NOTICE: OFF POST SUBJECT Cap’t Jack, Who care if they are accurately pronounced? What, who and how much time is spent on your term “accurately"? With a phonic alphabet nobody has to decide. There is only one way to pronounce anything written phonically. Example. If I write “xuqshphtb" Can you and the next one hundred people pronoun it the same? In the phonic alphabet the answer would be “Yes". That is why they cannot have spelling bees in the phonic alphabet. Anything written can be pronounced the same way by all people. It is easy to teach and kids pickup on the alphabet quickly. The alphabet also has volume and speed. Two items our alphabet does not incorporate. https://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/ I thought this would also be interesting to you. Even Benjamin Franklin wanted a phonetic alphabet. And worked on building one. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/franklin.htmIn response, I took a course in phonic spelling 40 years ago Mike and found the whole concept both tedious and a bit redundant as we already have a spelling system that works just fine. It was an interesting idea, first proposed and put into practice by Noah Webster BTW for his dictionary, and both he and Ben Franklin wanted to create a new form of "American" speech to distinguish it from our British cousins. That was the main purpose for the move to "simplify" the writing of various words derived from archaic Anglo-Saxon writing, e.g. Leaving out the U in honor. The same with Teddy Roosevelt who wanted a phonetic spelling of only three hundred words. As to your example word, no not everyone would pronounce it the same as some cultures would pronounce the "x" naturally, some as a "z" sound and some with a zh as the Mayans do. You're also not accounting for regional dialects in America, e.g. The Southern v. The Northern dialect and the subtle sub dialects found in both cultures. Here in Appalachia the dialect is far removed from one in the Deep South. Forcing everyone to phoneticize their individual speech would lead to confusing interpretations. Cap't Jack
Cap’t Jack,
It has been some years since I have looked into the phonic alphabet. I was taught on the phonic alphabet for a couple of years. We moved and I never was able to use the system we have, thank god for the computer. I have always wanted to spell phonically which does not work very well in our language.
There were three test areas in the United States and the results were all the same. It was claimed that one year could be taken off education and illiteracy would be wiped out. In all test areas second graders were able to write full page letters to each other with no problems.
As far as the different dialects, there was the American version and many other countries were working on their versions. Then there was the International version. You’re right, there are sounds used in other parts of the world that we never use here in America. So it would be a waste of time learning those sounds. People wanting to use those sounds would learn the International version which is a much more intensified and larger alphabet but the American version is built into the bigger version.
San Diego State University has a whole section of books written in the alphabet in the library.
I have read that when the Southern Democrats saw the alphabet with the backward “e", it looked like Russian to them and they killed the funding. Of course there’s got to be more to it.
It’s a shame, I think there was too much work done for decades and too many ideas from all this work trying to be incorporated at the time into a country that saw this as a foreign system coming from England. I don’t think the public ever understood the scope and history of the alphabet. If they would have kept it simple and moved in smaller steps it may have worked.
I have also read where Bell’s grandfather worked on a phonic alphabet and that was the driving force for many of the ideas of Bell’s invention with the telephone.
As far as the Appalachia and Deep South dialects. Take the word “Wednesday". Used across the nation, have you ever heard anyone pronounce it phonically correct in any of the dialects? But I see your point that it would be a problem with doing it phonically. The dialects would show up in the spelling. I had a hard time understanding the Louisiana French Cajun accent when I worked with a crew in the oilfield onetime.
Also, as to the Milankovich cycle, your contention is problematic as he didn’t take AGW into account and his concept of the 100,000 year cycle was off. See here:
Since orbital variations are predictable,[20] if one has a model that relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a model forward to “predict” future climate. Two caveats are necessary: that anthropogenic effects may modify or even overwhelm orbital effects; and that the mechanism by which orbital forcing influences climate is not well understood. In the most prominent anthropogenic example, orbital forcing from the Milankovitch cycles has been in a cooling phase for millennia, but that cooling trend was reversed in the 20th and 21st centuries due to warming caused by increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.[21]
So yes, I’m saying that we’re causing it and no there’s no “clean” coal or “clean” oil and until we do reduce the trend the Earth will continue to be affected and the greenhouse effect will get worse. CC has posted hundreds of sites that bolster this claim and not one refutation of his position hits the mark.
Cap’t Jack
It is understood that the earth’s cycle has the earth warming. And that CO2 is a blanket that helps hold that heat, thus keeping the earth a little warmer. But to what extent? Take away all the extra CO2 in the air and the earth would still be warming because of the Earth’s Cycle. Do you agree?The answer to this became public in 2005 with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8brQeoSjSM Jesus H. Christ. That is not what I was looking for. This was it: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/global-dimming/ The particulate matter and the CO2 that we put into the air have conflicting effects. The Particulate matter makes clouds more reflective which tends to reduce temperature. The CO2 holds heat in which raises it. So if we got the particulate matter out that should cause the temp to skyrocket. It is not just CO2. We have created a situation different from previous cycles. Volcanoes can put particulate matter into the atmosphere and cause cooling. But big volcanic eruptions are intermittent events. That particulate matter falls out of the atmosphere and things return to "normal" in a few years. But our manufacturing puts up particular matter constantly, so even though it falls out we put up more. I am not aware of anything in the "natural cycles" like this. But in addition we put up CO2. But CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries. So humans are producing two contradictory effects that are beyond nature. Nature is being used to create confusion in people's minds. Now the CO2 is winning over the particulate matter and we cannot get rid of both. psik
Jesus H. Christ. That is not what I was looking for. psikNever heard of Global Dimming before. No names or connections given and was unable to watch the video because it was blocked on copyright grounds from the BBC. It was my understanding that some volcanoes in the big lava flows were active for hundreds of years. If you ever get the chance, explore some of the large lava tubes. I been in quite a few and they are amazing.
So yes, I'm saying that we're causing it and no there's no "clean" coal or "clean" oil and until we do reduce the trend the Earth will continue to be affected and the greenhouse effect will get worse. CC has posted hundreds of sites that bolster this claim and not one refutation of his position hits the mark. Cap't JackNatural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp?gclid=CjsKDwjwmuafBRCQ7ef6zJXhdRIkAFH2meeS63MHwTnSJVfAe9NhDvouIJDmrkEjV5eq7F2ucF6WGgKcjvD_BwE Total cause – Carbon dioxide. Earth cycle – Not mentioned. Environmental Defense Fund http://www.edf.org/human-activity-causing-global-warming Total cause – Carbon dioxide. Earth cycle – Not mentioned. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html Total cause – Divided among three items. Sun, (aerosols, land cover, cloud cover), greenhouse gases. Earth cycle – FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era? Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Data on greenhouse gas abundances going back beyond a million years, that is, beyond the reach of antarctic ice cores, are still rather uncertain, but analysis of geological samples suggests that the warm ice-free periods coincide with high atmospheric CO2 levels. On million-year time scales, CO2 levels change due to tectonic activity, which affects the rates of CO2 exchange of ocean and atmosphere with the solid Earth. Note: Fig 6.1 shows the Milankovitch Cycles. Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet (see FAQ 1.1). There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and (3) altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations). In addition, local climate also depends on how heat is distributed by winds and ocean currents. All of these factors have played a role in past climate changes. These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper. Cap’t Jack, The ice cores shows a definite pattern that followed the Milankovitch Cycles. I’m no scientist, but I sure in the h—l know how to read a report. The NRCD and the EDF left out the earths past history. That’s a crime to science. The IPCC is dancing around and using hypotheses that pretends to answer the question. The problem is that there is not enough good data yet to move from the hypotheses to the theories. Remember, the CO2 blanket holds the heat and helps create a little heat. We all agree on that. But the charts in predictions did not follow the theory given to use some years back. That kicked us back to the hypotheses stage. And added the part, “well it is just a lot more complicated than people realize". Nothing changed in the facts, it was just the theory was not base on all the facts - bad science. Now, I back the Climate Scientists and am behind what they are doing. What seems to be happening here is that the public is demanding answers and the scientist are not ready yet. They are still working on employing the data gathering systems and working on the computer models. So, they see no harm in the public organizing behind them and creating a power group that can move the political machine. But what I don’t like seeing is this movement into a taxing world power without all the questions being answered and the computer models not yet working. I think we may be jumping the gun a little. Yesterday I was looking at a used truck. The government said that by buying that truck instead of a new truck the carbon equivalent of 4,788.59 gallons of gasoline would be saved. I can see it coming, a carbon tax on every vehicle new and used sold in America.
Jesus H. Christ. That is not what I was looking for. psikNever heard of Global Dimming before. No names or connections given and was unable to watch the video because it was blocked on copyright grounds from the BBC. It was my understanding that some volcanoes in the big lava flows were active for hundreds of years. If you ever get the chance, explore some of the large lava tubes. I been in quite a few and they are amazing. Being ACTIVE and being explosive enough to put thousands of tons of dust high into the atmosphere are two different thing. The volcanoes in the Hawaiian Islands are active almost constantly. But they are almost never explosive like Mt. St. Helen's. So they do not contribute to the particulate cooling effect. Your not hearing about Global Dimming is another indication of this bullsh!t information system we have. We get biased information from both sides and relevant info falls through the cracks. That documentary had been up for years, I just noticed that it had been pulled. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml psik
Now, I back the Climate Scientists and am behind what they are doing. What seems to be happening here is that the public is demanding answers and the scientist are not ready yet. They are still working on employing the data gathering systems and working on the computer models. So, they see no harm in the public organizing behind them and creating a power group that can move the political machine. But what I don’t like seeing is this movement into a taxing world power without all the questions being answered and the computer models not yet working. I think we may be jumping the gun a little.This is the trouble with conducting uncontrolled experiments on a planet when you do not have a spare. Even if we could cut emissions from cars to zero right now the effect of what we have pumped into the atmosphere already will not have finalized its effects for another 20 years or more. We are probably beyond gun jumping. The gun may have gone off 10 years ago and we still are not off the block. psik
So yes, I'm saying that we're causing it and no there's no "clean" coal or "clean" oil and until we do reduce the trend the Earth will continue to be affected and the greenhouse effect will get worse. CC has posted hundreds of sites that bolster this claim and not one refutation of his position hits the mark. Cap't JackI have always agreed on the point that carbon is a greenhouse gas and is warming the earth but have disagreed with others about the affect of the earth's cycle and what history is showing us. So why would anyone challenge CC posts. But that is not the question at hand. The question is that many of these sites not only agree on the greenhouse gases is the only thing warming the earth, but they are screaming doomsday if things are not changed right now. Looking at the past and the times massive wealth has left the shores of America to other countries in the last century. WWI The Dawes and Young Loans WWII The rebuilding of Europe and the rest of world under the Marshal Plan. No other nation in the last century has transferred so much of its wealth off shore to other nations and we did it four times. Look at what is really going on with the carbon credits. We will again be transferring massive amounts of our wealth to other countries while denying medical benefits and standard of life to the American taxpayers. When I was younger the Social Security office told me that by the time I reached 55 social security would most likely kick in. The only reason it was at an older age was because of the startup cost and the people who had not paid into the system collecting. But I could expect that age to drop to 55. And by the time I reached 40 they expected America to be on a 4 day work week. I think they knew how to do math. I think a lot of the funds were transferred to other countries. Now here we go again. Going to do the largest transfer of wealth in this century with the carbon credits and the people behind this carbon credit movement of wealth are all going to become billionaires. Question. Is the government screaming Doomsday? Answer is, no. NASA is saying humans are affecting the earth, but NASA is not yet ringing the bell or shouting doomsday. http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/is-the-global-earth-system-changing-and-what-are-the-consequences/ The latest statements from NASA states. “While scientists have solid evidence of such human influence, more data and research are needed to better understand and quantify our impact on our world's climate system."
Once again, and I don’t know how succinctly to emphasize this but your contention that AGW has only a small part to play in greenhouse emissions doesn’t correlate with NASA findings. This warming trend is the highest in 800,00 years and there have been several interglacial warming cycles in that time period, this one being the latest. Greenhouse gases have risen exponentially since the mid 19th Century (height of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, and the beginning of the one here in the US) as evidenced on every climatic chart presented on this site. And again, I’m not saying that AGW is the ONLY cause but it has greatly exacerbated global warming and continues to do so. And the only reason governmental agencies are held back is due to the interference of the coal and oil industries tied to the automobile industry, three powerful lobbies. But once again we’ve been over this ad infinitum. And yes, we’ve been exporting fossil fuels since the end of World War I mainly due to the government’s dropping of contracts for the war effort. We’re still doing it BTW. I can see the coal trains rumbling past our house daily heading to Norfolk and oversees markets. The hypocrisy is that we’re attempting (although poorly) to limit carbon emissions in the US but, like cigarettes, we’re selling tons of it to China. Already their cities are shrouded in smog and cancer rates are on the rise. So unless someone invents a method to create a “clean burning coal” or scrubbers for the atmosphere the poles will melt that much faster.
Cap’t Jack
The reason we find conservatives denying climate change is that they are so afraid that anything the government might do to address it will cut into their future profits. It all has to do with money. They are afraid their taxes will go up and that laws will be passed limiting untrammelled capitalism. They already trash every attempt that’s made to mitigate the problems. They have no use for passive energy and want no government subsidies for it, for example. They also want no controls on big oil. They denigrate climate scientists and will deny global climate change to their dying breath because they see it eating into their future profits. This is what we can expect from a Republican presidency. They are already planning it. Be prepared.
Lois