he said. “This is acknowledged in the IPCC report and in [Dr Cai’s paper].”

"I need to know why this data is either incorrect or not relevant." The temperature data is, I understand, incorrect. For Australia, see https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/2021/08/12/fussing-over-one-degree-of-simulation/ BOM was asked about this in parliament and I have not seen their response yet. There are similar articles about the US data set. There nearly 50% of the data points have been "adjusted"" using a computer model, which makes the past cooler and recent times warmer. I'm not saying there is not warming, but the red line on that chart is, I understand, incorrect. There is also a problem of extrapolating from past ground-based readings for the USA, Australia and Western Europe to the temperature of the atmosphere of the whole world both land and sea.

My experience is that it had no effect. Couldn't get it up before, same after.

Octave, I am grateful for your serious interest in this. We probably agree on many things. My main point is that we don't know what drives climate change, or even whether abnormal climate change is occurring. There are many peer-reviewed papers and books that challenge the alarmist views. This all would not matter except that there is a political movement to make changes which challenge the world's economies and destroy the mental health of the younger generation. I can point to dozens of references by geoscientists which say that the current climate is part of natural variation. Evidence such as grass and crops in Greenland, the Roman and Medieval warm periods, and the Little Ice Age, are supported by the dated vegetation and tree trunks appearing from under retreating glaciers. In the longer term, over tens of thousands of years, temperatures from ice cores show large variations. My personal bias is that I believe there is a socialist political movement behind much of the disinformation, but that is no basis for a scientific argument and I try to stick to facts. My other bias, from personal experience, is that I do not believe any conclusions drawn from computer modelling. I am happy to look at any real world data, particularly temperature records that have not been "adjusted" by computer modelling. I have no problem with Humlum saying that "The most straightforward explanation for this phenomenon is that much of the warming is caused by solar insolation, but there may well be several supplementary reasons". It IS the most straightforward explanation from that data set. But the real world climate is complex. There is no scientific consensus at present and, in any case, science does not work from consensus but from hypothesis, challenge and experiment. On the solar insolation question, the best study in your references is the third one. It says: How accurately these models reproduce SSI before direct observations started remains a major open question. All these models assume that the present relationship between SSI and solar proxies holds for past variations. The recent and unusually long period of low solar activity that took place in 2008–2009, however, challenges our ability to reconstruct solar activity from proxies. To overcome challenges with solar irradiance models, scientists need to piece together a record longer than the past few decades. So to those authors the question is open. I know of others who argue strongly for a large solar influence. We simply don't know.

No one can explain it at present. There is a useful 2021 paper “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” see https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131 But even this paper (with 25 well-qualified authors) only deals with the Northern Hemisphere data. In the abstract they say “For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different Total Solar Irradiance estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). The main point I draw from all this and other research is that scientists don't know, and that there is no "consensus" about whether unusual warming is occurring and what drives climatic variation.

Summary of paper: Since the 1980s, it has been known that solar radiation at the surface of the Earth goes through increases (brightening) for two-to-three decades followed by decreases (dimming) over similar periods. These cyclic patterns are not caused by variations in the sun's emission but rather by changes in cloud cover and dust in the atmosphere. Brightening and dimming occur all over the globe. Dimming was documented in the U.S. from the 1950s to about the mid-1980s. In the mid-to-late 1980s, solar radiation at the surface reversed course and increased for more than 20 years. Here, we show that this most recent brightening period in the U.S. ended in 2012. Surface solar radiation decreased over the U.S. after 2013, signaling the possible beginning of a new dimming period. We determined that systematic changes in cloud cover were mostly responsible for these trends and that atmospheric dust played only a minor role. Knowledge of dimming and brightening is useful for research in weather, climate, agriculture, renewable energy, and any other process that responds to systematic changes of solar energy at the surface. Full paper at https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033590

It got the right answer three times when I tried it. Different cards. I can't figure it out.

His grandson was into boating and animal welfare.

Steel and aluminium are not included, assumed similar for both structures. The values for vehicles are for the entire vehicle including batteries, motors and glider. The intensities for an electric car are based on a 75 kWh NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) 622 cathode and graphite-based anode. The breakdown of mninerals by type is shown in the report.