In case CC is not a familiar term, it will be ... soon. It stands for climate change, and almost always it refers to man-made climate change, the one we are already living with, the one which will get much worse soon.
So does it affect your riding already? Here is today's radar picture from Western Europe, one which looks like many others I have seen this summer. And these aren't bad days, there is no tornado, no major storm. Just rain: the little blue/black dots show extremely heavy rain, and more important (you cannot see this of course) these clusters are moving very slowly. In other words, when you get into one of them (diameter often 10-20km) you meet with all of the following: zero visibility, inches of water on the road, outpours from pipes, drivers unable to see you, etc. And if you keep riding in the wrong direction, it won't get any better for a seemingly very long time.
Now look at the extent of this phenomenon on the map, consider it keeps going hours after hours, only to return the next day or a few days later - this is something no rider can any longer ignore just counting on luck and a trench coat. And you guessed it, my guess, the forecasters have a hard time to warn you. The 6h forecast for that afternoon said showers and light rain.
I fully believe in climate change just not the "factual" data that "proves" man is totally responsible or even has an impact. We pollute, sure and that is easy too see. Over millions of years this planet, its temperature, sea levels, gas volumes etc etc etc have all been wildly different, ice ages come and go. So many people have lost their critical thinking in favour of joining in with the latest "thing". A great contribution to understanding the worlds history is by the Australian Professor, Ian Plimer in his book "Not for Greens". Absolutely brilliant read with a foreword from the co-founder of Greenpeace.
Take this one tiny snippet from the book which provides lots of data points. "In the past the climate changed between cold and warm periods every 41,000 years. About 1 million years ago a 100,000 year cycle commenced. This involved, on average a 90,000 year cold glacial period followed by a 10,000 year warm interglacial period. We are currently 10,500 years into a warm interglacial period that peaked around 6,000 years ago. In the period from 12,000 to 6,000 years ago sea level rose about 130m at an average of two centimetres a year. Global temperatures have decreased about 2 deg Centigrade and sea level has fallen nearly two metres since the 6,000 year interglacial peak."
... volcanoes, a favourite source of mine. Pretty efficient at doing a lot in little time. The carnage in Ukraine right behind it. The CB1100 after it has warmed up, not so much.
i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
(06-30-2022, 06:39 AM)Tev62_imp Wrote: [ -> ]I fully believe in climate change just not the "factual" data that "proves" man is totally responsible or even has an impact. We pollute, sure and that is easy too see. Over millions of years this planet, its temperature, sea levels, gas volumes etc etc etc have all been wildly different, ice ages come and go. So many people have lost their critical thinking in favour of joining in with the latest "thing". A great contribution to understanding the worlds history is by the Australian Professor, Ian Plimer in his book "Not for Greens". Absolutely brilliant read with a foreword from the co-founder of Greenpeace.
Take this one tiny snippet from the book which provides lots of data points. "In the past the climate changed between cold and warm periods every 41,000 years. About 1 million years ago a 100,000 year cycle commenced. This involved, on average a 90,000 year cold glacial period followed by a 10,000 year warm interglacial period. We are currently 10,500 years into a warm interglacial period that peaked around 6,000 years ago. In the period from 12,000 to 6,000 years ago sea level rose about 130m at an average of two centimetres a year. Global temperatures have decreased about 2 deg Centigrade and sea level has fallen nearly two metres since the 6,000 year interglacial peak."
Factual data, Tev ? There is no "100% proof" for any event in the world which cannot be reproduced or which occurs infrequently or only once. All we can do is look at scientific data, peer reviewed over and over again, and conclude whether some conclusion drawn from the data is impossible, possible, likely, very likely OR indeed "correct". The later means, we have ALL reasons to believe the conclusion is correct. When our best scientists (indeed hundreds of them) - working in the field of CC for years, gathering in conferences, peer-reviewing the data and each others conclusions - come to the conclusion that CC is man made, AND when there is NO other, serious, comparable body of scientists coming to a different conclusion ...
... then it simply makes no sense whatsoever to say that the before mentioned body of scientists is wrong or not credible. You have the right to fabricate your own story or world view, but you cannot expect to be taken serious.
This is not a political statement, it is a factual statement not trying to insult anybody, and therefore it is a response which I hope is admissible on this forum.
(06-30-2022, 02:25 PM)rich_imp Wrote: [ -> ]i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
did I say it rains in California ?
(06-30-2022, 02:25 PM)rich_imp Wrote: [ -> ]i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
Figure out how ol' California can desalinate ocean water efficiently using the unrelenting brilliant sunshine, and the lack of rain will become less of a concern.
I am pretty sure engineers are working feverishly on a sustainable and affordable implementation that won't have an environmental side-effect or an outrageous entry cost.
Then, ... those CB1100 rides will be a wee bit more pleasurable as everyone will be noticeably happier.
(06-30-2022, 06:39 AM)Tev62_imp Wrote: [ -> ]I fully believe in climate change just not the "factual" data that "proves" man is totally responsible or even has an impact. We pollute, sure and that is easy too see. Over millions of years this planet, its temperature, sea levels, gas volumes etc etc etc have all been wildly different, ice ages come and go. So many people have lost their critical thinking in favour of joining in with the latest "thing". A great contribution to understanding the worlds history is by the Australian Professor, Ian Plimer in his book "Not for Greens". Absolutely brilliant read with a foreword from the co-founder of Greenpeace.
Take this one tiny snippet from the book which provides lots of data points. "In the past the climate changed between cold and warm periods every 41,000 years. About 1 million years ago a 100,000 year cycle commenced. This involved, on average a 90,000 year cold glacial period followed by a 10,000 year warm interglacial period. We are currently 10,500 years into a warm interglacial period that peaked around 6,000 years ago. In the period from 12,000 to 6,000 years ago sea level rose about 130m at an average of two centimetres a year. Global temperatures have decreased about 2 deg Centigrade and sea level has fallen nearly two metres since the 6,000 year interglacial peak."
I agree, the climate has always changed and we are currently on one of those mini upward temperature profiles that ends with an even lower trough than before as overall though the earth is heading towards another glaciation period (not an ice age as those are spaced further apart) Now mankind has contributed a small amount to the co2 in the atmosphere but it is insignificant and if anything a positive due to the effect on plant growth. The cult that has been encouraged by shady forces (locking out any qualified dissenting opinions) has an agenda that is not as fluffy and seemingly harmless as they make out. When you dig into the green movement you find some pretty dark Malthusian motives at play. Isn't is rather ironic that the current crises that are afflicting us seem to be furthering the green agenda, all by sheer coincidence of course.
(06-30-2022, 09:50 PM)j3gq_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2022, 06:39 AM)Tev62_imp Wrote: [ -> ]I fully believe in climate change just not the "factual" data that "proves" man is totally responsible or even has an impact. We pollute, sure and that is easy too see. Over millions of years this planet, its temperature, sea levels, gas volumes etc etc etc have all been wildly different, ice ages come and go. So many people have lost their critical thinking in favour of joining in with the latest "thing". A great contribution to understanding the worlds history is by the Australian Professor, Ian Plimer in his book "Not for Greens". Absolutely brilliant read with a foreword from the co-founder of Greenpeace.
Take this one tiny snippet from the book which provides lots of data points. "In the past the climate changed between cold and warm periods every 41,000 years. About 1 million years ago a 100,000 year cycle commenced. This involved, on average a 90,000 year cold glacial period followed by a 10,000 year warm interglacial period. We are currently 10,500 years into a warm interglacial period that peaked around 6,000 years ago. In the period from 12,000 to 6,000 years ago sea level rose about 130m at an average of two centimetres a year. Global temperatures have decreased about 2 deg Centigrade and sea level has fallen nearly two metres since the 6,000 year interglacial peak."
Factual data, Tev ? There is no "100% proof" for any event in the world which cannot be reproduced or which occurs infrequently or only once. All we can do is look at scientific data, peer reviewed over and over again, and conclude whether some conclusion drawn from the data is impossible, possible, likely, very likely OR indeed "correct". The later means, we have ALL reasons to believe the conclusion is correct. When our best scientists (indeed hundreds of them) - working in the field of CC for years, gathering in conferences, peer-reviewing the data and each others conclusions - come to the conclusion that CC is man made, AND when there is NO other, serious, comparable body of scientists coming to a different conclusion ...
... then it simply makes no sense whatsoever to say that the before mentioned body of scientists is wrong or not credible. You have the right to fabricate your own story or world view, but you cannot expect to be taken serious.
This is not a political statement, it is a factual statement not trying to insult anybody, and therefore it is a response which I hope is admissible on this forum.
(06-30-2022, 02:25 PM)rich_imp Wrote: [ -> ]i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
did I say it rains in California ?
Factual data, Tev ? There is no "100% proof" for any event in the world which cannot be reproduced or which occurs infrequently or only once. All we can do is look at scientific data, peer reviewed over and over again, and conclude whether some conclusion drawn from the data is impossible, possible, likely, very likely OR indeed "correct". The later means, we have ALL reasons to believe the conclusion is correct. When our best scientists (indeed hundreds of them) - working in the field of CC for years, gathering in conferences, peer-reviewing the data and each others conclusions - come to the conclusion that CC is man made, AND when there is NO other, serious, comparable body of scientists coming to a different conclusion ...
... then it simply makes no sense whatsoever to say that the before mentioned body of scientists is wrong or not credible. You have the right to fabricate your own story or world view, but you cannot expect to be taken serious.
This is not a political statement, it is a factual statement not trying to insult anybody, and therefore it is a response which I hope is admissible on this forum.
(06-30-2022, 02:25 PM)rich_imp Wrote: [ -> ]i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
did I say it rains in California ?
A big issue with 'scientists' and their 'research' involves who funds them and what that involves.
Every summer of our lives has been a "Climate Change Summer" -- if the climate is changing (and I think it is), it has been doing so since at least 1960. J3gq's map and comments are about weather, not climate. We've had hot, wet, cold, dry summers forever. Some with volatile storms, some without. The CC folks seem to point to weather when the weather forecasts support their hypothesis and tell us that we can't look at the a single year's weather when that data doesn't support their hypothesis. So to J3gq's question: CC does not have any affect on my riding - zero. Weather does. I wear rain gear when it rains, I wear mesh gear when it's hot, and I wear electrics when it's cold. I wear sunglasses when it's sunny and don't when it's not.
Do not worry , we are all doomed !