F
F Murtz
Guest
~misfit~ wrote:
F
F Murtz
Guest
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/12/2015 9:07 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:29:00 +1300
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Joe Hey wrote:
[snippped]
We know that the sun has periods of high and low activity though,
which
tend to cause variations in the global temperatures.
This is something which can be and is measured and has been ruled out
as being causational in regard to the current extreme weather
patterns. (Which are extreme in cold as well as heat - hardly likely
to be the sun as it's stable - at least when talking decades or
centuries.)
The same argument would also reject (the quite stable) AG CO2 as a cause
for the extremes, so I suspect some fundamental error in your
reasoning.
**Wrong. In the past 150 years, we have seen CO2 levels increase by
almost 50%. This is the most rapid rise in CO2 levels noted in more than
a million years. During this same period, we have seen average
temperatures rise higher and faster than at any time in the past million
years. Based on proxy measurements from ice cores, we can see that
temperatures have tracked CO2 levels very closely over the past million
years or so. That said, you are correct in that Solar activity is the
lowest it has been for several hundred years. Despite this low activity,
the average temperature of this planet continues to rise. When the Sun
resumes it's normal output, we can expect surface temperatures on this
planet to rise faster and higher.
Why does CO2 lag the temp rise?
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 24/12/2015 12:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
**It's not. It is LEADING temperature rise. In the past, CO2 rise has
both led and lagged temperature rise. The even we are experiencing is
one where CO2 leads.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/12/2015 9:07 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:29:00 +1300
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Joe Hey wrote:
[snippped]
We know that the sun has periods of high and low activity though,
which
tend to cause variations in the global temperatures.
This is something which can be and is measured and has been ruled out
as being causational in regard to the current extreme weather
patterns. (Which are extreme in cold as well as heat - hardly likely
to be the sun as it's stable - at least when talking decades or
centuries.)
The same argument would also reject (the quite stable) AG CO2 as a cause
for the extremes, so I suspect some fundamental error in your
reasoning.
**Wrong. In the past 150 years, we have seen CO2 levels increase by
almost 50%. This is the most rapid rise in CO2 levels noted in more than
a million years. During this same period, we have seen average
temperatures rise higher and faster than at any time in the past million
years. Based on proxy measurements from ice cores, we can see that
temperatures have tracked CO2 levels very closely over the past million
years or so. That said, you are correct in that Solar activity is the
lowest it has been for several hundred years. Despite this low activity,
the average temperature of this planet continues to rise. When the Sun
resumes it's normal output, we can expect surface temperatures on this
planet to rise faster and higher.
Why does CO2 lag the temp rise?
**It's not. It is LEADING temperature rise. In the past, CO2 rise has
both led and lagged temperature rise. The even we are experiencing is
one where CO2 leads.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
M
~misfit~
Guest
Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
As others have said once you've had the first couple you only need one every
10 years or so. That said I haven't had one for 20 years so perhaps I should
get one. <shrug>
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:34:47 +1300, "~misfit~"
shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
I should probably have a tetanus booster shot given that I get cuts
on a regular basis and it's been about 20 years since the last one.
Hmmm. Good point. I just yesterday made a jagged hole in the pad of
my left index finger with a square drive screwdriver bit in my
cordless drill. (Yep, square drive, Irwin SQ2. There was a lot of
force involved, as much blunt force damage as there is tearing. Had
to hold it over my head for 20 mins to slow the bleeding before I
could put a plaster on it and it throbs like a bastard.)
I washed it well in Dettol, squeezing to get the stuff all through
the wound as I was fixing a raised bed garden at the time and had
been digging and planting previously. I'd cross my fingers but....
Geeze. The number of times I *should* have had a tetanus shot but
didn't... I'd be getting one almost weekly if I did the 'right thing'
As others have said once you've had the first couple you only need one every
10 years or so. That said I haven't had one for 20 years so perhaps I should
get one. <shrug>
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
J
Joe Hey
Guest
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:20:15 +1100
Je_us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
That's not what 'innate immunity' is.
Innate immunity is your body's ability of killing every possible
strain that enters your body, the acquired immunity is the one that is
strain specific.
Vit D3 can be helpful in supporting innate immunity.
About 5,000 IU per day, or 20 minutes in midday sun (11:00-14:00 or
so) with body exposed. And depending on location, of course you
wouldn't want to do that in Northern Australia.
Sounds like a cytokine storm.
Take (probably high doses of) Vitamin C & E, Selenium,
N-Acetyl-Cysteine and ibuprofen instead of paracetamol, and fish oil
containing Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and gamma-linolenic acid [GLA].
joe
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422648/
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=12005004146
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9230243
( http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/10/7/1535.full-text.pdf )
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974237
http://www.life-enhancement.com/magazine/article/3219-foiling-cytokine-storms-with-cholinergics
http://www.preventdisease.com/news/09/111509_protect_yourself_cytokine_storm.shtml
Je_us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
That's not what 'innate immunity' is.
Innate immunity is your body's ability of killing every possible
strain that enters your body, the acquired immunity is the one that is
strain specific.
Vit D3 can be helpful in supporting innate immunity.
About 5,000 IU per day, or 20 minutes in midday sun (11:00-14:00 or
so) with body exposed. And depending on location, of course you
wouldn't want to do that in Northern Australia.
Sounds like a cytokine storm.
Take (probably high doses of) Vitamin C & E, Selenium,
N-Acetyl-Cysteine and ibuprofen instead of paracetamol, and fish oil
containing Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and gamma-linolenic acid [GLA].
joe
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422648/
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=12005004146
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9230243
( http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/10/7/1535.full-text.pdf )
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974237
http://www.life-enhancement.com/magazine/article/3219-foiling-cytokine-storms-with-cholinergics
http://www.preventdisease.com/news/09/111509_protect_yourself_cytokine_storm.shtml
J
Joe Hey
Guest
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:29:01 +1100
Je_us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
Good to hear that coming out of the mouth of an Aussie, mate!
That was what I implicated.
No, there's no direct proof.
joe
Je_us <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
Good to hear that coming out of the mouth of an Aussie, mate!
That was what I implicated.
No, there's no direct proof.
joe
X
Xeno
Guest
On 24/12/2015 2:43 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
because I had injured myself and it had been well in excess of 10 years
since the last tetanus booster.
--
Xeno
That seems about right. Last time I needed a tetanus booster, it wasOn 2015-12-23, JeĂus <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:34:47 +1300, "~misfit~"
shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
I should probably have a tetanus booster shot given that I get cuts
on a regular basis and it's been about 20 years since the last one.
Hmmm. Good point. I just yesterday made a jagged hole in the pad of my left
index finger with a square drive screwdriver bit in my cordless drill. (Yep,
square drive, Irwin SQ2. There was a lot of force involved, as much blunt
force damage as there is tearing. Had to hold it over my head for 20 mins to
slow the bleeding before I could put a plaster on it and it throbs like a
bastard.)
I washed it well in Dettol, squeezing to get the stuff all through the wound
as I was fixing a raised bed garden at the time and had been digging and
planting previously. I'd cross my fingers but....
Geeze. The number of times I *should* have had a tetanus shot but
didn't... I'd be getting one almost weekly if I did the 'right thing'
huh? the vaccine is considered to convey 10-year immunity.
because I had injured myself and it had been well in excess of 10 years
since the last tetanus booster.
--
Xeno
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2015-12-23, JeĂus <j@invalid.lan> wrote:
huh? the vaccine is considered to convey 10-year immunity.
--
\_(ă)_
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:34:47 +1300, "~misfit~"
shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
I should probably have a tetanus booster shot given that I get cuts
on a regular basis and it's been about 20 years since the last one.
Hmmm. Good point. I just yesterday made a jagged hole in the pad of my left
index finger with a square drive screwdriver bit in my cordless drill. (Yep,
square drive, Irwin SQ2. There was a lot of force involved, as much blunt
force damage as there is tearing. Had to hold it over my head for 20 mins to
slow the bleeding before I could put a plaster on it and it throbs like a
bastard.)
I washed it well in Dettol, squeezing to get the stuff all through the wound
as I was fixing a raised bed garden at the time and had been digging and
planting previously. I'd cross my fingers but....
Geeze. The number of times I *should* have had a tetanus shot but
didn't... I'd be getting one almost weekly if I did the 'right thing'
huh? the vaccine is considered to convey 10-year immunity.
--
\_(ă)_
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 24/12/2015 12:02 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
**The science trumps the opinions of ignorant people.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
**The science trumps the opinions of ignorant people.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 24/12/2015 12:05 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
**Good for you. Unlike you (apparently) I am capable of being concerned
about the possibility of a complete moron running the US and the vicious
thug that IS running Russia. AND I can be concerned about AGW. Fukushima
was a result of people not listening to the experts who warned that such
an event was possible. Kinda like AGW.
**Of, by not placing the danger front and centre, people may neglect the
problem.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
**Good for you. Unlike you (apparently) I am capable of being concerned
about the possibility of a complete moron running the US and the vicious
thug that IS running Russia. AND I can be concerned about AGW. Fukushima
was a result of people not listening to the experts who warned that such
an event was possible. Kinda like AGW.
**Of, by not placing the danger front and centre, people may neglect the
problem.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 24/12/2015 12:08 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
**Your claim was that would also reject "...(the quite stable) AG CO2 as
a cause for the extremes..."
This claim is in contradiction to what every climatologist on the planet
tells us. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you
are not a climatologist and, therefore, lack any credibility to make
such a claim. CO2 levels are NOT stable. They have increased almost 50%
in the past 150 years and are increasing rapidly.
**Do what you like. Autism was not formally recognised until 1943. It
was not until 1981 that the problem was accepted as a separate
diagnosis. The problem has likely afflicted humans forever, but only
recently has it been given it's status. Thus there APPEARS to have been
a dramatic increase in cases. The truth is more prosaic.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:18:44 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 23/12/2015 9:07 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:29:00 +1300
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Joe Hey wrote:
[snippped]
We know that the sun has periods of high and low activity though,
which
tend to cause variations in the global temperatures.
This is something which can be and is measured and has been ruled
out as being causational in regard to the current extreme weather
patterns. (Which are extreme in cold as well as heat - hardly
likely to be the sun as it's stable - at least when talking
decades or centuries.)
The same argument would also reject (the quite stable) AG CO2 as a
cause for the extremes, so I suspect some fundamental error in your
reasoning.
**Wrong. In the past 150 years, we have seen CO2 levels increase by
almost 50%. This is the most rapid rise in CO2 levels noted in more
than a million years. During this same period, we have seen average
temperatures rise higher and faster than at any time in the past
million years. Based on proxy measurements from ice cores, we can see
that temperatures have tracked CO2 levels very closely over the past
million years or so. That said, you are correct in that Solar
activity is the lowest it has been for several hundred years. Despite
this low activity, the average temperature of this planet continues
to rise. When the Sun resumes it's normal output, we can expect
surface temperatures on this planet to rise faster and higher.
Did you even try to read what this argument was about?
It wasn't about maxima, it was about extremes.
To both sides of the scale.
**Your claim was that would also reject "...(the quite stable) AG CO2 as
a cause for the extremes..."
This claim is in contradiction to what every climatologist on the planet
tells us. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you
are not a climatologist and, therefore, lack any credibility to make
such a claim. CO2 levels are NOT stable. They have increased almost 50%
in the past 150 years and are increasing rapidly.
By the way, if I were to take your argument seriously, I could argue
with the same force that vaccinations are responsible for the
incredible rise of autism on this planet.
And you wouldn't want me to do that, would you?
**Do what you like. Autism was not formally recognised until 1943. It
was not until 1981 that the problem was accepted as a separate
diagnosis. The problem has likely afflicted humans forever, but only
recently has it been given it's status. Thus there APPEARS to have been
a dramatic increase in cases. The truth is more prosaic.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
J
Joe Hey
Guest
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:35:23 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
I call your 'science' highly profitable climate guesswork.
Tweak the variables a bit, and your model predicts financial gain.
joe
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
I call your 'science' highly profitable climate guesswork.
Tweak the variables a bit, and your model predicts financial gain.
joe
J
Joe Hey
Guest
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:34:06 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
I understand your concern and I know where you're coming from.
But I am afraid we're being suckered into a tax- and carbon trade scheme
that will be highly profitable for some people, and that that is
exactly what they are working towards.
So, no, for me no AGW, thank you.
Oh, and merry xmas.
joe
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
I understand your concern and I know where you're coming from.
But I am afraid we're being suckered into a tax- and carbon trade scheme
that will be highly profitable for some people, and that that is
exactly what they are working towards.
So, no, for me no AGW, thank you.
Oh, and merry xmas.
joe
J
Joe Hey
Guest
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:56:06 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Correction: not 'every'.
correct
As I'm not the 'climatologist' here I can only _assume_ you are right.
But a steady increase is not the same as a lot of extremes, i.e. both
highs and lows. So one can't claim a correlation between those two.
(_Steady_ increase of CO2 --> more variability in weather.)
It's speculative. It could be true or not, there is no proof.
The truth is that I don't know many parents of autistic children being
diagnosed with autism, which one would expect if the genetic
explanation were to be true.
Therefore I think it would be wrong _and_ cruel to blame the parents
for the autism of their children, the rate of which is still rising.
joe
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 24/12/2015 12:08 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:18:44 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 23/12/2015 9:07 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:29:00 +1300
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Joe Hey wrote:
[snippped]
We know that the sun has periods of high and low activity
though, which
tend to cause variations in the global temperatures.
This is something which can be and is measured and has been ruled
out as being causational in regard to the current extreme weather
patterns. (Which are extreme in cold as well as heat - hardly
likely to be the sun as it's stable - at least when talking
decades or centuries.)
The same argument would also reject (the quite stable) AG CO2 as a
cause for the extremes, so I suspect some fundamental error in
your reasoning.
**Wrong. In the past 150 years, we have seen CO2 levels increase by
almost 50%. This is the most rapid rise in CO2 levels noted in more
than a million years. During this same period, we have seen average
temperatures rise higher and faster than at any time in the past
million years. Based on proxy measurements from ice cores, we can
see that temperatures have tracked CO2 levels very closely over
the past million years or so. That said, you are correct in that
Solar activity is the lowest it has been for several hundred
years. Despite this low activity, the average temperature of this
planet continues to rise. When the Sun resumes it's normal output,
we can expect surface temperatures on this planet to rise faster
and higher.
Did you even try to read what this argument was about?
It wasn't about maxima, it was about extremes.
To both sides of the scale.
**Your claim was that would also reject "...(the quite stable) AG CO2
as a cause for the extremes..."
This claim is in contradiction to what every climatologist on the
planet tells us.
Correction: not 'every'.
correct
As I'm not the 'climatologist' here I can only _assume_ you are right.
But a steady increase is not the same as a lot of extremes, i.e. both
highs and lows. So one can't claim a correlation between those two.
(_Steady_ increase of CO2 --> more variability in weather.)
It's speculative. It could be true or not, there is no proof.
By the way, if I were to take your argument seriously, I could argue
with the same force that vaccinations are responsible for the
incredible rise of autism on this planet.
And you wouldn't want me to do that, would you?
**Do what you like. Autism was not formally recognised until 1943. It
was not until 1981 that the problem was accepted as a separate
diagnosis. The problem has likely afflicted humans forever, but only
recently has it been given it's status. Thus there APPEARS to have
been a dramatic increase in cases. The truth is more prosaic.
The truth is that I don't know many parents of autistic children being
diagnosed with autism, which one would expect if the genetic
explanation were to be true.
Therefore I think it would be wrong _and_ cruel to blame the parents
for the autism of their children, the rate of which is still rising.
joe
X
Xeno
Guest
On 24/12/2015 6:05 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
That's what I did and I hadn't had a booster for way in excess of 10
years prior. Just to be safe, the doc gave me a booster.
--
Xeno
Get one when you injure yourself on something that looks a little risky.Once upon a time on usenet Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:34:47 +1300, "~misfit~"
shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Clocky wrote:
[snipped]
I should probably have a tetanus booster shot given that I get cuts
on a regular basis and it's been about 20 years since the last one.
Hmmm. Good point. I just yesterday made a jagged hole in the pad of
my left index finger with a square drive screwdriver bit in my
cordless drill. (Yep, square drive, Irwin SQ2. There was a lot of
force involved, as much blunt force damage as there is tearing. Had
to hold it over my head for 20 mins to slow the bleeding before I
could put a plaster on it and it throbs like a bastard.)
I washed it well in Dettol, squeezing to get the stuff all through
the wound as I was fixing a raised bed garden at the time and had
been digging and planting previously. I'd cross my fingers but....
Geeze. The number of times I *should* have had a tetanus shot but
didn't... I'd be getting one almost weekly if I did the 'right thing'
As others have said once you've had the first couple you only need one every
10 years or so. That said I haven't had one for 20 years so perhaps I should
get one. <shrug
That's what I did and I hadn't had a booster for way in excess of 10
years prior. Just to be safe, the doc gave me a booster.
--
Xeno
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 24/12/2015 8:18 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
**Yes, EVERY climatologist.
**For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels hovered around 180 ~
300ppm. In the past 150 years, the figure has shot up to more than
400ppm. Not only is the absolute figure unheard of in human history but,
most critically, the RATE of rise of CO2 levels is more rapid than at
any time in at least the past million years. Probably much longer.
Coincident with that rapid increase, we have seen an increase in
temperatures as well.
So one can't claim a correlation between those two.
**Correct. There is not yet absolute proof. However, this is what we
know, beyond any doubt:
* CO2 acts as a Solar forcing agent (aka: Greenhouse gas - GHG). This
has been determined experimentally thousands of times.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels than at any time in the
past million years.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in average temperatures than at any
time in the past million years.
* An examination of past climate conditions (through ice core proxies) a
very close correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures
are noted. Sometimes CO2 leads temperatures and sometimes it lags. What
is beyond doubt is that when one rises, the other follows. Always.
From this information, ALL (yes ALL) the planet's climatologists agree
that excessive CO2 levels is causing the warming we are experiencing.
The following is less certain:
* The vast majority of climatologists (roughly 98%) are of the opinion
that a 'tipping point' will be reached at approximately 500ppm, where
runaway warming will occur and there will be nothing humans can do to
prevent utter catastrophe. At this point, most researchers believe that
permafrost areas will release huge amounts of methane into the
atmosphere (we're seeing this right now in parts of Russia). Methane is
roughly 20 times more potent than CO2 as a Solar forcing agent.
Coincident with this, the oceans (which contain around 36,000GT of CO2)
will begin outgassing CO2, since warmer water cannot hold dissolved
gases as readily as colder water. This will accelerate the warming, thus
causing more release of methane and more release of CO2 from the oceans.
The entire atmospheric system will suffer positive feedback of such
magnitude that we will have no hope of correcting it.
* Roughly 1% of climatologists feel that the 'tipping point' has already
been reached. The number of climatologists in this group is increasing.
* Another 1% of climatologists (less, actually) believe that there will
be a mechanism which prevents thermal runaway from occurring. No proof
exists to validate this belief however. It is highly speculative. Worse,
the promoters of this hypothesis are employed by Exxon.
**A genetic explanation does not throw "blame" on anyone.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:56:06 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 24/12/2015 12:08 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:18:44 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 23/12/2015 9:07 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:29:00 +1300
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Joe Hey wrote:
[snippped]
We know that the sun has periods of high and low activity
though, which
tend to cause variations in the global temperatures.
This is something which can be and is measured and has been ruled
out as being causational in regard to the current extreme weather
patterns. (Which are extreme in cold as well as heat - hardly
likely to be the sun as it's stable - at least when talking
decades or centuries.)
The same argument would also reject (the quite stable) AG CO2 as a
cause for the extremes, so I suspect some fundamental error in
your reasoning.
**Wrong. In the past 150 years, we have seen CO2 levels increase by
almost 50%. This is the most rapid rise in CO2 levels noted in more
than a million years. During this same period, we have seen average
temperatures rise higher and faster than at any time in the past
million years. Based on proxy measurements from ice cores, we can
see that temperatures have tracked CO2 levels very closely over
the past million years or so. That said, you are correct in that
Solar activity is the lowest it has been for several hundred
years. Despite this low activity, the average temperature of this
planet continues to rise. When the Sun resumes it's normal output,
we can expect surface temperatures on this planet to rise faster
and higher.
Did you even try to read what this argument was about?
It wasn't about maxima, it was about extremes.
To both sides of the scale.
**Your claim was that would also reject "...(the quite stable) AG CO2
as a cause for the extremes..."
This claim is in contradiction to what every climatologist on the
planet tells us.
Correction: not 'every'.
**Yes, EVERY climatologist.
**For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels hovered around 180 ~
300ppm. In the past 150 years, the figure has shot up to more than
400ppm. Not only is the absolute figure unheard of in human history but,
most critically, the RATE of rise of CO2 levels is more rapid than at
any time in at least the past million years. Probably much longer.
Coincident with that rapid increase, we have seen an increase in
temperatures as well.
So one can't claim a correlation between those two.
**Correct. There is not yet absolute proof. However, this is what we
know, beyond any doubt:
* CO2 acts as a Solar forcing agent (aka: Greenhouse gas - GHG). This
has been determined experimentally thousands of times.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels than at any time in the
past million years.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in average temperatures than at any
time in the past million years.
* An examination of past climate conditions (through ice core proxies) a
very close correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures
are noted. Sometimes CO2 leads temperatures and sometimes it lags. What
is beyond doubt is that when one rises, the other follows. Always.
From this information, ALL (yes ALL) the planet's climatologists agree
that excessive CO2 levels is causing the warming we are experiencing.
The following is less certain:
* The vast majority of climatologists (roughly 98%) are of the opinion
that a 'tipping point' will be reached at approximately 500ppm, where
runaway warming will occur and there will be nothing humans can do to
prevent utter catastrophe. At this point, most researchers believe that
permafrost areas will release huge amounts of methane into the
atmosphere (we're seeing this right now in parts of Russia). Methane is
roughly 20 times more potent than CO2 as a Solar forcing agent.
Coincident with this, the oceans (which contain around 36,000GT of CO2)
will begin outgassing CO2, since warmer water cannot hold dissolved
gases as readily as colder water. This will accelerate the warming, thus
causing more release of methane and more release of CO2 from the oceans.
The entire atmospheric system will suffer positive feedback of such
magnitude that we will have no hope of correcting it.
* Roughly 1% of climatologists feel that the 'tipping point' has already
been reached. The number of climatologists in this group is increasing.
* Another 1% of climatologists (less, actually) believe that there will
be a mechanism which prevents thermal runaway from occurring. No proof
exists to validate this belief however. It is highly speculative. Worse,
the promoters of this hypothesis are employed by Exxon.
By the way, if I were to take your argument seriously, I could argue
with the same force that vaccinations are responsible for the
incredible rise of autism on this planet.
And you wouldn't want me to do that, would you?
**Do what you like. Autism was not formally recognised until 1943. It
was not until 1981 that the problem was accepted as a separate
diagnosis. The problem has likely afflicted humans forever, but only
recently has it been given it's status. Thus there APPEARS to have
been a dramatic increase in cases. The truth is more prosaic.
The truth is that I don't know many parents of autistic children being
diagnosed with autism, which one would expect if the genetic
explanation were to be true.
Therefore I think it would be wrong _and_ cruel to blame the parents
for the autism of their children, the rate of which is still rising.
**A genetic explanation does not throw "blame" on anyone.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 24/12/2015 8:11 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
**And I will let you onto a dirty little secret:
The fossil fuel industry (world wide) enjoys around US$400 billion in
subsidies, whereas the renewable energy sector get less than US$90
billion. All from taxpayers. Your taxes are paying for:
* AUS$10 billion PA for the Diesel fuel rebate.
* Billions of Dollars into the pockets of big business IN THE HOPE that
they might reduce their emissions, via the widely discredited 'Direct
Action'. The crazy thing is this: The ETS was to be a market based
system, whereas Direct Action is a taxpayer scheme. One would logically
expect that the Lieberals would embrace a market based scheme. They
didn't, preferring to gouge taxpayers.
**Happy Saturnalia to you.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
**And I will let you onto a dirty little secret:
The fossil fuel industry (world wide) enjoys around US$400 billion in
subsidies, whereas the renewable energy sector get less than US$90
billion. All from taxpayers. Your taxes are paying for:
* AUS$10 billion PA for the Diesel fuel rebate.
* Billions of Dollars into the pockets of big business IN THE HOPE that
they might reduce their emissions, via the widely discredited 'Direct
Action'. The crazy thing is this: The ETS was to be a market based
system, whereas Direct Action is a taxpayer scheme. One would logically
expect that the Lieberals would embrace a market based scheme. They
didn't, preferring to gouge taxpayers.
Oh, and merry xmas.
**Happy Saturnalia to you.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
X
Xeno
Guest
On 24/12/2015 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
found that boys' father had the same defective gene(s) though he didn't
exhibit signs of the disorder himself.
--
Xeno
A friend of mine has 2 sons with autism. Through genetic testing, it wasOn 24/12/2015 8:18 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:56:06 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 24/12/2015 12:08 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:18:44 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 23/12/2015 9:07 PM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:29:00 +1300
"~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Joe Hey wrote:
[snippped]
We know that the sun has periods of high and low activity
though, which
tend to cause variations in the global temperatures.
This is something which can be and is measured and has been ruled
out as being causational in regard to the current extreme weather
patterns. (Which are extreme in cold as well as heat - hardly
likely to be the sun as it's stable - at least when talking
decades or centuries.)
The same argument would also reject (the quite stable) AG CO2 as a
cause for the extremes, so I suspect some fundamental error in
your reasoning.
**Wrong. In the past 150 years, we have seen CO2 levels increase by
almost 50%. This is the most rapid rise in CO2 levels noted in more
than a million years. During this same period, we have seen average
temperatures rise higher and faster than at any time in the past
million years. Based on proxy measurements from ice cores, we can
see that temperatures have tracked CO2 levels very closely over
the past million years or so. That said, you are correct in that
Solar activity is the lowest it has been for several hundred
years. Despite this low activity, the average temperature of this
planet continues to rise. When the Sun resumes it's normal output,
we can expect surface temperatures on this planet to rise faster
and higher.
Did you even try to read what this argument was about?
It wasn't about maxima, it was about extremes.
To both sides of the scale.
**Your claim was that would also reject "...(the quite stable) AG CO2
as a cause for the extremes..."
This claim is in contradiction to what every climatologist on the
planet tells us.
Correction: not 'every'.
**Yes, EVERY climatologist.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume
that you are not a climatologist
correct
and, therefore, lack any credibility
to make such a claim. CO2 levels are NOT stable. They have increased
almost 50% in the past 150 years and are increasing rapidly.
As I'm not the 'climatologist' here I can only _assume_ you are right.
But a steady increase is not the same as a lot of extremes, i.e. both
highs and lows.
**For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels hovered around 180 ~
300ppm. In the past 150 years, the figure has shot up to more than
400ppm. Not only is the absolute figure unheard of in human history but,
most critically, the RATE of rise of CO2 levels is more rapid than at
any time in at least the past million years. Probably much longer.
Coincident with that rapid increase, we have seen an increase in
temperatures as well.
So one can't claim a correlation between those two.
(_Steady_ increase of CO2 --> more variability in weather.)
It's speculative. It could be true or not, there is no proof.
**Correct. There is not yet absolute proof. However, this is what we
know, beyond any doubt:
* CO2 acts as a Solar forcing agent (aka: Greenhouse gas - GHG). This
has been determined experimentally thousands of times.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels than at any time in the
past million years.
* We are seeing a more rapid rise in average temperatures than at any
time in the past million years.
* An examination of past climate conditions (through ice core proxies) a
very close correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures
are noted. Sometimes CO2 leads temperatures and sometimes it lags. What
is beyond doubt is that when one rises, the other follows. Always.
From this information, ALL (yes ALL) the planet's climatologists agree
that excessive CO2 levels is causing the warming we are experiencing.
The following is less certain:
* The vast majority of climatologists (roughly 98%) are of the opinion
that a 'tipping point' will be reached at approximately 500ppm, where
runaway warming will occur and there will be nothing humans can do to
prevent utter catastrophe. At this point, most researchers believe that
permafrost areas will release huge amounts of methane into the
atmosphere (we're seeing this right now in parts of Russia). Methane is
roughly 20 times more potent than CO2 as a Solar forcing agent.
Coincident with this, the oceans (which contain around 36,000GT of CO2)
will begin outgassing CO2, since warmer water cannot hold dissolved
gases as readily as colder water. This will accelerate the warming, thus
causing more release of methane and more release of CO2 from the oceans.
The entire atmospheric system will suffer positive feedback of such
magnitude that we will have no hope of correcting it.
* Roughly 1% of climatologists feel that the 'tipping point' has already
been reached. The number of climatologists in this group is increasing.
* Another 1% of climatologists (less, actually) believe that there will
be a mechanism which prevents thermal runaway from occurring. No proof
exists to validate this belief however. It is highly speculative. Worse,
the promoters of this hypothesis are employed by Exxon.
By the way, if I were to take your argument seriously, I could argue
with the same force that vaccinations are responsible for the
incredible rise of autism on this planet.
And you wouldn't want me to do that, would you?
**Do what you like. Autism was not formally recognised until 1943. It
was not until 1981 that the problem was accepted as a separate
diagnosis. The problem has likely afflicted humans forever, but only
recently has it been given it's status. Thus there APPEARS to have
been a dramatic increase in cases. The truth is more prosaic.
The truth is that I don't know many parents of autistic children being
diagnosed with autism, which one would expect if the genetic
explanation were to be true.
Therefore I think it would be wrong _and_ cruel to blame the parents
for the autism of their children, the rate of which is still rising.
**A genetic explanation does not throw "blame" on anyone.
found that boys' father had the same defective gene(s) though he didn't
exhibit signs of the disorder himself.
--
Xeno
J
Joe Hey
Guest
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 21:33:24 +1100
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Well, you should by now have found out who is really governing 'over'
you...
joe
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Well, you should by now have found out who is really governing 'over'
you...
joe
Oh, and merry xmas.
**Happy Saturnalia to you.
I
Ian Field
Guest
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:567b4723$0$62711$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com...
Several pharmacies in my town have been trying real hard not to sell
tincture of iodine, they're all pushing the Savlon Povidone iodine in an
expensive aerosol.
One even claimed its actually the alcohol in tincture that's anti bacterial
and the elemental iodine doesn't really do anything.
I suspect it may have something to do with the unstable ammonium iodide
compound - that might be the crystals wrapped in little bits of tissue paper
that some toy shops sell - you throw them on the ground and they go off like
a *VERY* tiny firecracker.
A wad of cotton wool soaked in the solution and left in a golf hole to dry
could produce fairly amusing results.
news:567b4723$0$62711$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com...
Several pharmacies in my town have been trying real hard not to sell
tincture of iodine, they're all pushing the Savlon Povidone iodine in an
expensive aerosol.
One even claimed its actually the alcohol in tincture that's anti bacterial
and the elemental iodine doesn't really do anything.
I suspect it may have something to do with the unstable ammonium iodide
compound - that might be the crystals wrapped in little bits of tissue paper
that some toy shops sell - you throw them on the ground and they go off like
a *VERY* tiny firecracker.
A wad of cotton wool soaked in the solution and left in a golf hole to dry
could produce fairly amusing results.