http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


Newsweek

April 28, 1975 Studies


The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in
food production- with serious political implications for just about every
nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps
only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the
great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along
with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is
dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate
so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In
England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks
since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at
up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature
around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in
some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most
devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more
than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13
U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance
signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree
about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact
on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that
the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the
resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would
force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent
report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of
food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on
the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in
average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and
1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos
indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the
winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists
notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental
U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine
can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points
out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only
about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the
present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice
Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice
age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern
America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so
solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the
Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery.
"Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as
fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report.
"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many
cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the
return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop
in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in
the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over
temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in
extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells,
long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of
which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to
the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the
growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it
impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as
they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its
effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed,
such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they
solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are
even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of
introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections
of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult
will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
reality.

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The Greenhouse
affect".

thx.
"Musky Killer" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


Newsweek

April 28, 1975 Studies


The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in
food production- with serious political implications for just about every
nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps
only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the
great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along
with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of
India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season
is
dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
accumulate
so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In
England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks
since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at
up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature
around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that
in
some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most
devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more
than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13
U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the
advance
signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists
disagree
about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific
impact
on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view
that
the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the
century.
If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the
resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would
force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a
recent
report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns
of
food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent
on
the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in
average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and
1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos
indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in
the
winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists
notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental
U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine
can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin
points
out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was
only
about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the
present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the
Ice
Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice
age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and
northern
America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so
solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed
the
Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a
mystery.
"Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as
fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences
report.
"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in
many
cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of
the
return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight
drop
in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in
the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds
over
temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase
in
extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells,
long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all
of
which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of
NOAA's
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive
to
the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the
growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it
impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields,
as
they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay
its
effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions
proposed,
such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they
solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere
are
even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of
introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
projections
of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult
will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become
grim
reality.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:32:59 -0700, "John Doe" wrote:

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The Greenhouse
affect".

thx.

Let's see, back in the 1970's, the first Earth Day, global cooling was
supposed to kill us all by 2000. Then in the 1980's it was global
warming that's our bane.

I get so confused, do I invest in more insulation or more sunscreen?

Strider

"Musky Killer" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


Newsweek

April 28, 1975 Studies


The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in
food production- with serious political implications for just about every
nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps
only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the
great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along
with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of
India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season
is
dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
accumulate
so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In
England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks
since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at
up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature
around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that
in
some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most
devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more
than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13
U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the
advance
signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists
disagree
about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific
impact
on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view
that
the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the
century.
If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the
resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would
force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a
recent
report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns
of
food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent
on
the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in
average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and
1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos
indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in
the
winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists
notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental
U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine
can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin
points
out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was
only
about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the
present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the
Ice
Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice
age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and
northern
America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so
solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed
the
Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a
mystery.
"Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as
fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences
report.
"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in
many
cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of
the
return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight
drop
in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in
the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds
over
temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase
in
extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells,
long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all
of
which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of
NOAA's
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive
to
the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the
growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it
impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields,
as
they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay
its
effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions
proposed,
such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they
solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere
are
even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of
introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
projections
of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult
will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become
grim
reality.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:13:54 GMT, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:32:59 -0700, "John Doe" wrote:

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The Greenhouse
affect".

thx.

Let's see, back in the 1970's, the first Earth Day, global cooling was
supposed to kill us all by 2000. Then in the 1980's it was global
warming that's our bane.

I get so confused, do I invest in more insulation or more sunscreen?

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got
media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

--
"And I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle,
loaded it into my little car, and drove home. It seemed so
incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."
- source: "A Good Fight", Sarah Brady, chapter 21, page 223
of first edition hardback, ISBN 1-58648-105-3

Well its kinda like this: The air is getting warmer because of the
green house gasses but the ground is getting colder because the
molten center of the earth is cooling off. Also all the freon that
gets loose cools the air next to the ground were as it gets warm and
rises in the atmosphere to destroy the ozone and then gets cold again
and sinks back to the ground to cool the ground. (:-o)

So you see that we are getting hotter and colder at the same time.

(Let's see if anyone bites)

The Independent


Rex Tincher wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:13:54 GMT, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:32:59 -0700, "John Doe" wrote:

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The Greenhouse
affect".

thx.

Let's see, back in the 1970's, the first Earth Day, global cooling was
supposed to kill us all by 2000. Then in the 1980's it was global
warming that's our bane.

I get so confused, do I invest in more insulation or more sunscreen?

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got
media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

--
"And I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle,
loaded it into my little car, and drove home. It seemed so
incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."
- source: "A Good Fight", Sarah Brady, chapter 21, page 223
of first edition hardback, ISBN 1-58648-105-3

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:28:59 -0500, Rex Tincher wrote:

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got

After reading this little screed, I'll need a vat of the stuff.

media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

There have been warnings about CO2 buildup and its possible effect
on world climate since the 1960s. There was also, for a time, a cooling
trend that some scientists assumed was the start of another ice age. World
climate is a set of cycles within cycles. What its trend looks like at any
given moment is at least partly a function of where you start examining
the data.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

Yes. We want to strip you of your worldly goods. You see, you
exist at the center of our universe, which is why we want to see as
much harm come to you and your kind as possible. Why? Oh, it doesn't
really matter, does it? You are you. We hate you. We want to see you
suffer because it suits us. Because it makes us happy.
/sarcasm

"Too noble to be subject to greed", my ass. What I'm looking
at is someone too caught up in his own BS to even try to understand
the truth. Right or wrong, there are serious scientists concerned
about global warming. There also appear to be at least a few who
aren't. Both have points to make. Perhaps you ought to try informing
yourself before jumping to conclusions.

If you ever decide you want to find out a little about
the history of the idea, do a Google search on "global warming history
(of) idea)". You'll find a considerable range of opinion.

Or, you could just go to some idiot right-wing conspiracy
website (www.foxnews.com, for instance) and you'll be treated to
your world just the way you like it.

It's sorta like religion... One person's imaginary friend is better
than the other's...

JT



GuidoXVI wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:28:59 -0500, Rex Tincher wrote:

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got

After reading this little screed, I'll need a vat of the stuff.

media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

There have been warnings about CO2 buildup and its possible effect
on world climate since the 1960s. There was also, for a time, a cooling
trend that some scientists assumed was the start of another ice age. World
climate is a set of cycles within cycles. What its trend looks like at any
given moment is at least partly a function of where you start examining
the data.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

Yes. We want to strip you of your worldly goods. You see, you
exist at the center of our universe, which is why we want to see as
much harm come to you and your kind as possible. Why? Oh, it doesn't
really matter, does it? You are you. We hate you. We want to see you
suffer because it suits us. Because it makes us happy.
/sarcasm

"Too noble to be subject to greed", my ass. What I'm looking
at is someone too caught up in his own BS to even try to understand
the truth. Right or wrong, there are serious scientists concerned
about global warming. There also appear to be at least a few who
aren't. Both have points to make. Perhaps you ought to try informing
yourself before jumping to conclusions.

If you ever decide you want to find out a little about
the history of the idea, do a Google search on "global warming history
(of) idea)". You'll find a considerable range of opinion.

Or, you could just go to some idiot right-wing conspiracy
website (www.foxnews.com, for instance) and you'll be treated to
your world just the way you like it.

--

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:28:59 -0500, Rex Tincher
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:13:54 GMT, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:32:59 -0700, "John Doe" wrote:

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The Greenhouse
affect".

thx.

Let's see, back in the 1970's, the first Earth Day, global cooling was
supposed to kill us all by 2000. Then in the 1980's it was global
warming that's our bane.

I get so confused, do I invest in more insulation or more sunscreen?

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got
media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

Maybe the same environmentalist figure they got so much out of the
warming scam that they decided to change the tact in hopes of
expanding the regs.

It's all about political power.

Strider

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:43:25 -0800, Jim Dauven
wrote:

Well its kinda like this: The air is getting warmer because of the
green house gasses but the ground is getting colder because the
molten center of the earth is cooling off. Also all the freon that
gets loose cools the air next to the ground were as it gets warm and
rises in the atmosphere to destroy the ozone and then gets cold again
and sinks back to the ground to cool the ground. (:-o)

So you see that we are getting hotter and colder at the same time.

(Let's see if anyone bites)

The Independent

Sorry Jim, it's just too painful for me to try to keep up. ;=)

Strider


Rex Tincher wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:13:54 GMT, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:32:59 -0700, "John Doe" wrote:

But I thought the earth was warming up? "Global warming". "The Greenhouse
affect".

thx.

Let's see, back in the 1970's, the first Earth Day, global cooling was
supposed to kill us all by 2000. Then in the 1980's it was global
warming that's our bane.

I get so confused, do I invest in more insulation or more sunscreen?

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got
media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

--
"And I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle,
loaded it into my little car, and drove home. It seemed so
incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."
- source: "A Good Fight", Sarah Brady, chapter 21, page 223
of first edition hardback, ISBN 1-58648-105-3

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:18:06 GMT, GuidoXVI
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:28:59 -0500, Rex Tincher wrote:

Invest in bull**** repellent. In the 1970s the weather scientists got

After reading this little screed, I'll need a vat of the stuff.

media attention and government grants by predicting a new ice age.
That scam ran dry so then they started predicting global warming.

There have been warnings about CO2 buildup and its possible effect
on world climate since the 1960s. There was also, for a time, a cooling
trend that some scientists assumed was the start of another ice age. World
climate is a set of cycles within cycles. What its trend looks like at any
given moment is at least partly a function of where you start examining
the data.

Politicians and environmentalists love global warming because they can
"cure" it by imposing billions of dollars in energy taxes and reducing
our standard of living. Greed and envy are powerful human motivators,
especially in people who believe that they are too noble to be subject
to greed and envy.

Yes. We want to strip you of your worldly goods. You see, you
exist at the center of our universe, which is why we want to see as
much harm come to you and your kind as possible. Why? Oh, it doesn't
really matter, does it? You are you. We hate you. We want to see you
suffer because it suits us. Because it makes us happy.
/sarcasm

"Too noble to be subject to greed", my ass. What I'm looking
at is someone too caught up in his own BS to even try to understand
the truth. Right or wrong, there are serious scientists concerned
about global warming. There also appear to be at least a few who
aren't. Both have points to make. Perhaps you ought to try informing
yourself before jumping to conclusions.

If you ever decide you want to find out a little about
the history of the idea, do a Google search on "global warming history
(of) idea)". You'll find a considerable range of opinion.

Or, you could just go to some idiot right-wing conspiracy
website (www.foxnews.com, for instance) and you'll be treated to
your world just the way you like it.

How about if we just go to the trouble to PROVE what the problem is
(if there is a problem) and PROVE what needs to be done about it
BEFORE disrupting the economy and personal freedom.

If the eco-nuts can prove to me that X causes global warming, global
warming is a bad thing, and Y will fix the problem, I'm in. What we
have is bull**** theories that even the scientists cannot agree upon.
Even worse, massive amount of money and restrictions on personal
freedom are invested in fixes for theoretical problems that, for all
they know, might make the situation worse.

Do not give me a bunch of crap theories. I want provable facts.

Strider