Re: wish you were right ...
Another reason all coal is from 300-350 mya is that plants evolved lignin which couldn't be broken down by bacteria and fungi. it took them a while to catch up. that is why there is no coal after 300 mya.
20 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Sep 2015
However there are many examples of life doing impulsive things that it almost seems we are driven to go somewhere else.
The first move from the sea onto land. Even now many fish leave the environment there are ideally suited for and cross the boundary between sea and land and vice versa. Eels, Lungfish, Sharks, Catfish, Channidae and the ones that have gone the other way, Manatee (once elephants,) Comodo Dragons, Sea Snakes, Cetaceans many of which seem to be trying to get back on land (whale dolphin beachings.)
Many animals that have ended up on the Pacific Islands that launched themselves off into the wild blue yonder to make a life in isolated places.
Quite wrong actually. Venus is 95% CO2 and it is not the CO2 that makes it hot but the amount of just well gas. Venus has a surface pressure 90 times greater than Earth. If you measure the temperature on Venus 54km up at the same pressure as the surface of Earth then the temperature is the same as Earth. Which shoots a hole in the 'greenhouse effect'.
Even if all the CO2 locked in ALL fossil fuels is released back into Earth's atmosphere we will never become a Venus. We will never even get back to the atmosphere we had a billion years ago because so much of the CO2 has been locked up in limestone by little sea creatures.
I have thought on similar lines. Another thing that Nature could be doing is using humans to free up all of the CO2 that has been locked up in fossil fuels and raise the levels of CO2 to help out the plants. Let's face it plants were nearly at starvation level when the CO2 had dropped to 200ppm and 2000ppm would be much better level for plants.
What do you watch CNN?
The Trump team have only brought 5 or 6 cases to court. None of the evidence has been heard in court. The cases have been dismissed with some procedural punt. One goes like this: You can't bring a case before the election because no crime has yet been committed. You can't bring a case after the election because Laches (you should have spoken up sooner).
The Texas case was dismissed because of Standing. A lot of legal experts think that was wrong. However a similar case has been brought by 4 states where they obviously do have standing so we will see.
It is clear to me the election was stolen. The Dominion machines are not fit for purpose and are totally insecure. Admin passwords often taped to the front of tabulators allowing poll workers access to the file system. They use SolarWinds software and as per this article it is insecure.
In the Antrim county examination it was found that the sensitivity of the scanners was set so high that 68% of ballots failed the scan and were sent to an adjudication folder (maximum error rate for certification 0.0006%). The ballots in that folder are supposed to be checked and allocated to the candidate depending on 'voter intent'. This procedure was not followed and 8000 votes went to Biden instead of Trump in a county that only has 16000 voters. The same level was found in an Arizona county i think where there are 2.5 million voters. A full forensic examination is now being carried out.
If you haven't heard any of this then maybe it is you that is in a bubble.
As an American (i assume) you should be demanding true and fair elections. As a software guy (i assume) you should be demanding that these garbage machines be scrapped and replaced with something that is not so prone to errors and open to manipulation by so many bad actors.
It appears it is you that is disconnected from reality. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me and Trump. Trump has many routes left.
There are still cases going on in the states and supreme court that can't be dodged like they have so far.
The republican legislature have forwarded dual voters to the electoral college. I think it is Pence who decides which of the dual voters will vote.
If the court rules to decertify the results of the election in the 6 or so states in question or even 3 then it goes to a vote in the house. Republicans have a majority of states in the house.
I guess he could invoke the insurrection act to put down this coup but he is a long way from that yet.
">Unfortunately no brexiteer has been allowed near the leave process.
Except for Boris Johnson & David Davis & Dominic Raab - Brexiteers all."
Except they weren't. Boris was FS. David Davis was involved in negotiations but that wasn't the leave process at all. The leave process was being conducted by Oily Robins in secret and the results of that were handed to the cabinet at Chequers where they were told to agree to the dog's breakfast or walk home. As for Raab he ended up being Oily Robins dispatch clerk shuttling back and forth to Brussels with Oily's latest sellout. Raab finally resigned when he realised that what had been agreed about the backstop was not actually in the printed draft that wasn't available until yesterday. After the cabinet had been in to see May one by one and told they had to support it before they could read the nearly 600 pages.
"They found that the regions near the equator reflect radar waves more readily than its poles, and the reflection patterns are best explained by the existence of these icy blades."
If the surface was smooth you would get more reflection at the equator than the poles.
If the surface is covered in penitentes to almost 15 metres or 50 feet in height, with a spacing of 7.5 metres there would be more reflections near the poles than the equator. All those surfaces perpendicular to the radar beam and all.
""Most of those peer-reviewed studies were total rubbish where eg researchers chucked large doses of hydrochloric acid into the water to see how fish or coral reacted"
Bullshit. Such studies exist but are not a majority. "
http://www.nature.com/news/crucial-ocean-acidification-models-come-up-short-1.18124
<i>Yet according to a survey published last month by marine scientist Christopher Cornwall, who studies ocean acidification at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and ecologist Catriona Hurd of the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, <b>most</b> reports of such laboratory experiments either used inappropriate methods or did not report their methods properly </i>
Notice where it says "MOST"
From the paper itself
<I>To assess the use of appropriate experimental design in ocean acidification research, 465 studies published between 1993 and 2014 were surveyed, focusing on the methods used to replicate experimental units. The proportion of studies that had interdependent or non-randomly interspersed treatment replicates, or did not report sufficient methodological details was 95%.</I>
95% were not fit for purpose
<I>In a comparable analysis, there was a significant decrease in the number of published studies that employed inappropriate chemical methods of manipulating seawater (i.e. acid–base only additions) from 21 to 3%, </I>
Coral is slow growing and although things have improved as recently as 2010 21% of studies were using "inappropriate chemical methods of manipulating seawater"
Kip Hansen covered this here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/ocean-acidification-trying-to-get-the-science-right/
<I>Further, “the number of experimental units used per treatment in studies was low (mean = 2.0).” Think about that — imagine doing a medical study, an RCT, but using only 2 patients per cohort. Then consider that there are obvious co-confounders with the two patients, such as being siblings! No journal would touch the resultant paper – it would have no significance at all. Granted, one might get away with reporting it as a Case Study, but it would never be considered clinically important or predictive. And yet that is precisely the situation we find generally in OA research – very small numbers of experimental units poorly isolated, often with co-confounders that obfuscate or invalidate treatment effects.</I>
Note "No journal would touch the resultant paper – it would have no significance at all." and yet these papers got past peer review.
As I said you are a nutter!!!
ROFLMAO
<I>The bad news is that this carbon sink is already failing, causing the oceans to acidify very noticeably, as proved by many -scientific, peer reviewed- studies.</I>
Now I know you are a nutter!
<b>The oceans can only become acidic if the earth runs out of rocks!</b>
Most of those peer-reviewed studies were total rubbish where eg researchers chucked large doses of hydrochloric acid into the water to see how fish or coral reacted and found that it didn't go well. The fact that this research got past peer review shows that peer review is not doing what you and other people think it is doing and is a crock.
@cornz 1
Agree 100% including point 4.
Way out of the range of a hobbyist drone, these things must be bigger and have longer range than that. Engines are designed and built to handle the impact of flocks of birds so a small drone should be no problem. If these things have the range to get up to 7,000 feet then they are serious kit and it should be taken as an act of terrorism. Why aren't the police trying to track the powerful transmitters.
Seems strange that in all of these anecdotes I have read the plane is always coming into land. Surely if you really wanted to attack a plane you would do it during takeoff. The plane is going slower, the engines turning faster, losing an engine on takeoff probably would cause a crash while during landing probably not at all.
I call BS on these stories until I see actual proof. How mush would it cost to put a dashcam on a plane? Peanuts! Surprised they aren't required by law anyway.