MrKnobs

I've never accepted the "fight climate change" hysteria. Nature does what it does. For us to invest resources into an intentional attempt to block nature from taking its course in order to somehow "reverse" the unintentional harms we create is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard. You've not heard many stupid ideas then. We are part of nature. There are, by latest estimates, 6.7 billion humans on Earth and, up until recently, most of them lived in non-industrialized nations. Those 6.7 billion humans release about 43 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, and that amount is growing exponentially, expected to reach somwhere around 68 billion tons by 2030. About 1/3 to 1/2 of that total comes just from coal burning, which I think you'd agree is almost exclusively a human activity. Methane is another greenhouse gas, which is about 20 times more efficient at reflecting in the infrared region and therefore at trapping solar heat inside the Earth's atmosphere. People who study such things estimate that about 20% of the methane being produced comes from domestic livestock. That's a pretty big man made change considering how effective a greenhouse gas methane is. But the Earth is a pretty big place, isn't it? How can anything we do have much of an effect in all that vastness, even though there are nearly 7 billion of us? The problem is that our atmosphere is very, very thin. If you travel just 7 miles straight up, you have traversed 75% of the atmosphere, mass-wise. If you travel an additional 70 miles up, you're out of the atmosphere and into space; only a few stray gas molecules will run into you from time to time. If your car could travel straight up, you could drive to space in about an hour. So it's quite reasonable that releasing tens of billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year from industrial and agricultural processes could impact the Earth's finely balanced climate - it's not a crazy notion at all. The Alaskan glaciers have grown this year, Arctic sea ice has increased this year, some areas just had the coldest summer in several decades -- and yet the press isn't giving it any coverage. Odd. It's pretty myopic to focus on a single year. No one is saying that the loss of permanent ice is expected to follow a perfectly straight line at all points on the earth each year. A more reasonable approach from the empirical side would be to look at the dramatic changes in the Arctic, Antarctic, and glaciers over the years since the industrial revolution. Starting with the Arctic, have a look at this NASA satellite photo of the Arctic ice pack, taken just last month. The faint line is the median minimum ice extension in the Arctic, the white blob is the actual ice situation a month ago. You don't need to be a trained oceanographer to see that there's a lot less ice in the Arctic at the end of summer than there used to be. HERE is the change from 1979-2003, reflecting a 9% loss of ice per decade, which is now known to be low as global warming accelerates. I could show you similar sat pics of glaciers receding, Canadian ice shelves falling into the ocean, the Antarctic (soon to reveal the soil and rivers trapped below the ice) melting at an unprecedented rate. Can this all be just coincidence? Maybe. Your comments in your later post regarding opinions, scientific bias, etc. I find even more alarming. Whereas you may like blue and I may like red, opinions about factual things aren't all created equal. No offense (as I have no idea what you do for a living or what education you might have), but it's not just a matter of having access to the information as everyone with an internet connection does these days. It's also a matter of having the education and the experience to sift through all the information and make a judgement, with a vital part of that judgement being knowing what you don't know as well as what you do. So yeah, a climate scientist or an oceanographer's opinion is going to be much more valuable than yours or mine (I'm a materials scientist who was majoring in oceanography for a while). The Earth's climate system is complicated. The ocean buffers everything within its ability to do so. Right now there's more CO2 sequestered in oceanic carbonates than ever before in recorded history, and some areas of the ocean are saturated - no more CO2 can be absorbed. That's very serious. There are north-south long term currents that transfer heat to and from the poles that mitigate climate in Europe, for example. If that particular current stops flowing, Europe will likely enter an new Ice Age - ironically caused by global warming. No ice in the Artic will mean the extinction of some species, and will have a dramatic effect on fish populations, which humanity relies on for food. The upwelling in the Arctic mixes salt and fresh water, and the current that causes it brings nutrients from the equator to the Arctic, causing the total aquatic biomass to be higher there than anywhere else in the world. As for scientific bias, again I don't know what you do but I've been a scientist for more than 30 years. Would I say that all scientists are honest and that the people who give grants never push us for their preferred results? No, that happens and it is a problem. However, as others have pointed out science is self-correcting in terms of errors and bias, and in the end converges to the truth - always. I also am very cynical about models. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I read in great detail the work done to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center, this being my current area of work. The guy who headed that team I personally know, and he's as honest as anyone I've ever met. However, mechanistic-empirical models are famous for giving you the expected answer, especially when the result you are modeling is off the end of the model's inference space. You can simply tweak some of the myriad inputs to get almost any result you want without any of the inputs being too unreasonable. And if what you're modeling has already happened, you might feel pretty reasoned doing that sort of tweaking. what you end up with is a scenario that might have happened, but not necessarily the one that did. Too many people, even in academia (like myself), don't seem to grasp that fundamental concept. Climate models are even more "iffy" than structural models, being more complicated, based on limited data, and unsuitable to testing by controlled experiment. That's why there are always a wide range of possible scenarios presented and why the numbers always have a pretty wide confidence interval. Having said all that, the work done so far has clearly demonstrated a likely causative effect between human industrialization / agriculture and climate change. The exact result and timetable is unknown, but what seems clear is that each year we wait to do something puts us farther down the path to an unknowable future that may already be irreversable. I wonder how global warming alarmists will obfuscate this one. If you consider the above "alarmist," feel free to continue your denigration. Terry D.

Hmm..... I need to redact a few things, this public display of info is catching up with me... Terry D.

Terry, which Auralex adhesive were you referring to? I've used the Tubetak before; the stuff that comes in a caulk gun tube, and it held well, but you have to wait for quite a while before it dries enough to support the foam by itself. The Foamtak, which I just used for the first time last night, actually has surprised me so far... it grabs nearly instantly and (at least so far) is holding 4" foam overhead with no problems. At about $20 per can, it's not cheap, but it seems to be working great. I use Foamtak in the spray can. It grabs quick, but no matter how much I put on, the foam eventually falls off the Masonite backing board I use - even when mounted vertically on a wall. And eventually isn't all that long. Terry D.

As someone in the other forum reminded me, TEMP-TABS Terry D.

Nero, Did you do anything to treat your ceiling? Two small holes in the wall is no biggie, but I was wondering how people use foam like Auralex with their liquid adhesive without tearing the foam if you need to move it elsewhere. It seems like the glue would wreck the foam and the ceiling/wall. I just purchased 24 of those panels of 1073. It cover 192 square feet. What about ceiling treatments? Nero, what fabric did you use to cover the panels? I see you used Cedar wood. Are these considered bass traps with what you are doing? I'm just learning about acoustics so please bear with my novice experience in acoustics. If you use Auralex's adhesive you can peel the foam off at any time without damaging the foam. In fact, it's more a problem of the foam falling off the panels occasionally. I wouldn't put the adhesive on the wall though. I use Auralex MegaLENRDs for bass trapping. Not only do they work better than panels but they don't require any mounting for the vertical wall joints. Just stack them, they're heavy enough to stay in place on their own. And, if someone gets a little rowdy and knocks a stack over, well, it's pretty hard to get hurt by a big chunk of foam. Thin foam gives all foam a bad name. If you're going to bass trap, use MegaLENRDs (not regular LENRDs) for the corners, and Venus Bass Trap for flat areas. Terry D.

BG gets up and goes to the bathroom to clean the slut off of him. Still my favorite line from this entire thread (I just reread it all). Terry D.

I had my doubts at first and when I tried it just out of chance and a suggestion it turned out to be brilliant. Yeah the cab will go through the snake and into the head. Got to get some XLR adaptors but thats no problem Snakes without special cabling for speakers will have all low voltage shielded cable in them. You don't want to run speaker level voltage through those cables for the same reason you wouldn't connect your speaker cabinet to your amp head with a guitar cable; the cable just isn't rated for voltages that high. But yeah, it will work - for a while. Terry D.

Compression is nothing new. Radio stations routinely compress the material that they broadcast. I think the point about how "we" listen to music vs. how the average consumer does (as mentioned in several posts above) can't be stressed enough. To most of us who regularly record, the quality of the sound is equally or even more important than the material itself. Not so to the average consumer, as evidenced by the explosion of .mp3 popularity. I don't think sound quality, so long as it meets a minimum standard, has anything to do with how well a record sells to Joe and Jane Consumer. Of course the sound can't suck but our quest for perfection in sound is a fool's errand if profit is the objective. The minimum standard for the public is fairly high, but nowhere near as high as what we consider "great." And I honestly don't think the public is troubled in the least by this current fad of compression for maximum loudness; in fact, I think they expect it and even demand it. Terry D.

Palmer - about $600. H&K Red Box - about $120. If you want to mic the amp, but it's too loud and ticks off the neighbors, the THD Hotplate is a good product to consider. As far as guitar microphones, there are a ton of great choices and techniques, but you could do a lot worse than the Shure SM57. IMO: Palmer - don't have one. H&K - have several, not a great sound but certainly better than NO emulation, nice and cheap, BUT you have to leave the speaker connected on a tube amp so if the neighbors are a problem this won't solve it. Hotplate - It will make you amp quieter, but it won't sound like a miked speaker. And every notch you take the volume down makes the sound worse. Anyone want to buy mine, cheap? Motherload - Best combination dummy load / attenuator and speaker sim I've yet to hear! Sounds just wonderful and has tons of adjustments. But - it ain't cheap. Yellow Jackets - replacement tube adapters to make your amp quieter while still allowing you to overdrive the output stage. Advantage - it really is a lot quieter. Disadvantage - sounds like a completely different amp, which you may or may not like. SM57 - The standard, but no longer the best. Advantages - if you see a loose screw or nail and don't have a hammer, you can beat it back into place with a 57 and the 57 will work. Disadvantages - you really have to move it around a lot to get the sound you want - which is hard if you're doing it by yourself. E609 - The NEW 57 for miking guitar amps. Just....better, and less finicky about placement, hangs down for side address. Try it! Disadvantages - none, except if you have a metal grille on your amp and you hang it, you'll be wondering what all those annoying "tick" sounds are as the mike bounces off the grille repeatedly. E609 + LD condenser mike back a ways - Maybe the ultimate miking technique, letting you blend to get the sound you want. Disadvantage - if your room sounds crappy so will your recording. Royer 121 ribbon - Very sweet sound, especially on combo amps, nothing quite like a ribbon if you like that sound. Disadvantage - you really need to use the back (more delicate) side of the mike, and you need to put it up pretty close to the grille for the best sound - which is exactly the two things the manufacturer says NOT to do to the delicate ribbon. Just my thoughts based on what I do. Terry D.

Put this up for a moment so I can see the number of views. Terry D.

Originally Posted by RobRoy Solomon actually has quite a bit to say to men about "sleeping around". I can say with utmost confidence that in the long run it is not a good thing. Not remotely. I would not be me without these memories, and I choose to cherish them. In a way, I loved every one of those girls. Terry D.

No more groupie stories? Terry D.

Originally Posted by phildogger I am 6 foot 8, and have never broken anything in the act. Maybe you meant "Balding, fairy tale tellers" Wait, let me guess, you have a story about that too? I think a man would have to live to be 375 years old to live through all the dreck you have posted. What I posted was a true story. The dialog, of course, isn't word for word because who has a memory like that? Sorry you didn't enjoy it. Terry D.

Check this out, click on "Rae." Terry D.

Originally Posted by Volitan OMG, now you have to write about her I will. It was long enough ago. Terry D.

Originally Posted by Zurich17 Terry - I've just finished #IX. I know girls like Janis and Gail, and can see where you're coming from with the emotional damage and stuff; its weird thinking about what you've said and then seeing the same storylines evolve in our little London scene. Janis, Gail, Lucia, Lisa, Linda Kay, I could name a couple of dozen other groupie girls from that time. Linda Kay was unique in that she only did married couples. She was a lesbian, mostly. I liked her, she was my best friend for a while until I betrayed her and she never forgave me. On the surface they were all interchangeable though they came from many different backgrounds. What they all had in common was they were emotionally damaged in some way. Trying to fill some bottomless hole in their hearts, all trying to make love out of a {censored} and not succeeding. Thanks for reading. T. P.S. Damn! How could I possibly forget at Linda Kay? She happened to me in this same time period, even is parenthetically mentioned in the story (not by name), I could have written a chapter or two about my experience with her.

Originally Posted by Hamhand Wow, I stuck it out to the end. Terry, good writing, though I'm not sure whether it was alot of fabrication, or there was a ghost writer helping. It started reading like a Macdonald detective novel. I really like the philosophical answers to others you started handing out, they got pretty entertaining. If it was ALL you, you have skills. Definitely a record to stand forever with 50 pages of posts. Thanks to the others that contributed too. Now I'll go back to the regular programming. Thanks! I wrote all that right after I retired from the university and had to stay out a mandatory 30 days before being rehired as a consultant. I have to write a lot at work and I guess I was detoxing here. What you have just read is a retelling of actual events that happened to me over 9 months in 1983, to the best of my recollection. I could not make up such a story, I lack the imagination. The dialogue, of course, is approximate - my memory is not that good. Thanks for reading! Terry D.

Wow, 17,000+ views on this thread. I always wondered what the number was. Yay for HC web programmers, that was quick and (apparently) painless! Terry D.

Originally posted by myway HI, Heres a good one. We were hanging out in a real rat hole rehearsal studio one night. I t was a real good night. Lots of people hanging around, and some halfway decent girls. There was a bunch of us, like three or four different bands hanging around in one rehearsal room. Suddenly we notice a guy missing. A bass player who had the reputation of being the nastiest, ugliest, most disgusting human being you can think of, all 325 lbs of him .Were all looking around for him. Suddenly we hear this heavy breathing and panting going on, along with some pretty good moaning coming from the bathroom. We knew someone was getting laid, we were all just laughing. Then all the sudden KABOOM! Something happened. Well turned out the disgusting guy was banging a really big disgusting girl on the sink in the bathroom. Sink couldn't take the weight and fell of the wall. Water going everywhere. Worse part is when we all ran in to investigate. The two of them did not even bother to stop, they just kept on going while everyone was standing there yelling at them for breaking the sink. Large people are used to things breaking and collapsing during the act, they've sorta learned to ignore it. Terry D.

Originally posted by SpaceGhost Man, I wish I could've gotten it up earlier. www.viagra.com Terry D.

Originally posted by brikus that seems pretty absurd to me...do they have a good reason for that ? The state has a large number of strange rules that no one admits to having made. Generally, most of them come down from the state legislature as this one no doubt did. The complete rule is that if you are to retire and return (AKA retire/rehire), you must have a 30 day break in service, you must have no preexisting agreement with your employer to return, and you can only work a maximum of 20h/wk. I suppose the intent is to discourage retirement for the purpose of salary enhancement, also known as "double dipping." There are a fair number of state employees who return to make more than they did before retirement (including both checks) and some consider this problematic. Personally, I find this to be a good deal for both the state and myself. I'm not quite ready to sit at home in a rocking chair but I enjoy the additional time off to pursue music, hiking, and photography before I'm entirely too old to enjoy them. The state gets an experienced, networked employee (who can bring in money, always the bottom line) for half the price. Terry D.

Originally posted by fantasticsound This, to me, is the crux. Not only did she insult a large part of the intended audience, the Chicks announced they were leaving country music after this whole furor began. At that point, the country music machine had pretty much left them (turned on them even), so I guess her pronouncement was a moot point. Terry D. P.S. And as I've said before, Natalie is a right brained person who tends to speak emotionally and doesn't always apply the customary filters. I say good for her, sometimes feathers need ruffling.

Originally posted by fantasticsound I like the Chicks, but that was just plain stupid. Well, there's this weird thing called principles... Terry D.

Originally posted by brikus You HAD to stay away from work ??? Did you {censored} something up ??? Anyway, you're more than welcome (expected, should I say) to post your other stories. When you retire from the state, there's a mandatory lockout period where you can't work, or even donate your services. Terry D.

Originally posted by Brittanylips That's arguably what the DixChicks were doing when they launched their attack on Bush, attempting to prohibit him from participating in the arena in which makes his living. When people speak out against politicians they are attempting to interfere with their carreers. Speaking out about politicians is a special area. All politicians are fair game, always have been. It's part of what you accept being a politician. It's a vital part of being in a free country. Being spoken out against isn't what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Anyone is free to buy or not buy their records for whatever reason, but that's not what happened. What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American. Pure mob mentality hate speech. Control of what the listeners get to hear by mega-corporations, exactly what many musicians decry as the evil system. Except even more evil in this case, because it was politically motivated. Terry D.