Murphy Siding What month does the swimsuit issue usually come out?
What month does the swimsuit issue usually come out?
wanswheelEuropean professors, alert to any proof that their nations were wiser than others, explained that the Orientals of the Ancient Near East had heedlessly converted their once lush lands into impoverished deserts.
I thought it was 'settled science' that the principal cause of this was salt buildup in the topsoil from continued irrigation (or seasonal flooding) over a long historical period.
Be easy to compare transpiration and thermal gain from an acre of Eastern climax forest vs. a typical acre of plowed land, or of particular crop types at different points in growth. Not so easy perhaps to calculate the effect on weather patterns, and downright hard to figure seasonal 'climate' temperature ranges as in the so-called Little Ice Age.
Excerpt from The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart
http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents
From ancient times, people suspected that human activity could change the climate of a territory over the course of centuries. For example, Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotle, told how the draining of marshes had made a particular locality more susceptible to freezing, and he speculated that lands became warmer when the clearing of forests exposed them to sunlight. Renaissance and later scholars who pored over ancient manuscripts saw that deforestation, irrigation and grazing had altered the lands around the Mediterranean. Surely these human interventions had affected the local weather? The scholars thought it plausible, and common people adopted the notion.
The most striking change, obvious within a single lifetime, was the conversion of Eastern North America from forest to croplands. By the early 19th century many believed the transformation was altering the region's climate — probably for the better. Count C. F. Volney, traveling in the United States around 1800, was told by settlers everywhere from Kentucky to upstate New York that the local climate had grown warmer and milder promptly after the forests were cleared. When sodbusters took over the Great Plains they were told that "rain follows the plough."
Not everyone agreed, and the topic could always raise a lively discussion. Some experts reported that where forests were cut down, the flow of water in rivers did not rise but actually fell. Deforestation not only caused rainwater to run off rapidly in useless floods, they said, but reduced rainfall itself. European professors, alert to any proof that their nations were wiser than others, explained that the Orientals of the Ancient Near East had heedlessly converted their once lush lands into impoverished deserts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deJc66Ncw7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc_MEQqfkMs
Murphy Siding Norm48327 Just personal opinion but I wish they would not have published that article and had more stories about trains. We get climate change stuffed down our throats daily on the news. We don't need it in Trains. Sounds like the propaganda machine hard at work. I agree. It's like they ran out of ideas for articles about trains and railroading and instead went for easy. I can't wait for next month's feature article about Kaitlin Jenner and the war over multi-gender bathrooms on locomotives. What month does the swimsuit issue usually come out?
Norm48327 Just personal opinion but I wish they would not have published that article and had more stories about trains. We get climate change stuffed down our throats daily on the news. We don't need it in Trains. Sounds like the propaganda machine hard at work.
Just personal opinion but I wish they would not have published that article and had more stories about trains. We get climate change stuffed down our throats daily on the news. We don't need it in Trains. Sounds like the propaganda machine hard at work.
I agree. It's like they ran out of ideas for articles about trains and railroading and instead went for easy. I can't wait for next month's feature article about Kaitlin Jenner and the war over multi-gender bathrooms on locomotives. What month does the swimsuit issue usually come out?
And they focused on what has happend mostly since 2000, a number of 'climate' weather issues have visited themselves over the railroads since there have been railroads. I can name a number of weather issues that have happened to my carrier since my hiring date 6 decades ago. Weather issues that have struck other carriers over the years in some cases are legendary.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm zugmann BaltACD Head count. Today's Class 1's want to increase traffic without increasing manpower to handle it. They desire to sell transportatin by the train load, not the car load. Quickly becoming a unicorn hunt. Yep. If someone were to dig up the statistics about how many railroad jobs have been eliminated over the last 20 years, the reactions on here would be interesting. I suspect a lot of posters would applaud that unequivocally.
zugmann BaltACD Head count. Today's Class 1's want to increase traffic without increasing manpower to handle it. They desire to sell transportatin by the train load, not the car load. Quickly becoming a unicorn hunt.
BaltACD Head count. Today's Class 1's want to increase traffic without increasing manpower to handle it. They desire to sell transportatin by the train load, not the car load.
Quickly becoming a unicorn hunt.
Yep. If someone were to dig up the statistics about how many railroad jobs have been eliminated over the last 20 years, the reactions on here would be interesting. I suspect a lot of posters would applaud that unequivocally.
Ulrich Rail is the most eco friendly of all transportation modes..With so many shippers wanting to get onto the green bandwagon, railroads might want to highlight that aspect of their service.
Rail is the most eco friendly of all transportation modes..With so many shippers wanting to get onto the green bandwagon, railroads might want to highlight that aspect of their service.
Still waiting on the Hydrogen Fusion Locomotive. Seems the railroads never want to reach for the stars with innovation, so instead looks like we are going to have to settle for LNG for a while.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BaltACDHead count. Today's Class 1's want to increase traffic without increasing manpower to handle it. They desire to sell transportatin by the train load, not the car load.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
schlimm Ulrich Rail is the most eco friendly of all transportation modes..With so many shippers wanting to get onto the green bandwagon, railroads might want to highlight that aspect of their service. But on here at least, there does not appear to be much support for that move as a potential new revenue source. What's your theory as to why that is? That the rails got addicted to the low-hanging fruit, like coal and oil and related bulk commodities?
But on here at least, there does not appear to be much support for that move as a potential new revenue source. What's your theory as to why that is? That the rails got addicted to the low-hanging fruit, like coal and oil and related bulk commodities?
Head count. Today's Class 1's want to increase traffic without increasing manpower to handle it. They desire to sell transportatin by the train load, not the car load.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Revelle/revelle_2.php
http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/ClimateDocs/CarbonDioxideExchangeBetweenAtmosphereOceanIncreaseOfAtmosphericCO2Revelle1957.pdf
tree68As I've said before - that mankind has had an effect on the environment is unquestionable. That mankind is solely responsible for the changes in the environment (ie, climate change) is what is questioned.
That's a straw man argument. AFAIK, no researchers are now saying or have ever said climate change is solely caused by mankind.
tree68And as has been noted, some folks take human-caused climate change as gospel and will accept nothing else.
Acceptance, for now, a clear consensus of actual researchers of the science is what rational people like yourself generally do. You certainly do not believe the sun revolves around Mama Earth, yet no one would accuse your acceptance the heliocentric theory as merely faith-based.
So at what point do we have a runaway greenhouse gas effect and our planet ends up like Venus? If the tables are tipped ever so slightley then permafrost melting emits biomass and our soil starts emiting greenhouses gases that are then a runaway effect. Same effect for Mars as well-
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/10/permafrost-greenhouse-gases-global-warming-465585.html
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch14/final/c14s01.pdf
Norm
schlimmWhy so many folks on this forum consistently reject/ridicule the conclusions of research from experts all over the world is beyond comprehension. The reasons given beggar credibility.
So, dimes do cause cancer? Research by experts proved it!
As I've said before - that mankind has had an effect on the environment is unquestionable. That mankind is solely responsible for the changes in the environment (ie, climate change) is what is questioned.
And as has been noted, some folks take human-caused climate change as gospel and will accept nothing else.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Environmental Protrumption Agency
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-idUSKBN13W2HE
Excerpt from article by Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt and Alabama AG Luther Strange
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435470/
The United States was born out of a revolution against, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, an “arbitrary government” that put men on trial “for pretended offences” and “abolish[ed] the Free System of English laws.” Brave men and women stood up to that oppressive government, and this, the greatest democracy of them all, one that is governed by the rule of law and not by men, is the product.
Some of our states have forgotten this founding principle and are acting less like Jefferson and Adams and more like George III. A group of Democratic attorneys general has announced it intends to criminally investigate oil and gas companies that have disputed the science behind man-made global warming. Backed by green-energy interests and environmentalist lobbying groups, the coalition has promised to use intrusive investigations, costly litigation, and criminal prosecutions to silence critics of its climate-change agenda. Pretended offenses, indeed. We won’t be joining this coalition, and we hope that those attorneys general who have joined will disavow it. Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime… We do not doubt the sincerity of the beliefs of our fellow attorneys general about climate change and the role human activity plays in it. But we call upon them to press those beliefs through debate, not through governmental intimidation of those who disagree with them. Few things could be more un-American.
schlimm Ulrich "Very likely" or "extremely likely" is about as much as one can reasonably expect. "Proving"that climate change is man made without any shadow of doubt is not like proving something like Pythagoras' Theorem. There's always some slim possibility that other factors which we don't understand are causing the warming. It's also possible that smoking isn't bad at all either... even though the perponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise. There's nothing close to the exactness of a mathematical proof that correlates smoking with cancer. There's no proof that you will die if you jump out of a tenth floor window and onto a concrete surface.. science tells us that "very likely" you will die. Speaking for myself only, that's good enough for me. Well stated! Why so many folks on this forum consistently reject/ridicule the conclusions of research from experts all over the world is beyond comprehension. The reasons given beggar credibility.
Ulrich "Very likely" or "extremely likely" is about as much as one can reasonably expect. "Proving"that climate change is man made without any shadow of doubt is not like proving something like Pythagoras' Theorem. There's always some slim possibility that other factors which we don't understand are causing the warming. It's also possible that smoking isn't bad at all either... even though the perponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise. There's nothing close to the exactness of a mathematical proof that correlates smoking with cancer. There's no proof that you will die if you jump out of a tenth floor window and onto a concrete surface.. science tells us that "very likely" you will die. Speaking for myself only, that's good enough for me.
"Very likely" or "extremely likely" is about as much as one can reasonably expect. "Proving"that climate change is man made without any shadow of doubt is not like proving something like Pythagoras' Theorem. There's always some slim possibility that other factors which we don't understand are causing the warming. It's also possible that smoking isn't bad at all either... even though the perponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise. There's nothing close to the exactness of a mathematical proof that correlates smoking with cancer. There's no proof that you will die if you jump out of a tenth floor window and onto a concrete surface.. science tells us that "very likely" you will die. Speaking for myself only, that's good enough for me.
Well stated!
Why so many folks on this forum consistently reject/ridicule the conclusions of research from experts all over the world is beyond comprehension. The reasons given beggar credibility.
Remember, the fall doesn't kill or even injure you!
It is the after effects of the G loadings on the internal body structures from the sudden stop.
"Your comment shows you have little understanding of scientific methodology."
Says the person who can't seem to get past the non-committal statements from a government agency while ignoring centuries of historical record and scientific evidence.
ERIC HARMSIt's a scam. And well hyped by the media for its shock value.
Most College level meterology classes teach that climate change induced by humans is a farce but that ordinary macro climate does flucuate and really cannot be influenced by humans because of the scale and size of the atmosphere.
At it's core the humans control or influence climate has a theory that mankind controls everything that happens on the Earth. You shake that tree and you start to get into beliefs or non-beliefs of faith. Hence the human induced climate impact will always be a emotional topic because of the various other theories people have subscribed too that are wrapped around it. So by attacking it, your not just attacking one theory but an entire belief system, almost akin to attacking someones religion.
So personally I let it be. Let the fools blow hundreds of Billions of Dollars on the nonsense, there is somewhat of a silver lining in that they will cleanup the environment and in some cases impact the micro-climate, so it is not a complete waste of money.
We had this whole discussion a long time ago in the 1960's with the experimentation of using silver nitrate to seed clouds and make it rain. The human induced climate change folks eventually lost that argument. It took some time but it happened and logic prevailed.
It appears that many if not most scientists that have studied the issue believe human activity is contributing to global warming. They are not saying, however, that human activities are the major or only cause of global warming.
Most reputable scientists are open to evidence based challenges and, if they are proven wrong, will change their understanding of the science. At least over time!
I live in a small house, drive a gas sipping small car, set the temperature in my house at 68 in the winter and 80 in the summer, recycle, etc. These little steps have not caused a serious erosion in the quality of my life.
If the scientists are right about the human impact on climate change, I am doing my part. If they are wrong I have not really lost anything. And I have been able to keep more of my money because of lower energy bills.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
schlimmYour comment shows you have little understanding of scientific methodology.
It's not hard to tweak requirements and methods of a scientific test in order to meet the desired result.
Some researchers once proved that dimes cause cancer.
They inserted dimes into the the abdomens of lab mice and got results within accepted parameters that allowed them to say that dimes do, indeed, cause cancer.
The results can be whatever you interpret them to be, especially in something as imprecise as the atmosphere/environment.
schlimm Bruce Kelly Try to find "wiggle room"? Look no further than the "updated" EPA language you posted: "Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been thedominant cause of that warming.[2]"" Herein lies the wiggle room, in 2016: "cannot by explained by natural causes alone" instead of saying there are no natural causes at all "Research indicates" instead of saying research has proven "It is extremely likely" instead of saying it is without a doubt Even a law school undergrad could recognize the purpose of such non-definitive terminology. Your comment shows you have little understanding of scientific methodology.
Bruce Kelly Try to find "wiggle room"? Look no further than the "updated" EPA language you posted: "Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been thedominant cause of that warming.[2]"" Herein lies the wiggle room, in 2016: "cannot by explained by natural causes alone" instead of saying there are no natural causes at all "Research indicates" instead of saying research has proven "It is extremely likely" instead of saying it is without a doubt Even a law school undergrad could recognize the purpose of such non-definitive terminology.
Try to find "wiggle room"? Look no further than the "updated" EPA language you posted:
"Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been thedominant cause of that warming.[2]""
Herein lies the wiggle room, in 2016:
"cannot by explained by natural causes alone" instead of saying there are no natural causes at all
"Research indicates" instead of saying research has proven
"It is extremely likely" instead of saying it is without a doubt
Even a law school undergrad could recognize the purpose of such non-definitive terminology.
Your comment shows you have little understanding of scientific methodology.
Scientific methodology meets political methodology = wiggle wiggle wiggle!
Even a law school undergrad could recognize the purpose of such non-definitive terminology. Please stop criticizing me for merely presenting, word-for-word, the official viewpoints of the EPA. If you don't like what they said, whether in 2014 or 2016, take it up with them. Once that's cleared up, try offering suggestions that might benefit railroads, their customers, their suppliers, and the public at large.
UlrichI guess we should also cast doubt on all the science that seems to indicate that smoking is "quite likely" to be harmful to one's health.
I put more faith in the science behind that conclusion than "global warming." Science is beginning to understand why one person can smoke two packs a day for 60 years and dies after being hit by a bus, while another engages in no "risky" behaviors and dies of lung cancer. Heredity is coming under scrutiny, for one thing.
Evidence was starting to mount regarding the ill effects of cancer long before cancer treatment became big business (which business model makes me believe that "curing cancer in our lifetime" was a hollow promise).
My own father succumbed to heart issues exacerbated by his two packs of unfiltered cigarettes per day. Heredity may have been a factor, too, as his father died at 35 (mine passed at 43). The pathologist said Dad's heart looked like that of an 80 year old man...
Once again - we need to follow the "Benjamins." The medical community has little stake in making people well (or curing cancer) - they make too much money on sick people...
Bruce KellyAnd third, their followup statement, which you present in bold, read as follows when I visited their site in 2014:
So you chose to quote from 2014. This is the end of 2016. I suggest you read and quote from the current EPA article on climate change, not an outdated one. Again, why can't you simply accept the clear current statement rather than try to find some wiggle room?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.