Mathematical model says climate change will make storms worse

You know the thing about celibacy is, once it's been more than a year it's so much easier to just go with what you've gotten used to. The longer you wait the harder it will be, getting back in the saddle, I mean. Don't wait too long, or you'll just become an ornery old man!:-(

Sheila wrote:

You know the thing about celibacy is, once it's been more than a year it's so much easier to just go with what you've gotten used to. The longer you wait the harder it will be, getting back in the saddle, I mean. Don't wait too long, or you'll just become an ornery old man!:-(

I agree with the first part but I'll never be ornery, jusy hornery
:-|
I can't imagine never experiencing love again but if I never do in this life doesn't mean the next place is not teeming with love. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to get outta here to a better place, maybe I still have to come back here for a few more lifetimes to earn it? Either way I know there is love out there! We are in the opposing world, don't fret, embrace it. There's no perfect love down here. I do feel sad when I see so many people that are not happily married. I was one of them. One needs affection the other doesn't want it at all, etc etc. I was always the affectionate one. I'm affectionate towards my cat why wouldn't I be towards the people I love? But when I do see a rare couple that is very happy together I don't get jealous, I am happy that at least some peope exist that can treat eachother so well. Well I guess I get a little jealous but only a little.

Well oddly enough animals are more prone to be loving than other humans. And I don't mean the horny dog that humps everything in sight.

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

<quoted text>I agree with the first part but I'll never be ornery, jusy hornery
:-|
I can't imagine never experiencing love again but if I never do in this life doesn't mean the next place is not teeming with love. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to get outta here to a better place, maybe I still have to come back here for a few more lifetimes to earn it? Either way I know there is love out there! We are in the opposing world, don't fret, embrace it. There's no perfect love down here. I do feel sad when I see so many people that are not happily married. I was one of them. One needs affection the other doesn't want it at all, etc etc. I was always the affectionate one. I'm affectionate towards my cat why wouldn't I be towards the people I love? But when I do see a rare couple that is very happy together I don't get jealous, I am happy that at least some peope exist that can treat eachother so well. Well I guess I get a little jealous but only a little.

I don't know how anybody can argue with you when you make so much sense. Sounds like you're in good place already, i.e., comfortable in your own skin. Stay sweet.:-)

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

<quoted text>Oh man that's incredible, we are the same. I can't remember you telling me that you built your own manifolds as well. I would love to compare notes/opinions because I have trashed so many motors porting the wrong way until I believe I finally figured something out, at least I'm happy with the results, I don't have a flow bench but I always say to drive it is to test it but I'd still love to hear your opinion of my ideas.
I have a lifeling project car, a 1969 mustang fastback. I finally settled on/with a 392 cu in (351 stroker) motor with aftermarket heads, small block, 2.02" valves. Tell me if you agree or disagree with what I did to the intake/heads. Unshrouding the valves as much as possible is a must. I base everything on cross sectional area and first I figure the area of the valve and work towards the carburetor from there, the valve area determines the max X-sectional area that you should limit porting to, I would think. Then I take a bit more than 90% of it (like 91 or 92%) and I make that the diameter of the entrance to the bowl (transition from valve seat to bowl). I think the free area was 2.6" at most. SO anything more than 2.6" and you're losing power (especially low end) anything less might rob some top end HP. And indeed the race type small block manifolds (Edelbrock Victor) have very close to 2.6" area runners so I figured I'm on to something.
It's not until you get to Nascar type heads (like Yates heads) that you need custom manifolds larger than 2.6" but there again you would match the runner area to the free area under the valve (all the way back to the intake plenum beneath the carb) to optimize power wouldn't you?
And same with the exhaust port, I made custom stainless headers (I don't have a tubing bender so I just cut wedges out of the pipe and rewelded them to make a turn, took like 5 wedges or more to make a nice easy 90% turn) that had an ID the same as the free area under the exhaust valve and same as the rest of the exhaust port. I know I could have gained a tiny bit of HP by going a bit larger on the exhaust tube size but I wanted a streetable car. I have a 234 @ 0.050" cam so it doesn't like to idle for long periods on a 90 degree day but it does alright. It's every bit of 500 HP at 6000rpm. I never dynoed it but it feels like it could be more like 550. And actually I was too chicken to port my intake runners in the heads more than 2.4" so I made an intake manifold with 2.4" runners/ports to match, anything more would be counterproductive right?

Well,..i'm impressed
You have chosen the only truly good looking mustang ever built in my opinion...
It seems in the ballpark as far as i can tell at this point...
550 hp@6k rpm would suggest to me a really good balance job (a lot of reciprocating mass)I would have the best valvesprings available also push rods and a gear driven cam etc.
It sounds about the upper limit you could have and still have any sort of reliability... sounds good !
I have been pondering your latest project and will get back to you a bit later there.....
The performance speaks for its self....

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

Well oddly enough animals are more prone to be loving than other humans. And I don't mean the horny dog that humps everything in sight.

That's why i have 2 Basset Hound puppies...:-)
There is what,5 distinct types of love ? It "kinda" helps going in the mix the potential partner posesses...
..Still looking into what i remember about your current project :-)
Just bought some used Miller climbing equiptment and have to get a positioning belt yet (new)...what a shock (cost)..hahaha

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text> I don't know how anybody can argue with you when you make so much sense. Sounds like you're in good place already, i.e., comfortable in your own skin. Stay sweet.:-)

How nice of you, you're a sweetheart. Well you see people that like to argue and deceive will never agree with us and I guess we must like to argue a little too or else we would never respond to those that provoke us but we would never purposely deceive like tina or her boy Brian. I believe some deniers actually believe they are in the right and I think that is acceptable,...wrong, but acceptable. I also believe that the truth is somewhere between the extremes though the reality seems more to the AGW and AGP (pollution) side, but some deniers purposely prevaricate and distract, and that is NOT cool. The only science they have is "zerocon-science". Opposing views make things interesting but purposeful distraction/deceipt and an unwillingness to think about or acknowledge what a genuine post/er presents, is lame.

And I'll always admit I COULD be wrong (like to see a denier say that) but if the data is accurate then it is almost impossible. How hard is it to measure CO2 concentration for starters? And how hard is it to realize that if something doesn't change then the concentration of CO2 will rise to dangerous levels soon? Well for those with little understanding of science I can understand it would be hard to realize that.

Hey, didn't you start out as a denier on these threads? That is amazing that you "converted". I myself started out middle of the road on the AGW thing but the more I contemplated it the more I see/think we are slowly wrecking the planet with no emergency brake. But I'm not going to get too excited about it, even though certain posters may think I am, I'm just trying to raise awareness.

You know I typed the word, "somewhwere" and stared at it for the longest time trying to figure out what was wrong with the spelling. I am in the "zone" from not sleeping last night. I'll be crashing momentarily, have a good night Sheel.

S-oE wrote:

<quoted text>
Well,..i'm impressed
You have chosen the only truly good looking mustang ever built in my opinion...

Thanks, I kinda like them all but '69 was by far my favorite with the side scoops and widesides and...

It seems in the ballpark as far as i can tell at this point...
550 hp@6k rpm would suggest to me a really good balance job (a lot of reciprocating mass)I would have the best valvesprings available also push rods and a gear driven cam etc.
It sounds about the upper limit you could have and still have any sort of reliability... sounds good !
I have been pondering your latest project and will get back to you a bit later there.....
The performance speaks for its self....

I had two motors in there before this one, both blew up after a thousand miles or so, they were supercharged, I liked the idea of superchargers until I tried one. They're just "heat factories". Now I know why you never see them on racing engines without intercoolers or ethanol only apps. Now I love my normally aspirated set up. And it seems reliable. I recently drove it all the way to Cumberland Maryland and back the scenic route. I must have a few thousand pounding miles on it so far. I take it all the way up to 6500 rpm regularly. Of course I only drive it a few times a year.

S-oE wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why i have 2 Basset Hound puppies...:-)
There is what,5 distinct types of love ? It "kinda" helps going in the mix the potential partner posesses...
..Still looking into what i remember about your current project :-)
Just bought some used Miller climbing equiptment and have to get a positioning belt yet (new)...what a shock (cost)..hahaha

Wow 5 types? Didn't know there was such an extensive breakdown but I believe it.

You mean you climb too? What are you up to with that climbing equip? Sounds interesting. Yea isn't everything impossibly expensive these days? I just spent like 600 bucks on new equipment myself, ropes, chainsaw chains, files, clips, thimbles, new harness. And the chainsaw I am looking to buy for next year is like 1200 plus tax! It's getting so hard to keep it above water. And of course if my health holds out I may invest in a chipper instead of always taking it to the dump or calling in someone that has one.

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

... How hard is it to measure CO2 concentration for starters? And how hard is it to realize that if something doesn't change then the concentration of CO2 will rise to dangerous levels soon?...

Carbon is vital for life, if man is influencing climate then it's just as likely that freeing CO2 into the air will bring about a climate Eden, as a climate catastrophe. Experimental tests are the only way to know.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
Carbon is vital for life, if man is influencing climate then it's just as likely that freeing CO2 into the air will bring about a climate Eden, as a climate catastrophe. Experimental tests are the only way to know.

You are so repetitive and noxious that your posts, your two sentence wonderthoughts, make me wanna puke violently. A climate EDEN? Isn't there a thread specifically for BS? B....B...B.bBB..bb.bBBLLllLl.. .L>.lLlAAAAAAAAAaaAAaaAaAAa !!!-----A--a-a-_AAA-
2nd wave
B...B..B..Bbb.b.b..b...lllaaaA AAAAaa

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

<quoted text>You are so repetitive and noxious that your posts, your two sentence wonderthoughts, make me wanna puke violently. A climate EDEN? Isn't there a thread specifically for BS? B....B...B.bBB..bb.bBBLLllLl.. .L>.lLlAAAAAAAAAaaAAaaAaAAa !!!-----A--a-a-_AAA-
2nd wave
B...B..B..Bbb.b.b..b...lllaaaA AAAAaa

Huh?

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

<quoted text>You are so repetitive and noxious that your posts, your two sentence wonderthoughts, make me wanna puke violently. A climate EDEN? Isn't there a thread specifically for BS? B....B...B.bBB..bb.bBBLLllLl.. .L>.lLlAAAAAAAAAaaAAaaAaAAa !!!-----A--a-a-_AAA-
2nd wave
B...B..B..Bbb.b.b..b...lllaaaA AAAAaa

Hahaha....I don't know who to recommend the charcoal brickette to first. Brian,to quench his desire for carbon and perhaps (activated) filter out some of the toxins he has seemed to have acquired or you to calm the stomach....hahaha
My climbing is now limited to the antenna mast on the roof.Actually i have two ,one in the center of the roof and one along side the house.
It's about a 56 ft drop to the back of the house from one and 68 foot from the other....The wife is concerned that i don't bounce as well as i did when younger..
.I did have a nasty tree triming job today. I had to get up in a plum in the front yard ,hold the chain saw above my head and remove a couple of dead limbs. I think bacterial gummoses has pretty well done the plum in...
I'm still pondering the manifold. I started with one crankshaft revolution then moved to absolute air/fuel minimums. I can see a number of problems. more later...

S-oE wrote:

<quoted text>
Hahaha....I don't know who to recommend the charcoal brickette to first. Brian,to quench his desire for carbon and perhaps (activated) filter out some of the toxins he has seemed to have acquired or you to calm the stomach....hahaha
My climbing is now limited to the antenna mast on the roof.Actually i have two ,one in the center of the roof and one along side the house.
It's about a 56 ft drop to the back of the house from one and 68 foot from the other....The wife is concerned that i don't bounce as well as i did when younger..
.I did have a nasty tree triming job today. I had to get up in a plum in the front yard ,hold the chain saw above my head and remove a couple of dead limbs. I think bacterial gummoses has pretty well done the plum in...
I'm still pondering the manifold. I started with one crankshaft revolution then moved to absolute air/fuel minimums. I can see a number of problems. more later...

Yea better to be safe, and when chainsawing in a tree it's always easier to accomplish when tied in so that youcan lean back and get an angle on it unless of course you have all the big enough branches you need to step back away on. Thanks for thinking about the idea, I would welcome any input. Though I am curious as to what any potential problems might be that can't be overcome by rejetting.

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text>Huh?

You know like in "Weird Science" the movie, when Chet recommends eating a nice greasy pork sandwich out of a dirty ashtray to a hung over younger brother, theh thought of it makes youi puke violently and if you think about it too hard you might get a second wave.

Paging TINA ANNE!
Hey I have something especially for you. I have been thinking about my candle experiment (I know you dont care). I have repeated it a bunch of times to make sure. The smaller the difference in diameter between the two glasses (the candle holder and the glass used to cover it with) the better reading you will get. And the glass used to cover needs to be quite a bit taller than the candle holder though also.

Now the important thing is that the flame continues to burn as the water starts getting drawn up. If the flame were to go out BEFORE the water STARTED getting drawn up then we think we might be able to say that the cooling resulting from the extinguished flame is responsible, but if you'll notice, after the flame goes out the water slows or stops rising completely, like I said the tiny candle flame cannot exert that much force. Maybe if you tried it with a giant torch then it would be even more dramatic and you could draw up a huge amount of water but that would require a special set up. Maybe one day I'll try it in addition.

The point of this post though isn't just to tell you that, I want to tell you how obvious it is that you are a pure troll. You flat out deny me when I originally thought the system expanded, then when I found that the system actually shrinks you flat out denied me the same, with no support.

Well guess what? All you had to do (if you weren't a pure troll, but were interested in the subject and contributing constructive input or criticism even) is google, "troposphere shrinking change over time" or something like that, and you would have found that all the evidence suggests that the troposphere is NOT shrinking but expanding. And you would have had plenty of support but we see you don't even think about this stuff you just make up BS (Duhhh ..what's a troposphere?) but everything above it IS shrinking. I don't think the fact that the upper atmosphere is shrinking will really affect us in any crazy way (though how could I know for sure?)

But the fact that the troposphere is not shrinking is not a reason to believe I was wrong in my explanation of the candle experiment. I still cannot be sure I am 100% correct but I can't think of any other explanation than what I suggested with the water combustion product precipitating out and thus shrinking the system in the candle experiment. But when we apply this to real life I think the reason we don't see a shrinking of the troposphere is that the water product, while it precipitates out does not disappear, it actually DOES add to the volume of the atmosphere because it displaces air as it accumulates in the oceans and slowly raises the sea level because it is created from hydrogen (from the fuel) that has been buried for millions of years. So I did overlook that important fact. Now I have corrected it.

It would be nice if you would contribute to the thought experiment instead of simply denying everything you come across from me. I am not trying to demand I am right about it or the implications, I am asking for input, constructive input not denial denial denial. Get real already you waste of space.

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

<quoted text>You know like in "Weird Science" the movie, when Chet recommends eating a nice greasy pork sandwich out of a dirty ashtray to a hung over younger brother, theh thought of it makes youi puke violently and if you think about it too hard you might get a second wave.

Ugh! Puking, my least favorite thing to do with my mouth. Most things you describe sound so wonderful, so I guess it's only natural for you to be good at barfing, too.:-)

But then again the height of the troposphere has to be measured from sea level so that should cancel out the effects of sea level rise (due to water precipitation from the combustion product).
So this looks more gloomy than I originally thought. If the troposphere is expanding yet we have less and less molecules in the atmosphere which should result in shrinkage, then that means it is experiencing more wrming than we think. We only measure a 1.5 degree average warming at the surface over the last hundred years but what about higher up in the troposphere? To me the only way to explain the evidence of expansion in the troposphere is from heating, and possibly if outgassing outweighs dissolution of gases, but I don't know the answer to that.

And yes I am taking up some space thinking out loud. Maybe it will rub off on the deniers? All they seem interested in thinking about is the next insult.

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text>Ugh! Puking, my least favorite thing to do with my mouth. Most things you describe sound so wonderful, so I guess it's only natural for you to be good at barfing, too.:-)

Well I don't think any of us are "good at barfing". Did I *describe* it "wonderfully"? That's a bad thing I guess.

Well bolemics are good at barfing I guess since they do it so often.

To me being good at it means avoiding it.

OK I won't say another word about........b.....a.nevermind . I can't say it

I think I get what you're saying,that it means the binding of CO2 with the H2O molecules will keep the heat high in the troposphere. As it keeps rising it will force particules from the stratosphere downwards, where they will also become heated from the polluted water vapor. I know polluted water holds heat for a longer amount of time than unpolluted water does. So,ergo, the heat level is cumulative? And yes, it makes me crazee when no matter what you say the other person says the opposite! My mom does that! She baits me all the time on the stupidest little things.