|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 19, 2021 12:53:53 GMT
What do you think Biden is planning? Biden planning? ?? Indeed - even Democrats planning where the plans involve anything outside the CONUS and do not affect their personal bank accounts is pushing credulity. "But the reality is, the medium term reality is that, if we sell our freedom and our values in exchange for investment opportunities and trading opportunities, we will lose the system which has made Wall Street great and made the City of London great. We will lose that freedom; we will lose our rule of law.
And it won’t take very long, these things can be abolished with breathtaking speed. I think perhaps the biggest political challenge that our leaders face is dealing with our financial service industry."www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/roger-garside-a-coming-coup-will-end-chinas-communist-dictatorship_3863237.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 19, 2021 12:31:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 19, 2021 12:23:06 GMT
Hi Sig, That doesn't work either. May be all the UTM trackers on the link?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 18, 2021 13:20:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 18, 2021 13:09:40 GMT
The deaths from COVID in Colombia unfortunately are running at about 600 per day. The UK with a little larger population is about 8 deaths per day. Before the vaccination program began to take effect early this year, the UK deaths hit 1500 per day. A vaccination is cheaper than a bottle of pills and it lasts for a long time. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9700339/Coronavirus-Indian-variant-makes-99-Covid-cases-UK.htmlSo Influenza is now killing more people in UK than COVID-19 something you have to read a LONG way into this DM article to find. I would suspect that had the numbers of deaths remained in single figures all the lock-downs and shut downs would not have happened and big pharma vaccines would not have been approved for ' emergency use' leading to significant loss of income for the pharma share holders. Of course Pharma was more concerned about the numbers of lives saved Late update If you just scan through the DM article you should note the shrunk Y axes to make the numbers look scarier. The use of 'cases' and 'infections' when what they really mean is finding particles of SARS-CoV-2 (not even live virus) after 40+ amplification cycles. Normally, these PCR tests would be stopped after ~25 cycles. As the approach is not to dig till a virus is found; but to identify the virus that is causing the reported symptoms - difficult if the 'patient' says they are feeling perfectly well and have no symptoms. This looks more and more like a 'self-fulfilling' test program. Need to stop the June 21 'Freedom day' so increase testing and then have the media and PHE shroud wavers all set up to go into panic mode and hero health minister 'Matt Hancock' duly stops the June 21 'Freedom day'- to save the sunk cost of the vaccination drives.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 20:30:29 GMT
Yet another 'erudite' post from Willis but using Average Atmospheric Temperature' as the metric for Average Atmospheric Heat Content' his i Averaging an intensive variable is a nonsense; The incorrect units for 'heat content' are being used as it should include the latent heat on the water molecules. It is heat that is being 'trapped' not temperature. To know the temperature caused by that heat it is necessary to know the water content of the atmosphere; Then the enthalpy (specific heat) can be calculated and the metric for heat in a gas is kilo Joules per kilogram. It is unsurprising that if you use the incorrect units you will not see what you expect to see, But what do I know I am only a system engineer that has spent years testing systems and novel ideas. #1. What is required to be proven? #2. what are the correct metrics for finding that? #3. How can we set up an experiment that allows those metrics to be measured? #4. Create a script for the experiment etc etc - not difficult - but PhD physicists seem unable to do it failing at the first or second #. Note that it follows that all the treemometer graphs and other geologic period graphs are probably pretty but useless; if they make no attempt to assess the energy content of the atmosphere that is what the greenhouse effect is about - trapping heat.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 20:18:41 GMT
Yet another 'erudite' post from Willis but using Average Atmospheric Temperature' as the metric for Average Atmospheric Heat Content' Averaging an intensive variable is a nonsense; The incorrect units for 'heat content' are being used as it should include the latent heat on the water molecules. It is heat that is being 'trapped' not temperature. To know the temperature caused by that heat it is necessary to know the water content of the atmosphere; Then the enthalpy (specific heat) can be calculated and the metric for heat in a gas is kilo Joules per kilogram. It is unsurprising that if you use the incorrect units you will not see what you expect to see, But what do I know I am only a system engineer that has spent years testing systems and novel ideas. #1. What is required to be proven?#2. what are the correct metrics for finding that? #3. How can we set up an experiment that allows those metrics to be measured? #4. Create a script for the experiment etc etc - not difficult - but PhD physicists seem unable to do it failing at the first or second #.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 19:11:43 GMT
So, until then. they still want to use the "sh_t-for-results" models to guide expensive public policy. Of course they don't need them, as they already "know" the answer. As long as the models show something 'close' to what the climate 'scientists' expect they will be accepted and cited any cognitive dissonance and they will be discarded.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 19:06:51 GMT
Driving a few mules from Colombia to MO is not cheap and these days the Cartels want a cut too.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 19:04:05 GMT
Why should they? China seems to have things under control. We're talking Dems here. China is their ally, not Taiwan. That might prove embarrasing in the not too distant future. The administration and the G7 are making public, tougher-than-usual verbal AND paper statements aimed at China. China is responding with aggressive words and "some" actions. What would the US/G7 do if the CCP actually invaded Taiwan? That would be like the USA 'invading' Alaska or perhaps Puerto Rico/Hawaii - as they are part of the USA can they be 'invaded' by the USA?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 18:58:44 GMT
It would not be the first time that economists have 'the wrong sign' on the costs of an effect. I helped proof read that paper and my first cataract operation is booked for 12th July. so that could explain your requirement for an 'English Translation' for the CO2 paper - in which case your consumption of fosters need not be reduced
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 18:55:24 GMT
"Insensitivity of global warming potentials to carbon dioxide emission scenarios
Ken Caldeira & James F. Kasting
Nature volume 366, pages 251–253 (1993)Cite this article
Abstract
GLOBAL warming potentials for radiatively active trace gases (such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons) have generally been expressed1–2 relative to the time-integrated climate forcing per unit emission of carbon dioxide. Previous attempts to estimate the integrated climate forcing per unit CO2 emitted have focused on perturbations to steady-state conditions in carbon-cycle models. But for non-steady-state conditions, the integrated climate forcing from a CO2 perturbation depends both on the initial conditions and on future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. As atmospheric CO2concentrations increase, the radiative forcing per unit CO2 emitted will become smaller because the strongest absorption bands will already be saturated. At the same time, higher concentrations of dissolved carbon in the surface ocean will reduce the ocean's ability to absorb excess CO2from the atmosphere. Each of these effects taken alone would affect the climate forcing from a pulse of emitted CO2 by a factor of three or more; but here we show that, taken together, they compensate for each other. The net result is that the global warming potential of CO2 relative to other radiatively active trace gases is nearly independent of the CO2emission scenario. Thus, the concept of the global warming potential remains useful, despite the nonlinearities in the climate system and uncertainties in future emissions."Abstract Is there a plain English version? Speaking as someone with a cup of fore-brain removed - and what was left now being sprayed with radiation and given chemo' therapy' to prevent any healing I can only say that I followed what it was saying. Perhaps you should reduce your 'Fosters' intake?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 13:27:20 GMT
It would not be the first time that economists have 'the wrong sign' on the costs of an effect.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 13:06:21 GMT
Another paper that claims that it knows ' global mean temperature' presumably global mean Atmospheric temperature to within 1F back literally eons ( And including a 'belief' by a team of Climate 'scientists' from the Netherlands that CO2 was about twice its current level - it fits with what they want so it must be correct. Average atmospheric temperature is a mathematical nonsense as a gas 'temperature' is an intensive variable. In this case the presence of water vapor raises the enthalpy of the air without including the enthalpy and using units kilo joules per kilogram (units of HEAT not temperature) not only are the incorrect metrics being used but the incorrect inputs to the calculation are being used. "More heat means a higher concentration of water vapor can be trapped in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which means more warming, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere."More water vapor also means more cloud and albedo at the short wave energy level so heat that would have entered the oceans is reflected direct back to space - COOLING the Earth system.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 10:58:48 GMT
And another cold hard look at the 'inconvenient truths' of the democrat/left wing dreams
|
|