Reply With Quote
Is that you in your avatar?
Could it be true?
From 180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods:
Is that you in your avatar?
LOL... Yes. It's a pretty bad pic if you ask me. Timing of the shot was bad. I put it up after responding to Holt:
GOP headache: The birther issue:
Lol...
We'll be heading to Oregon to visit my spouse's family soon. We go every year and do a lot of wine tasting. Then we travel to Cannon beach and stay at Stephanie's inn on the beach. I hope it gets cooler. I was hoping to get a reprieve from the Texas heat, but it's 104 in Portland. Ouch!
I just heard 106 on the radio... Depends on where the temperature is taken at. I was at the sandy River for a while today, nice and comfortable there. Never felt that water so warm. It was posted at 68! It was probably high 90's there. I don't know what the high was in my yard, but it reads 98 right now.Lol...
We'll be heading to Oregon to visit my spouse's family soon. We go every year and do a lot of wine tasting. Then we travel to Cannon beach and stay at Stephanie's inn on the beach. I hope it gets cooler. I was hoping to get a reprieve from the Texas heat, but it's 104 in Portland. Ouch!
Oregon wines are pretty good, aren't they!
They are definitely moving up and giving California some compe ion.
Well, I'm a bit biased, but I believe the wines from Dundee have surpassed them.
Well, we are very familiar with the Dundee Hills area and have frequented many wineries including Tori Mor, the Argyle, Erath, etc... It's just wonderful, and many of them have really great wines. I just hope the weather is cooler when we are there.
I wish the ice age would hurry up and come.
Texas needs to chill with this constant 100*.
But still no compe ion for Texas. Seriously Texas has the best wine.
I love Texas but the wine is god awful. Becker vineyards makes a good claret and viognier but outside of that...
I'm a big fan of Oregon wines, too.
My company used to represent Torii Mor in Texas. Outstanding wines with great structure. Now we represent Elk Cove and Montinore. A lot of Cali pinots seem highly manipulated and overly extracted to me. The results in Oregon are more traditional, un ed with and typical of the varietal IMO.
Have you tried Viviano? It's a Sangiovese/Cab blend (Super Texan!) made by Llano Estacado. The vintage I tried surprised the out of me. It was just good wine.
The fine wine tradition in Texas only goes back about 30 years. We don't even know what to grow or where yet. Give us another 200-300 years, and maybe we'll start to be compe ive. In a minor way.
Other standouts in recent memory: chenin blanc and riesling from the Trans Pecos region, 2008 Cap Rock viognier and Luz de Estrella's stainless Cab. The Becker wines can be good, but the difference between good and bad vintages can be shocking. The Becker progression that I tasted at the Hill Country Wine and Food festival two years ago was plonk start to finish.
I wouldn't mind an ice age with the astronomical energy costs in cooling the past few years.
Cold days in winter the indoor temp is usually around 65 with no heating running, perfect!
Since we're on Oregon, how rainy and cold does it get in the pacific northwest? I like both. I know Seattle gets quite wet, but what about the rest of the region? I've been to most of the U.S. but nowhere near the northwest. I'd rate Phoenix the worst so far, all the desert is pretty ugly and its quite dry and constantly sunny. I see a lot of natural cactus in Texas, but nothing like I saw Arizona.
This thread has been shanghiaed!
ummmmm, not really. Our Beer here in Cali is better too. Lagunitas/Stone brewery(arrogant bas ale)-Nuff said
Rainy for sure. It's damn hot in the summer though....
If you want wine picks, try Far Niente(Napa) or Chateau St. Jean(sonoma). To be fair, I haven't tasted too many Oregon wines, but why would I want to do that when I live in Sonoma and I'm 15 minutes from Napa???
I know this thread has become about wine, but I thought this blog was interesting as it relates to the OP.
http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2009/...0convinced.htm
30 July, 2009
I am delighted that Dr Richard Shelmerdine answered my letter (Not conclusive, Mr Coutts; SN 29/7/09). He is right of course that the studies mentioned by me are not conclusive. However, they are persuasive to many who have taken the bother to read them, some of them actually climate scientists, wide awake and facing the right way. They raise a serious doubt that CO2 is driving global warming, and as such I feel there should be much more research into the situation before we all blithely chant the
CO2/global warming marriage song.
Perhaps the intimation here is that the theory of carbon dioxide driven global warming is much more persuasive all round. It is undoubtedly so for some, but not so for others.
Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution is mentioned by Dr Richard Shelmerdine. He says that with regard to it being merely a theory, "...even Richard Dawkins admits that." Hmmm... I am tempted to think that Richard Dawkins feels strongly that evolution by means of natural selection is no longer a theory, but now an established fact.
I base that assertion on his quote saying that, "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun." In other words, Richard Dawkins is effectively (and arrogantly) stating that he does not consider evolution by means of natural selection a mere theory open to question or doubt, but rather an irrefutable fact.
So much for the tried and tested scientific approach there. Of course, he may be right, but his approach in this case is not one that is conducive to the advancement of science. It does, however, remind me of the closed minds commonly found where religious dogma is allowed to reign unchallenged, and that is amusingly ironic, given Richard Dawkins' outspoken views against religion.
Anyway, back to global warming, which I find altogether more interesting.
CO2 has been seriously maligned in recent years. It's even been called a pollutant! That has to be the silliest thing anyone can claim, for without CO2, life on earth would have a serious problem existing. Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences at James Cook University describes CO2 as, "...a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere." He also says that, "To label carbon dioxide a 'pollutant' is an abuse of language, logic and science." I agree.
Carbon dioxide can be toxic to life however, but that does not happen until the concentrations reach about 5%. Currently CO2 occupies about 0.038% of our atmosphere. According to Wikipedia.com, "Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today," and even that much higher concentration was still not toxic to life, causing no pollution to anything. It also didn't cause runaway global warming!
Is CO2 driving global temperatures up, and is mankind the main contributor and therefore the main culprit for observed global warming? The evidence is not conclusive. If it were, then why, for example, did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) feel the need to edit the 1996 report so heavily to presumably remove any lingering doubt?
The original accepted draft of Chapter 8 on October 9th 1996 stated: "Finally, we come to the most difficult question of all: When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur? In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know'."
Perhaps the statement, "We do not know" was just too stark and honest for the IPCC. They changed it by removing the "difficult" words.
For the past 11 years there has been a constant CO2 rise in line with what the IPCC has predicted. For the past 11 years there has been no temperature rise in line with what the IPCC has predicted. The measured data (and not the computer model data) has actually shown a decrease in temperature. What then is CO2 driving? The IPCC are on record as saying that, "Global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 and temperature will climb in tandem." For the past 11 years CO2 levels have risen steadily, but temperatures have been slipping away in the opposite direction.
The IPCC, apart from muttering ineffectively that this anomaly is merely masking the underlying warming trend, have no answer. Their computer models failed to predict average world temperatures flattening out and then dropping while CO2 levels continue to rise. Perhaps it really is masking an underlying warming trend, but where is the evidence for that? Clinging to a comfortable belief is not enough; where is the empirical evidence?
CO2 rise and temperatures, we were told, will go up together - not drift apart, or even go in different directions - they will stay in tandem. That is what we were told, for that is what the theory of anthropogenic global warming hinges on, but it hasn't happened. Humans are still pumping 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day, but the temperatures are now dropping. Something doesn't add up here.
I am not against the theory of anthropogenic global warming per se. If the empirical evidence shows it to be almost certainly the case, then I will gladly go with it. However, there are so many things that raise a doubt. I have spent many, many hours reading all the available data on the subject, both for and against, and for me at least, dangerous global warming caused by human activity is a theory that fails to convince.
In fact, the theory that CO2 is driving global temperatures up, whether as a result of human activity or not, is also a theory that fails to convince me. I do not say this lightly. I have tried to be as objective and open minded about the subject as I possibly can be, but I still find too many contrary questions to be convinced that we face runaway temperature increases due to rising CO2 levels.
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, one of Russia's most eminent scientists, is convinced, as are others too, that we face global cooling. He says that, "Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period." He goes on to say that, "The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that ... a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even
longer."
If Dr Oleg Sorokhtin is right, and he is not alone in his thinking either, then we have a far bigger problem to worry about than global warming could ever present us with. Time will tell. I'll leave the last word on the subject to Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin: "Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean."
Kind regards,
John Coutts.
^^^ Scary stuff.
Gonna go out, start a pointless bonfire in the back yard, then hook up the 7,500# travel trailer behind the QX56 and drive 90 down the interstate; just doing my part to alleviate the nest ice age.
We usually have 2-3 months of spectacular summers with little or no rain and in the 80's to 90's, 2-3 months of cold in the 20's to 40's, sometimes bitter with freezing rains, sometimes with snow. The 'tween months can vary allot. We get plenty of rain to keep things green. I'm talking about the Willamette Valley. I think it was '96 when we started warming up fast in February, and between the rain and the snow melts, we had flooding everywhere. The worse in a long time. A wall was erected to keep downtown Portland from flooding. In January (maybe February) of '79, we had the worse freezing rains I have ever seen. A large tree branch fall on the roof of my car, broke from high above, from the weight of the ice. Real heavy mofo, must have had 3-4" of ice around it, and it all happened overnight. There was also 3-4" of ice on my car, which protected it from severe damage. I just had a small crease by the passenger door. Sucker was real heavy. A real to get off the car.
We also have the coastal range, mountains, and desert, each with it's own personality.
LOL...
No way...
That stuff is potent, but tastes like .
Try anything from the Deschutes Brewery?
Thank-You Darrin. It's a good piece.
Haven't I been saying all along, something similar to the end:
I'll leave the last word on the subject to Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin: "Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean."
Nice, WHI'm a big fan of Oregon wines, too.
My company used to represent Torii Mor in Texas. Outstanding wines with great structure. Now we represent Elk Cove and Montinore. A lot of Cali pinots seem highly manipulated and overly extracted to me. The results in Oregon are more traditional, un ed with and typical of the varietal IMO.
Carry on...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
