riding in a CC summer

[j3gq_imp]

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.

 

[Tev62]

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."

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

... 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.

 

[rich_imp]

i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
:huh:

 

[Gone in 60]

Ha! Rich beat me to it.

 

[j3gq_imp]

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.

i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
:huh:

did I say it rains in California ?
:dodgy:

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
:huh:

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.

 

[Maturecheese_imp]

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.

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.

i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
:huh:

did I say it rains in California ?
:dodgy:

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.

i live in southern California what is this thing called rain?
:huh:

did I say it rains in California ?
:dodgy:
A big issue with 'scientists' and their 'research' involves who funds them and what that involves.

 

[emptysea]

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.

 

[Houtman_imp]

Do not worry , we are all doomed !

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

Quote:When our best scientists (indeed hundreds of them) - working in the field of CC for years,
Hundreds of scientists that ALL of which are looking at an extremely limited span of recorded knowledge when compared to the estimated lifetime of the earth.

Cameras are a newborn invention compared to the earth, prior to that written word was it- and questionable at best.

It is 100% agreed by everyone that the earth has had numerous hot and cold cycles as mentioned earlier in this post. We are a blink of the eye.

And in the grand scheme of things- we are meaningless. Not just because the earth will persevere and live on- but because 'we' as normal people have no impact whatsoever. It is all political grandstanding. A single cruise ship trip has more impact that I will have in my entire life. How about those jetliners? Or countless corporations. But sure- lets pretend to recycle a plastic bottle or bag to save the earth. Which is 110% a gimmick- and if you want more info on that, I can link a video.

Quote:then it simply makes no sense whatsoever to say that the before mentioned body of scientists is wrong or not credible. This is not a political statement, it is a factual statement not trying to insult anybody
Yea... they are wrong. You just need to have a wider viewpoint of reality. You could PAVE 100% of the world and mother earth would come back like it never happened. And that wouldn't take long at all. 20-30 years maybe? It would impact us and other animals sure... but to earth it would be swatting a gnat.

Quote:You have the right to fabricate your own story or world view, but you cannot expect to be taken serious.
Not that I feel insulted by this comment- in fact I feel amused- it's not fabrication or story to be seriously capable of understanding how cycles of MASSIVE time compared to our minuscule data points work. Who here needs to be taken seriously?

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

" ... - we are meaningless. ... "

Dang, we are.

But with a CB1100 we are just a wee (just a wee folks) bit less meaningless.

 

[pekingduck]

Rain in Southern California comes from lawn sprinklers. We consume more than 2/3 of urban water on lawns and golf courses.

 

[Gone in 60]

Never ceases to amaze me... hasn't rained since I can remember, but the sprinklers for the bushes make a permanent deep puddle in one of the entry driveways to my warehouse, causing me to ride the long way around when I get to work (lest I get my bike wet and dirty). The county has mandated only two watering days per week due to the drought, but I haven't seen much compliance with it. And, I doubt water department inspectors are going out in the middle of the night when most sprinklers are going off.

For our part, Mrs. Gone and I had a Zero Emissions 4th of July, and went to a drone show. 180 coordinated, patriotic light-up drones instead of fireworks!

 

[tommymck]

As long as we're having a fun and spirited discussion on the topic, I'll toss in my $0.02.

The primary evidence for human contribution to climate change is associated with the rate of change of the temperature rise, not the actual magnitude. The rate of change over the past 75 years is about 10x faster than anything observed in prior epochs. Simultaneous with that was about a 250x increase in the rate of change in CO2 in the atmosphere as compared with any prior epochs.

Most people who study climate think that there is about a 90%+ likelihood that the two are linked. I personally think it's likely. Where it gets more dicey is predictions regarding where it goes from here and the effect that reductions in greenhouse emissions will have. Here, in my opinion, there is a bunch of playing fast and loose with the facts...and it's highly politically motivated. First, climate is a non-linear system and anybody who claims that a reduction of X% will reduce temperature rise by Y% is on shaky ground. The models aren't well defined and tiny changes in the initial conditions of the models produces outputs that are drastically different. Second, most of the goals that have been proposed do little to curb things if we assume that the models are correct. If many of the climate change scientists are correct with their models, the required cuts in emissions would produce as much of a human catastrophe as the effects of climate change. Third, a complex system like the weather often has feedback mechanisms that end up self-regulating at some point.

Still and all, reducing greenhouse emissions is good on a bunch of levels. Getting the population of the planet to go along with a particular policy will likely prove more difficult than the science in any case.

 

[Nachodaddy]

Pretty sure I remember the last ice-age. Cool!

 

[Cormanus]

May I remind y'all that this is a motorcycle forum? If the discussion remains friendly and maintains a tenuous connection to motorcycles, it will be allowed to continue.

 

[tj_gee_imp]

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.

Cannot agree more. Except I get maybe a week a year where I'd need electric heating! Now, if I could get some electric cooling, that would be great!

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

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.

Cannot agree more. Except I get maybe a week a year where I'd need electric heating! Now, if I could get some electric cooling, that would be great!

(click on image)