|
|
|
|
 |
CR-V9
 |
|
I just didn't want to let this slip away.
MalcolmR wrote:
.
From the NASA web page you cited CR-V9:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
NASA says, quote: "Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He's leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and ..."
It seems the journos are simply repeating what NASA says. NASA is not scientifically investigating, it's advocating.
This is simply a side issue, though, CR-V9. Why don't you acknowledge that the database used by UN IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and all other American organisations relying on ground-based temperature measurement stations is corrupt? The manager of the database himself admits that.
Why do advocates of BS AGW fail to use NASA's own satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperature that show global atmospheric temperatures are not warming. Corroborated by weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures.
CR-V9, please be my guest, enjoy your wine and don't respond in detail. Please though stop telling lies about climate and making statements that contradict science and the real world, Nature.
I have no intention to control you. I cannot. I simply ask you to meet my needs for truth, integrity, accuracy, fairness and balance.
Please stop advocating for unscientific action against human production of CO2. Please stop advocating damaging action that will is hurting people, humanity, civilisation, the environment and Nature.
Please enjoy your wine and leave people alone to enjoy their lives free from needless and unfounded control and hurt.
All I need from you is your support for peace and freedom for people. I need only that you care for people and the environment. Honesty, care, peace and freedom: is that too much to ask?
Malcolm
:)
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Melting ice is not evidence that human CO2 caused global warming. Melting ice is not evidence justifying hurting people, humanity, civilisation, the environment, Nature.
Flat global atmospheric temperatures for the last 13 years is evidence of no warming.
Still waiting CR-V9.
Malcolm
:) |
|
No, melting glasiers are not the evidence of CO2 causing warming, yet. But if the part of glasiers where ice were up there not melting for last hundreds of, thousands of years, and are melting now then it is telling something. Is temperature rising?
I believe that measuring the mean land surface temperature of the Earth is very, very, very, very hard task. The Earth is a big place. But isn't it a piece of the puzzle, too? Isn't this where the other methologies come in to play, like say melting glasiers, losing ice in Arctic, Antarctic, acidity of seas, salinality of seas, sea levels, migration of marine life, condition of coral leafs, migratopn of birds, butterfly, insects, changing maps of botanical plants, trees, its desease, etc, etc, etc ... ???
Aren't they all a piece of this big puzzle? When you look at one piece at a time it doesn't make sense or meaningless or doesn't say anything at all. But you look at them togerther collectively and in enough time then a patern or tend emerges. Isn't that what we're looking at? At least that's what I'm talking about.
As for NASA, they had found ice mass are losing somewhere. They had suspected there is something going on underneath the ice. Can ice melt at below 0C? Or how does it lose ice under there? Isn't that why they're lowering a camera? Not proving vlimate change, per se but to find out where ice is going? Isn't that another piece of the puzzle? To me it is.
And one thing, I said,
CR-V9 wrote:
One more thing, here is the thing.
For some of the pictures I've posted, I believe they've done some photographic trickeries to dramatize the effects of AGW. As the paper article said that there are biases on everybody. As Michael Crichton said in his famous book there are biases in science, too, even with hard data. I believe so, too.
This is not about one picture or one temperature data or one CO2 data or one sea level data or .... It is a satistical analysis of collective data of things together, to me at least.
Of course, there are arguments about how much or how fast or what effect? One can argue melting glaciers are not that bad or it's part seasonal so hard to tell or etc...
That is fine with me. They are legitimate scientific arguments and scientific discussions amongst scientists and such. I don't do details. It's too scientific to me. I let scientists argue over those.
My whole point is that AGW is real and happening, now. That's it, nothing more or nothing less.
|
|
CR-V9
|
|
Yes, I need a couple of days to calm myself down.
If I drop dead you have succeded.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Response to your comment at 01-16-2012 23:39, CR-V9.
Like so many others of your posts, this has been explained before CR-V9. Repeatedly.
When I recall the many lies you've told, your many false statements without evidence and contrary to real-world scientific evidence, your many failures to address my basic questions on the fundamental science, your many failures to even provide clarification of your meaning and purpose and your many contradictions I feel deeply disappointed, disillusioned, annoyed, incredulous and frustrated.
Your lies and your failure to engage prevent meeting my needs for connection, respect, honest discussion, truth, integrity, balance and openness.
I cannot afford to devote time to someone who behaves as you do CR-V9. Your behaviour fails to meet my needs for respect, engagement, fairness and integrity.
If you provide real-world scientific evidence I'll resume discussion with you. Until then I'm not doing any more hours of research for you. When you start to behave responsibly toward my effort invested in honest answer to your 'inquiries', then I'll resume discussion.
Until then CR-V9, I'll be waiting for your real-world scientific evidence.
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
To answer your question CR-V9, I posted this because it is a handy compilation of facts AND because Tim Ball is an accomplished and highly respected climate scientist and environmentalist who has worked on government policy and understands bureaucracy.
I do not agree with Tim Ball on all of his statements here. eg, on his use of the term greenhouse gas.
In personal correspondence with Tim Ball he admits the label greenhouse gas for CO2 is nonsense and that he continues to use the term simply because most people are so brainwashed by the government and UN IPCC that he doesn't want to complicate the debate beyond many people's misunderstanding. There are after all sufficient facts available to show that CO2 is not doing what the UN IPCC and some western governments are falsely claiming.
He is one of the outstanding international team of scientists that wrote the book "Slaying the Sky Dragon". That will confirm for you his non-belief in the greenhouse effect.
Thus to answer your question, no, I do not agree with Tim on all his points as written in the list provided..
The core points though, the facts on CO2 I agree with him.
Malcolm
CR-V9 wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Facts on CO2:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9023-did-you-know-a-handy-list-of-facts-that-show-why-the-claim-co2-is-causing-warmingclimate-change-is-untenable
Malcolm
:)
|
You've posted this because you agree with him and agree on all those facts?
|
|
In the other words he put misstatements there intentionally. He intensionally tells lies on his own website. He doesn't care about facts as scientist.
I don't think "greenhouse gass" is not just a lable. It's a scientific lable in this context. It is a big difference if it a greenhouse gass or not. That's a big scientific difference in my reckless, uneducated mind, I think.
From Tim Ball's website,•Greenhouse gases are a mere 0.4392 percent of total atmospheric gases.
•CO2 is only 0.039 percent of total atmospheric gases.
•CO2 is less than 4 percent of total greenhouse gases.
•Water vapor is 95 percent of total greenhouse gases.
He lists two greenhouse gasses as fact of his list of facts.
And you are perfectly OK with that?
If you already knew he is lying about CO2 why the heck did you just say "Facts on CO2" then?
Are you also lying about something because you don't want to complicate the debate beyond many (uneducated) people's misunderstanding?
I'm not sure.
|
CR-V9
|
|
Here is the thing.
You know what? You sound like China. Please restrain your comments or behaviors for greater good for our society, our civilisation and humanity, for all of us but not only you. Don't speak agaist us. You're speaking agaist all of us, our society, our civlisation, our humanity. We know better. We know the truth. We are the truth. Are you against the truth?
Here is the another thing.
You beleive your facts because they meet your standard. I believe or am comfortable with my facts because they meet my standard.
I believe or am comfortable with my scientists because they meet my standard. You believe your scientists because they meet your standard.
You belive your organizations because they meet your standard. I believe or am comfortable with my scientific organizations because they meet my standard.
And I believe my own opinion because it meets my small voice in my head's standard.
Here is the another, another thing. I believe in my indivisual liberty to speak freely. I'm speaking only for myself, me, me, me. I don't represent anybody or any organizations. I'm nobody. For you to say I'm advocating to destroy humanity is funny. Is my indivisual liberty destroying humanity?
I thought our liberty and freedom come from our humanity. You are advocating to surpress my liberty?
You, on the other hand, are on crusade to spread the words. I am the kind of person you'd want to convince, prove it to.
But if you keep calling me a lier, stupid, dishonest, reckless, moron, ignorant and such. It doesn't help.
This may sound strange to you though I have pride, ego, even feelings just like you, an educated man who had a professional life.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Been there done that with you before, CR-V9. No more games.
Please answer my questions and please provide real-world evidence for your claims of AGW.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
By the way, CR-V9, Tim Ball does not tell lies. He is a man of exceptional integrity, knowledge and wisdom.
One commonly used term for CO2 in the public is greenhouse gas. He is using that term to connect with people. He's an exceptionally talented and effective speaker on basic science and he's using a common term to connect with lay people.
Your behaviour is deeply disappointing CR-V9. I find it pathetic.
As soon as you've were exposed for lying you seem to have become incorrigible. Your lies were exposed and since then you have repeatedly told lies.
Have a look at your posts in the last three pages on this TOV thread. Pathetic.
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
By the way, CR-V9, Tim Ball does not tell lies. He is a man of exceptional integrity, knowledge and wisdom.
One commonly used term for CO2 in the public is greenhouse gas. He is using that term to connect with people. He's an exceptionally talented and effective speaker on basic science and he's using a common term to connect with lay people.
Your behaviour is deeply disappointing CR-V9. I find it pathetic.
As soon as you've were exposed for lying you seem to have become incorrigible. Your lies were exposed and since then you have repeatedly told lies.
Have a look at your posts in the last three pages on this TOV thread. Pathetic.
Malcolm
:)
|
Feeling is mutual.
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
By the way, CR-V9, Tim Ball does not tell lies. He is a man of exceptional integrity, knowledge and wisdom.
One commonly used term for CO2 in the public is greenhouse gas. He is using that term to connect with people. He's an exceptionally talented and effective speaker on basic science and he's using a common term to connect with lay people.
Your behaviour is deeply disappointing CR-V9. I find it pathetic.
As soon as you've were exposed for lying you seem to have become incorrigible. Your lies were exposed and since then you have repeatedly told lies.
Have a look at your posts in the last three pages on this TOV thread. Pathetic.
Malcolm
:)
|
But the subject is AGW his site is discussing, not in common public. I thought he was listing scientific facts. Whether CO2 is a greenhous gas or not doesn't matter?
Calling CO2 a greenhouse is misconception amongst common, lay people and you/he would want to change it? Isn't why you have been beating up on me? I don't get it. So his logic meets your standard?
Is Oxygen a greenhouse gas? Is Nitrogen a greenhouse gas?
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Still waiting, CR-V9 for your evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic warming that ended around 1998.
In the meantime: http://www.real-science.com/big-trouble-arctic-alarmists
Malcolm
:)
|
P54
|
|
Hey, MalcolmR thought I should help you out with the link. OK?
For your info CR-V9
I am not educated in science or anything at higher level, however I will say this that among common people CO2 has been called greenhouse gas for long time. I guess part of the reason it is what politicians in different countries like to call it. For your info may I add that in order for plants in greenhouses to grow better CO2 level is increased. Maybe one reason it is called greenhouse gas. In the old age when we had dinosaurs roaming around, plant life was way more abundant as to have enough to feed those huge animals. Could CO2 level have been higher then as to support the plant growth? The CO2 level released today from fossil fuel is only the release of CO2 that has been bound from the old age. Even though I do not support the expression that CO2 is climate gas or greenhouse gas as something that means global warming gas, I do recognize that the term is widely used.
One country, Norway, that likes to pride itself to be the cleanest, think their environment policies will impact the global environment, despite having only some 4.5 million inhabitants.
Some 5 years back the government heavily promoted diesel cars and sold diesel fuel cheaper, had lower taxes on diesel cars etc. People responded and diesel car sales took off, last year I think 80 % off cars sold were diesel. Diesel cars of course get better mileage and in a country where gas cost $ 10 or more per US gallon it is easy to make diesel your choice.
As diesel sales took off government of course raised diesel price, to the dislike of the owners. Now government is talking about raising taxes on diesel cars and even banning them from the capital or they could only be used on certain days etc. What happened?
Because of the "science" that said CO2 was a greenhouse gas that caused global warming the Norwegian government wanted to contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas CO2 in the world. They wanted to act responsibly to the global environment. Since diesel emitted less CO2 than gas engines they promoted the diesel cars.
Now, as more people got diesel they discovered that especially in the bigger cities the air quality suffered, more smog, more respiratory illnesses, asthma etc. Finally, now years after making a bad decision based on false information (or bribes?) they are forced to make changes due to peoples health. Owners though are in rage because they believed the government, and in a country where most common cars cost $80-150K ( a CR-V easily sets you back $ 90K plus), they now fear for lower resale value and restriction of use.
What does the government say? Well they thought so much about lowering CO2 to improve GLOBAL environment but have now found out that they have done so at the cost of the air quality locally. Gas cars with more CO2 emit less NOX than diesel, plus diesel also have the soot problem, so now they are concerned about the LOCAL environment. Common sense (now uncommon?) would have told you that in a country with 4.5 million the difference in CO2 in diesel cars and gas cars would not have impacted the global environment.
Common uneducated guy would put his nose at the tailpipe of a diesel car and a gas car and let the nose be the determining factor. Falsely applied science and politics have caused people in Europe to suffer health problems. NOX and SO2 cause acid rain, kill plants, animals, humans and ruins soil. CO2 cause plants to thrive and grow. Go out, take a deep breath, and let the air out slowly. Nice to get rid of some CO2 to feed the plants. Now stick your nose behind a diesel tailpipe and feel the pain as you try to take a deep breath. So much for "science and politics".
|
P54
|
|
I just came across all the pictures CR-V9 posted that shows where the glaciers are melting.
I'm not into this but when in school we learned that some thousand years ago the whole of Scandinavia was under ice. Today millions of people live where the ice used to be. Now, what caused the ice to melt. Who failed to tax CO2 to prevent it from happening? If global warming caused it who was responsible for all this landmass to be exposed so people could live there.
At the same time big mammoth have been found i Siberia still chewing their food. Now they are gone, and Siberia is cold. What caused the cooling. Some say under Greenland they have found evidence of palm trees. If so what caused the change?
Where are all the dinosaurs? They must have had abundance of things to eat, and even the Bible have recorded the dinosaur. Shall we believe the Bible which talk about war in heaven and Lucifer, the archangel was cast down and he destroyed earth and its inhabitants, or rely on science?
Australia and parts of USA and many other places on earth have evidence of a catastrophic event that left places desolate with no life.
Fact is, if Scandinavia had still been under ice, millions of people had to live elsewhere. As more landmasses were exposed people had new places to settle. If climate changes and Greenland ice melts then there will be a whole lot more land where people can dwell. Is that bad? If climate gets warmer, people in cold countries will rejoice and they do not have to travel to warmer climates in the winter to shorten their own long winter. Think about the vast land in Canada that can be inhabited.
The earth and everything in it has been created and the Creator is in full control of His creation. God gave the mandate to fill up the earth and vast landmasses are without people. Things go through natural changes, even beyond our control, and has always done so. Peoples choices where greed, corruption, short term bad politics, local and global pollution of chemicals etc for the sake of greed have affected our lives.
Billions of dollars are poured into projects and military actions that have no lasting or beneficial value. At the same time millions are hurting or starving on this planet. Rich people want to conserve old growth forests so they can build their $million homes nearby and enjoy the view and scenery. Then a lighting strike sets the trees on fire and burn them down instead of them having been harvested and put to use and planted new ones. Wild animals get released so city dwellers can have a chance of seeing them on their vacation trips to their cabin. Not caring that those wild animals kill the farmers domestic animals. Pet project science to document that melting of glaciers etc. is caused by increased CO2, which in turn results in governments taxing CO2. France wanted to tax CO2 from jets. Does taxing CO2 cause less CO2 to be emitted as to reduce the chance of global warming? What about those coal fired power plants in China and third world? Do they emit less CO2 because car CO2 are taxed.
Interesting to know about the place where they measured the temperature at a weather station at the coldest place in Norway. They moved the location of the temp.gauge to a warmer spot to make the assumption that temp. had risen.
We see from history that big changes have occurred before, why this overzealous focus on CO2 as to try to control nature. When the global warming conference was held in Copenhagen two years ago more than 120 people froze to death in Europe. Last year they held the conference in Mexico as to save money being in a warmer climate. They did not like the cold in Europe, yet they are afraid of global warming??? Thirty years ago they scared us about global cooling. Money would be much better spent on improving the life for poor, less fortunate people on this earth.
Emission of NOX and SO2 do a whole lot more damage than CO2 and that is what they should work on reducing or eliminating as well as chemical pollution. Like said before, NOX and SO2 as well as chemicals kill plants, animals and humans while CO2 gives life to plants.
|
CR-V9
|
|
I'm sorry about your situations in Norway.
I know, to some people, "politics and sciencs" is the whole point. They deny or approve the science of AGW for the politics. I know that. but I can't cross the last line. I think science is to look nature as what it is. What it is what it is no matter what it is. I don't want to deny ernest scientists' honest work to look what it is.
And my view on AGW is my personal opinion, mine ,mine, mine, me, me, me.
Do you think I am alier? Am I dishonest? Am I lying? What do you think
|
P54
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
I'm sorry about your situations in Norway.
I know, to some people, "politics and sciencs" is the whole point. They deny or approve the science of AGW for the politics. I know that. but I can't cross the last line. I think science is to look nature as what it is. What it is what it is no matter what it is. I don't want to deny ernest scientists' honest work to look what it is.
And my view on AGW is my personal opinion, mine ,mine, mine, me, me, me.
Do you think I am alier? Am I dishonest? Am I lying? What do you think
|
Well you're the one asking me so I take the opportunity, but please no offense. I am not able to read all the post you and MalcolmR have back and forth so I cannot talk from that.
Since I do not know you, I can not tell you what I think as I have nothing to base my thinking of you on. However this is what God say about man:
God is honest, and everyone else is a liar, as Scripture says, "So you hand down justice when you speak, and you win your case in court." (Rom3:4)
Here is an article where we can test ourselves: truth or lie
Buddha said toward the end of his life, “I am still searching for the truth.” But here was Jesus who appeared and said, “I am the embodiment of all truth. All truth is centered in me.”
So according to God all men are liars and only by accepting Jesus as savior will He count us righteous. Now, even Christians can lie, but then it will be a burning in you as you grieved the Holy Spirit in you. So you have to correct yourselves. In other issues of course all men can lie ignorantly because we believe a lie while we believe it to be truth. So for us to be truthful we must base our thinking upon truth, hence only God and his word is true.
In other things of course trial and failure will produce truth. When Honda made the Gold Wing they had no experience with shaft drive. They could have copied the 50 years old BMW system, however they would have learned nothing. So Honda set out to test every possible way to engineer a motorcycle shaft drive till they knew what worked and what did not. The final result was that they made a shaft drive that did not lift the bike up and down as you let throttle on and off, like the BMW did. When Honda claimed that, the Germans said that it is impossible to do as BMW had shaft drive for 50 years. When the Gold Wing came out and they tested it, it turned out that the believes of the Germans were a lie and what Honda said was the truth.
When Honda few years later introduced the CX 500, Honda claimed the efficiency of the shaft drive equaled a chain drive. Germans again said it is impossible, however upon testing they found Honda to be true and the Germans opinion a lie.
Some years later with the CB900 Honda again set new piston speed record on a production bike, Germans claimed it to be impossible, however Honda proved to be right with an engine breaking new barriers in piston speed and still having durability.
People can have opinions on cars, Ford is best, Chevy is best and so on. Most make an assumption based on opinion, looks, friends, family etc. without having one clue how it is built. People with some mechanical experience soon see the difference in a Honda product and the way it is made compared to other makes. So if one recommend one brand based on false assumptions one would be lying without knowing it. Because the opinion was based on false assumption. That goes for all of us. We can learn one thing in school and think it is so only to find out later in life we were deceived.
We shall be stewards of nature, not abusers and use resources wisely to our benefit. We shall not worship nature and creation, like in India were they have "holy" cows, while people can starve. The true understanding of nature can only be revealed by the Word of God and science must be founded upon that truth. Otherwise science will be based upon false assumptions. From the Bible we understand than long time ago there was a "canopy" around the earth and CO2 level was much higher than now. Plant growth was much more vigorous and abundant. A catastrophic event happened and today we have oil and coal from the plant of old age, releasing the CO2 that ones was. If we try to control nature with CO2 tax etc, we go beyond the boundaries of God and volcanoes might just release more CO2 than what we try to reduce. As people in developing countries burn more forest the weather patterns will change, however they did the same in the industrialized world. Early ships and trains emitted clouds of black smoke for long time and affected local air quality. Modern car engines are so clean they emit cleaner air out the exhaust than goes into the air filter. Many organisations have their "pet" projects to find balance between the abusers of nature and the "tree huggers". Some science are fielded to promote their own agenda and they find results to support their view as to receive more funds. Greed and love of money. It sneaks into politics and more taxes.
Examples:
Bush wanted to introduce healthier food for school children and the sugar industry was fighting it. They feared the loss of sales, did not care about the health of people.
City of Seattle lost a yearly "bribe" of $ 100K from COKE for selling their products at schools when the school decided to switch to healthier drinks at school.
So let us just conclude with the words of Buddha at the end of his life: “I am still searching for the truth.”
Several hundred years later the truth was revealed when God appeared in human form as Jesus: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".
|
CR-V9
|
|
Of course. Thank you.
As of Buddha, I don't know that's his last words but something, "Truth", may be lost in translation. Conotations or meaning of words are different to language to language. Because language reflects it people's culture, history and custom.
Since you replied to my question I'd like to tell you my personal layman's view on AGW.
|
CR-V9
|
|
Since I don't know how to do a report, let me tell you like a story.
When Al Gore's movie came out I didn't care. I wasn't interested. I might had read Michael Crichton's book already, though. I'm not sure. I was interested books of stories of 'ex-FBI','ex-CIA' adventure sorts at the time.
I enjoyed the book. What I took away from the book is that there are biases on both sides of scientists even with hard data, just same as regular people. Specially when they have to interpret data with many variables and noises.
AGW was not clearly understood, yet. So rather than spending money there, why not spend money to research cancers or new medicines for deseases or something more immediate. It sounded reasonable. But again I wasn't interested in GW so I enjoyed the book's story rather than AGW issue.
Now I came to encounter a big, huge debate here on TOV. At the time I didn't understand 90% of what they were talking about. I was just a spectator. But it got me interested, not concerned but interested. Only thing I remebered after reading the debate was "Humans emit only 4% or so CO2 and the rest are from Nature".
So I spent 15~20 minitues or so, that's my limit of attention on computer search, on the web to "google". I didn't know anything of GW so I didn't know what words to use to google. It ended in nothing. I kind of lost my interest there. I didn't have to.
I was at a gas station pumping gas for my car after a week or so, later. I saw a sign "Contain 10 % Ethanol". Of course I had known the fact it contain Ethanol for a good while. But a "?" lighted up in my head.
Why Ethanol? Don't they emit CO2, too? So what the difference? CO2 is CO2, isn't it? CO2 from Ethanolan is chemically different? It can't be. So on and so on.
So I was back on the web, again. This time I wanted to know why Ethanol? Asked some people around but nobody really knew or cared. Of course I didn't do this full time, I wasn't obsesseced. I'm still not now. I was just interested. I need something I get interested to read something, beside good storie.
It took a while but I found Brazil(?) uses Ethanol from suger cane for their cars, like 90% or so? It was said that it is better because Ethanol is a renewable resourse unlike oil. Now I had a "?" on what the heck is renewable resourse?
By the way I'm not doing fact-checks so I hope you'll get a big picture rather than bothered with small lies.;-)
Then I encountered "natural cycle", "eco cycle", "carbon cycle", "carbon sink", "greenhouse gas effect", "ice core", etc. I had heard those words before but I didn't really care or knew in AGW context. They were just words before
I remebered a movie in which a couple of guys sneaked into this this eco-system-experiment dome to get girls inside.
i remebered it is supposed to be a closed eco system on the Earth. Only the sun light is the outside energy sourse. And everything, Oxygen, water, CO2, etc is supposed to recycle in Nature.
So my layman's understanding is that carbon is part of natural cycles, just like water. To understand it for myself I used water for a better, clear, simpler example.
Rain falls down to the ground, flow down through rivers, streams and to seas. Water on the ground and sea evaporates up in the sky, and then becomes droplets and rains down, again. So is Carbon although it is much more complex. Basic idea is the same as Watet to me.
So today's nature there is today's nature's balance of natural cycles, recycles. It does fluctuate between certain ranges but there is nature's ability to balance in time. It's rather hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands time frames.
It is important to adjust the concept of time frames, it varies depending on what but it usually is a lot different from our human's time frame.
Part I. I need a break. If you don't care let me know. I'll stop.
|
P54
|
|
Why ethanol? Good question. Ethanol in fuel have done a lot of damage and ruined many fuel pumps and cost owners of small engines a lot in repair.
In Brazil they have more land that they have been able to use and grow sugar to make ethanol for fuel. That is cheaper for the Nation than to import oil. Not all nations are able to grow the fuel they need because of climate and being short of landmasses to do so. Fossil fuel once was "green" too, just made into oil and coal over long time.
When the price of oil went up some people in USA with land to spare wanted to use their land to grow food for fuel instead for people to eat. Farmers got paid better that way, however food prices went up for the poor people of the world. So the move for ethanol in the industrialized world was prompted by greed. Now when oil price went down, the profit making ethanol from food source fell and some went bankrupt and ethanol "factories" just sits there, empty.
Ethanol is hygroscopic, just like brake fluid, it means it will absorb water, up to 50 times more than normal gasoline. It is very bad to use in marine engines, also in vehicles and machinery that is used infrequently. Due to the hygroscopic nature it absorbs water and when stored phase separation will occur, ethanol and water will float around separated from the fuel. In cold weather you will have freeze problems too. Small engines like weed eaters, lawn mowers etc have carburetors and fuel pumps going bad. One car dealer said after ethanol use got widespread that he changed more fuel pumps in one year than in ten years before.
So why the 100% ethanol in Brazil, Honda even make motorcycles to run on 100% ethanol. They are made from the factory to run on that fuel, all components are made for it, contrary to the common vehicle and engines in other countries. In USA they were pushing for 15 % ethanol, however even GM told Government that in their own tests it showed more engine damage and it would mean a lot more stranded vehicles on the road side. Food for fuel instead of food for human consumption is bad policy. Honda has developed a technique where they use food waste for fuel instead of the food itself. When mixing ethanol in gas you even get WORSE fuel mileage.
As you see the quest to reduce CO2 has caused a lot of bad politics. Worse FE. More expensive food. Poor countries hurt even more. Use of land to grow food for fuel. To grow you have to fertilize, more of it have run offs into streams, rivers and oceans. Bad for environment. And expensive. Narrow focus of one element of the atmosphere and blame it for causing global warming when so many other elements are involved cause things to get out of balance and when it turns into politics its getting nasty and with many unintended and maybe unforeseen results that is worse than the CO2 itself.
Behind it could be greed and power. Politicians hang out with certain people and some of those are very rich. Mr. Buffet visited Obama at the White House and Buffet is one of the richest in the world. He bought Burlington Northern railway that haul coal across USA to power plants. He said there will always be a need for electricity, so the rail way will be a money maker. He started a factory in China making electric cars. Obama is pushing electric cars. Any coincidence?
Politics and environmentalist with pet projects cause laws to be passed that only serve to make the rich even richer. If they really was interested in the environment many things could have been done that would have yielded better results. And money would be much better spent helping the real poor in the world rather than on pet science and pet projects driven by people trying to earn themselves more money and prestige.
Honda bio-fuel
Ethanol
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
JPL finds evidence of Nature controlling Arctic temperatures?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/04/russian-river-water-affecting-the-arctic-ao-shift-blamed/
JPL finds it difficult to admit the obvious conclusion that Nature controls Arctic.
Just as strong scientific evidence previously posted show Pacific and North American oscillations control temperature.
Still waiting for evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Now we can all exhale.
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
Of course, I wasn't doing this googling for AGW continuously. I did whenever I found time. I was interested but I didn't have to know.
May I add something else to a renewable sourse of Ethanol from corns or suger cane? It's a renewable because you can plant them again and again. And more importantly when they grow they get CO2 from the air and Carbon from the top soil, recycling from Nature.
So after I had gotten this broader and vague ideas of AGW, my main question was still why CO2 and why from fossil fuels?
It is said that 500 million years ago or so there was an ice age with high concentration of CO2. It is said that the Sun's radiation was 4~5% weaker than today's. But to me it's like what do know so much of condisions or climate of Earth or Sun? I'd think they have some ideas of how much CO2 and the ice age and such but still?
And 100 million or so years ago, there were dinausors looming around in Antactica and tropical plants were blooming. So it is said from the fossils.
More important thing to me is the Earth's mean land surface temperatures have been fluctuated in co-relation to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. It is said that the orbit has been surprizingly stable though does fluctuate. Sun's radiation is also pretty stable, too. This is all in hundreds of thousands of, or tens of miliions of years time frames. And it is the main fluctuation. There have been smaller or temporal changes, too.
During this, of course, CO2 has been taken in to sink out of the atomsphere. The continets have been moved around and other stuff.
The thing is to me is it's starts 800,000 years ago because that is the time ice core studies can go back to. I think we do get better ideas of how it was like before.
It seems conditions and climates of last a million years were somewhat stable for living things.
Now according to the orbit and radiation from the Sun, it should shift into a cooler period. But it seems it is not happening. Somehow the mean land surface temperature is not lowering, itstead it seems it is rising. Since the Sun's radiation is main, major driving force of temperature depending on the Earth's orbit, what is the other factor working here?
By the way, As for sun spots and sun flares, I think it is said that they create electro magetic storms in radio(?) frequencies. I don't mean radio a radio. I just don't come up with a good word. I'm writing this from my memory and stuff in my head alone. Small voice in my head is not helping me either. He says I'm alone on this one. The storms come to the Earth and mostly bouce off of theEarth's magnetic field. It seems it doesn't have that much effects on temperature. However they are still studing with satelites every time it happens.
Some say temperature is not rising. As I said before I beleive or am comfortable with my sourses.
Now back to Ice Core studies, they dug a tube of ice miles long from ice sheet which is frozen for hundres thousands of years. They slice them in sections and snalyze air bubbles trapped in there. Not only one but many, probably hundreds, have been done not only at Antactica or the Greenland but other places whaere ices are frozen for hundreds of years, and not onyl by the US scientists but also other sicentist from other countries.
They have found that the concentration of CO2 had fluctuated between 180ppm(?) to 280ppm(?) over 800,000 years, then it has shot upward about 150 years so ago to 390ppm(?) today.
Question is why now? It had been stable betwwen 180-280 ppm, it went up, it came down for 800,000 years. However it took + or - 100 hundred thousands of years or so to go up and down each time. So where did all those extra CO2 come from? And in such short time frame?
Very reasonable, possible, probable ansewer is from burning fossil fuels since human's industrial evolution has started 150 years or so ago. They are CO2 from fossil fuels which has been deep in the under ground for millions of years. Which means they are not part of today's(hundreds of thousands of years) nature's cycle, recycle of eco system of Carbon. That is why it rising more than before because the today's nature's mechnisms to balance it, is out of balance.
Does Nature have its own abiltiy to adjust? Can she react quickly in 150 or 200 or so years to balance it out? I don't know.
Now the good part. Why CO2? What CO2 got to do with temperature? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with water vapor.
This is my stupid, layman's understanding of greenhouse effect on the land surface temperature. Probably it is not entirly correct but it is still my understanding.
Radiation from the Sun, visible light, coming down and some are bounced off from outer clouds or atomsphere or something. That's not important to me. And go down through the atomsphere but CO2 and other gases don't absorb the energy because it is still in shortwave radiation.
Now it hits the ground and some are absorbed by the ground and some are bounced off back out, specially like snow, ice, etc. The ground gets warmed up and emits more infrared longwave radiation out. I said 'more' because any black object that is warmer than -273C, abusolute 0 degree K will emits infrared longwave radiation. If it get realy hotter then the frequency of radiation shifts to shorter side, I think. I'm not sure.
I remeber when police uses an infrared from a helicopter to look for a suspect at night. Everything is dark but the suspect and chasing policemen are redish grow from their heads and hands and etc... something like that.
So the original light which bounced off from the ground goes out to space, bothering nobody.
Infrared longwave radiation also goes toward out to space. But the greenhouse gases, like CO2, water vapour will absorb it and warm themselves. As they absorb the infrare wave they're emitting their infrared wave, too at the same time. As they emit they lose their energy/heat.
They emitis all directions. The gases are somewhat evenly distributed in the air so they exchang their infrared wave to each other. However they do lose energy/heat eventually if there is no Sun light to warm the ground up and emit more infrared radiation.
And they don't capture the Sun light so they don't capture extra energy/heat from the Sun light.
What they do is to delay energy/heat dispation from the ground out space by the infrare radiation or to insulate
the ground surfce. If they were no greenhouse gases in the atomsphere the infrared radiation from warmed ground would go strsight out space.
So more greenhouse gases there are more insulation value there is. And more the Sun light hits ground to warm more enrgy/heat would stay around before they dissipate out space.
Giving the balance of receaving energy/heat from the Sun time it takes to dissipate out to space by infrared radiation, it could well raises land surfce temperature. My personal analogy is In winter when you have a soup, now you have to take off your sweater because you're sweating. I know it's not the same or scientific but it's me. What can I say?
|
CR-V9
|
|
May I add something else to greenhouse effect? It is said that without it temperature would be much lower. So the effect is already at work. I don't the effect of AGW but Nature's.
It is said that Venus was like the Earth hundreds of million years ago but its greenhouse effect got run away(?). Now its mean land surface temperature is 400+ something C and like a more than 90% CO2 atomsphere. It is holding up the surface temperature through out long day and night because of its greenhouse effect. The atomsphere is so thick most of infrared wave from the surface can't go through out to space. So it is said. I don't know.
Mars on other hand has no atomsphere and its surface temperature is minus something C. I don't know. Looking up stuff on the Earth is too much already to me.
Thing is scientists are still studing other planet to compare or learn from them. So i let them do what they do.
So is the mean land surface temperature rising? You asked why the pictures.
No, melting glasiers are not the evidence of CO2 causing warming, yet. But if the part of glasiers where ice were up there not melting for last hundreds of, thousands of years, and are melting now then it is telling something. Is temperature rising?
I believe that measuring the mean land surface temperature of the Earth is very, very, very, very hard task. The Earth is a big place. But isn't it a piece of the puzzle, too? Isn't this where the other methologies come in to play, like say melting glasiers, losing ice in Arctic, Antarctic, acidity of seas, salinality of seas, sea levels, migration of marine life, condition of coral leafs, migratopn of birds, butterfly, insects, changing maps of botanical plants, trees, its desease, etc, etc, etc ... ???
Aren't they all a piece of this big puzzle? When you look at one piece at a time it doesn't make sense or meaningless or doesn't say anything at all. But you look at them togerther collectively and in enough time then a patern or tend emerges. Isn't that what we're looking at? At least that's what I'm talking about.
NASA had found ice mass are losing somewhere at Antarctica from their studies on surfaces and thier satelites. They had suspected there is something going on underneath the ice. Can ice melt at below 0C? Or how does it lose ice under there? They're lowering a camera, or they did. Not proving climate change, per se, but to find out where ice is going? Isn't that another piece of the puzzle? To me it is.
The greenland was named by a viking, "Red Bull" or "Red Beard" or someone like that? The fact is more than 90% of ice cap was there and many are hundreds of thousands of years old.
It is said that the temperature has led CO2 levels in the air for last hundreds of thousands years. So why it's CO2 now? If it didn't happen that way before why this time?
As I said before according to the Earth's orbit and the Sun's radiation output the Earth is supposed to cool down a bit. But it seems it is not.
There is nothing else so far to account for the rising temperature except rising concentration of CO2. Thing is its concentration is much higher than last 800,000 years, 180-280ppm to 390 ppm and rising.
So it would be reasonable to suspect that this time CO2 is leading the land surface temperature. Because CO2 is still a greenhouse gas.
And if CO2 raised the atomsphere's temperature a little bit, then the air can carry more water vapour which is more effective greenhouse gas.
Is it what happening?
It seems the land surface temperature is slowly but surely rising.
CO2 level seems slowly but surely rising also.
Only thing accounts for extra rising CO2 seems to be from burning fossil fuels.
There is nothing else to account for rising temperature, yet.
This why it is called "unprecedented warming". Warmings have happened before many time but this time it might be CO2 from nurning fossil fuels is causing it.
Of course, some people don't beleive the land surface temperature is rising. some people don't believe CO2 levels is not rising.
Here is the thing.
As I said before I'm not a scientist or anything. I'm not an expert on anything, either. Did I read all data on AWG? No. Did I look at all the arguments? No.
It comes down to 60/40 on indivisuals or people whom I listen to and their resources, data.
Do they make sense? Are they logical and rational with their facts? Do they use big words to hide or trickery of semantics? Do they talk about persons' characters on the other side to justify their argument? Do they spend more on that than actual data? Do they know the basic knowledge of the subject? Do they understand it wrongly, intentionally to fake it until they make it? Or are they plain ignorant of the subject?(this is where i am)
Those are what I look at along with the data themselves which I try to comprehend myself.
Most of what I hear from people who say AWG is a haux didn't convince me, yet.
It's not so much of AWG issue itself, rather casual disregard of science and casual disrespect of scientists does irk me. I feel many scientist or doctors or professionals are hard headed and sometime pompous arse, though. But that doesn't mean I don't have respect for them. I don't think they're always right, either.
Maybe doesn't make sense but what can I say?
Now is it serious? I don't know.
Thing is that it is not about rising temperature itself alone. Its rate of change or speed is a question. Before when the temperature changes it took more than a hundred or two hundreds or three hundreds years. When it happened regionally in a short period of time, like it is said a quick climate change in Egypt had stopped their civilization with pyramids. I don't know.
What scientists worry about is the rate or speed of change. Raising temperature/more energy means more energy to disipate by winds and ocean currents, the weathers. If changing weathers last long enough will it change the global climate, too? I don't know.
There people who are depend on water from melting acient glasiers for hundreds of years. Will some run out soon? Can they get water from someplace else? I don't know.
Warming benefitial to some? Maybe.
Warming bad to some? Maybe.
This may not be complete enough or detailed enough for you. Or you may not beleive it.
But as I said before I looked it up for my own personal curiousity. I wanted to get my personal basic idea, basic concept of AGW. That's all, nothing more or nothing less.
This may be an idotic opinion but it's mine. If it's not idiotic I wouldn't be a layperson, right? Am I insulting a layperson? Am I insulting myself? My head hurts.
No Q & A's. Sorry, I can't debate anymore. I'm sick of it.
Small voice in my head keeps telling me "What is wrong with you. What the f@ck you're doing? You're way over wearing out their welcome. Nobody likes you. You'll never post any of your posts here again any more never, ever. And good for you Yes, you're stupid arse."
I don't know how arse can be stupid. Whatever.
Sorry but so long P54.
|
CR-V9
|
|
I didn't want to add any graphs or pictures or videos becasue I wanted tell you and myself in my own words.
So here are links to them if you wantto see them again.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIZC3p4RBYg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QuTPfcKKd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tik28A0jZGo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwY6q7yjIxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwY6q7yjIxc
http://featured.matternetwork.com/images/matter-featured/everest-rongbuk-glacier.jpg
http://columbianewsandviews.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/glacier-melt1.jpg
http://holyland-inc.tripod.com/israel-environment/disappearing-glacier.jpg
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/08/06/18/726-20090806_GLACIERS.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
http://www.whiteearth.org/WhiteEarthWhite%20EarthCanadianGlaciersMeltingFast0001.jpg
http://www.whiteearth.org/WhiteEarthWhite%20EarthSwitzerlandRhoneGlacierMeltingFast0001.jpg
http://morriscourse.com/an_inconvenient_truth/glacier_melt.jpg
http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Pasterze%20Glacier%20Melt.jpg
http://prorev.com/905glaciers.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/090302-glaciers-melting_big.jpg
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/newsletter/images/04_02_04.jpg
http://mrbarlow.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/melting-glacier.jpg
http://glacsweb.org/photos/briks-panos/index.html
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
|
P54
|
|
Erik the Red was the name of the Viking, he was my great, great, great however many times grandfather or close, as my family traces back to the Viking kings. It was more green land on Greenland when he lived. His son Leif Ericson discovered America 500 years before Columbus.
Regarding voices in your head I don't know what to say. Is it real or are you just talking to yourselves? If real it could be low self esteem and you could be criticizing yourself to much or self judgmental. In worst case it could be demonic. If demonic I would suggest you ask God for forgiveness for your sins and ask Jesus Christ to save you. His blood will cleanse you from your sins. Then I would ask Jesus Christ to take away the voices. If they persist, every time they come up I would ask Jesus Christ to take them away and to ask for His blood to protect your mind. If it is a result of self condemnation know that after accepting Jesus as you Savior and He lives in you there is no condemnation in Him. He loves you and there is no reason to think bad about yourself. Jesus loves CR-V9
Some links on earth age and similar stuff. From the other side.
http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n3/dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n4/stumping-old-age-dogma
Need to go to bed now. Wish you a good day.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
A simple question: is annual cyclic ice melting in Spring at snowfields and mountains peaks due to human production of CO2?
Is 30-40 year cyclic Arctic ice reduction due to human production of CO2? Is cyclic Arctic ice increase due to humans ceasing to produce CO2?
When the Northwest Passage opened briefly in 2007 alarmists attributed it to human production of CO2. What caused its opening in 1906 when Amundsen sailed through? What caused its opening during the 1940's when it was open more than once?
While Arctic ice was decreasing cyclically and quite normally (nothing unusual) in recent years, the total Antarctic ice was increasing. Was global warming due to human production of CO2 affecting the Arctic but not the Antarctic? Does that make global warming not global?
Another simple questions: some glaciers are currently advancing. Is that evidence and proof of global freezing due to human activity?
Is retreat of glaciers that started over 100 years ago due to increased human production of CO2 starting 60 years ago in the mid-twentieth century?
Do we need to spell out what is meant by causation? And what is required to attribute causation? Do we need to define the word 'cyclic'?
Just a few simple questions for those who are thinking instead of jumping to conclusions when viewing beautiful glacier pictures.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/noaa-and-climate-disasters-made-up-words/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/noaa-and-climate-disasters-made-up-words/
Storms were once called storms. Then extreme weather events. Now Climate Disasters. Brought to you by big government in one of a minority of western nations.
And for this taxpayers pay hard-earned money to NOAA misrepresenting science, climate and Nature.
Malcolm
:)
|
P54
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/noaa-and-climate-disasters-made-up-words/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/noaa-and-climate-disasters-made-up-words/
Storms were once called storms. Then extreme weather events. Now Climate Disasters. Brought to you by big government in one of a minority of western nations.
And for this taxpayers pay hard-earned money to NOAA misrepresenting science, climate and Nature.
Malcolm
:)
|
Good job. Now, by following my instructions you can take it one step further and make the story like this:
Storms were once called storms. Then extreme weather events. Now Climate Disasters. Brought to you by big government in one of a minority of western nations.
And for this taxpayers pay hard-earned money to NOAA misrepresenting science, climate and Nature. See link
Malcolm
:) |
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you, P54.
Yes. And bold and italics.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Still waiting CR-V9 for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Explanation of why there is no such thing as scientific peer-review in BS AGW (climate alarm)
This explains why NASA cannot truthfully claim its position is based on scientifically peer-reviewed work. The temperature database on which NASA bases its claim is closed to scrutiny.
And, as revealed in an earlier post, even that database's programmer admits the database is hopeless.
Still waiting CR-V9 for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
GLACIERS AGAIN. LET'S HAVE A PEEK.
Quote: "In fact, many glaciers in the (USA's) Pacific Northwest are actually growing."
http://sppiblog.org/news/disappearing-glaciers-in-the-pacific-northwest-science-run-amuck#more-6995
“The Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing. And Crater Glacier on Mt. Saint Helens is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption,” said Robert D. Felix, author of “Not by Fire but by Ice.”
And it doesn’t end there. All seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing. This includes the state’s largest, the three-mile-long Whitney Glacier. Three of Mount Shasta’s glaciers have doubled in size since 1950.
Alaska has shown glacial growth as well. They are growing in Alaska for the first time in 250 years. In May of last year, Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier was advancing at the rate of seven feet (two meters) per day – more than half-a-mile per year.
“And in Icy Bay, at least three glaciers advanced a third of a mile (one half kilometer) in one year,” according to Felix.
“The guilty party may be Andrew Fountain at Portland State University. He has hawked this sort of rubbish for years by picking those cases where glaciers have retreated and ignoring those where they have advanced,” said Dr. Gordon Fulks, PhD, a physicist from Oregon, “He also chooses the period of record as the entire 20th century, when he knows that much of the retreat occurred up to and during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s before CO2 could have been a “problem.”
“He is one of many scientists who stumbled into the limelight and big-time grant money with bad science,” said Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo of WeatherBELL Analytics. “He found himself in demand because the results of his work could be used to strengthen the apparent influence of man on climate. |
BS AGW was produced not by scientific data. It was produced by MONEY corrupting scentists.
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Interesting data and graphs.
According to this site, even the corrupted ground-based temperature data that unscientifically inflates temperature trends shows no ongoing warming in January compared with same month in previous years.
After alarmists' wild claims about last summer in USA, quote: | All summer long global warming alarmists kept harping on the hot, dry Texas summer as evidence that climate change is happening now. Well the annual temperature record is in and yes, while 2011 was relatively warm for the south region, several years – including 1921, 1954, 1933, 1934, & 1938 – all pre-”global warming” years – were hotter. Relative to 1998, the south region of the US is half a degree F cooler. Yet we are told “global warming continues unabated”. |
Eyeballing the global temperature graph for 1-19 January shows the four recent years are about half a degree cooler.
(For half of one month. This is not evidence of cooling.)
Yet there seems no evidence even in unscientifically inflated ground-based data that earth is continuing to warm.
That pesky evidence.
Speaking of evidence: still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Malcolm
:)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
