Print

[Porkscratching]

Isn’t that the stuff we put in the Kellogg’s submarines......... apologies to anyone under 70..

I had one of the other versions , not Kellogs, that you put, as I recall, two different types of  pill/tablet in,....which reacted in a similar way, that raised and submerged the toy sub, as if by magic..!!
The tin bath at my Gran's was the ocean for it, and a couple of other boats..all good fun.

[gromet]

Personally I blame microwaves a microwave oven heats things fact .  Phones and loads of other things transmit  microwaves from device to tower to device all around the world ? If I've heard right they found out about microwave cooking when someone layed down a chocolate bar when they were in a military radar truck and it melted so that's my theory on global warming 😁

[Worf]

Personally I blame microwaves a microwave oven heats things fact .  Phones and loads of other things transmit  microwaves from device to tower to device all around the world ? If I've heard right they found out about microwave cooking when someone layed down a chocolate bar when they were in a military radar truck and it melted so that's my theory on global warming 😁

I used to work in microwave heating research when it was first being developed for household use. A couple of the guys were ex Navy who had been developing it for high powered radar on ships. They were told not to switch it on in Portsmouth harbour after they blacked out everyones tv and cooked seagulls that happened to be in the wrong place - however, back to the wet wood

[Old Hywel]

Isn’t that the stuff we put in the Kellogg’s submarines......... apologies to anyone under 70..

I thought that was baking powder.
Hywel, sub 70

[Wittsend]

We could use the microwaves to dry the wood - problem solved 

Only 13 pages to find the solution 

[w3526602]

 

Hi,

And one of my mate's at "Boot Camp" (aka Square-bashing) left his "bull" boots too close to an antedluvian pot belly stove ... came back to find them standing in a puddle of black boot polish.

Those stoves could burn a hundred-weight (50kg?)each, of coke overnight ... and we'd still wake up with frost on our blankets.

We used to send two blokes out on foraging "sorties" (wearing hob-nailed boots and carrying a dustbin). If they found something that could be burned, a gentle kicking usually liberated it.

Two blokes were caught raiding the camp cinema.The CO said that he could not understand why anybody would want to steal coal.

Character building! We were never ill.

602

PS ...Will a microwave dry a wet dog. Please do not try this!

[Sunny Jim]

Didn't someone once say that flatulence in cows ( and pigs) is destroying the environment...tho I'm contributing a bit this evening after my shepherds pie..

Methane is a minimal percentage of the atmosphere but also produced in relatively large quantities by natural sources so the contribution from domestic farm animals is overall minimal. The problem with methane, and indeed CO2 as a 'greenhouse' gas is that their effect is swamped by water vapour, the most significant 'greenhouse' gas in the atmosphere. This is because water vapour absorbs IR radiation across a broad spectrum whereas, especially methane. absorbs particular wavelengths. The effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases - it is a logarithmic effect so you can't get 'runaway warming' from CO2. Places like Venus don't have water like the earth, which provides a cooling effect because the earth isn't actually anything like a greenhouse and heat is not trapped as such. Water absorbs latent heat to become vapour, rises and irradiates the energy into space.

pumping out vastly more pollution to make vastly more stuff is having an impact.

Now there's the rub, our clean air act and other legislation has greatly reduced pollution in this country because we are rich enough to care. Now here's the rub - CO2 is not pollution, it is a sign of efficient combustion and plant food. As Wittsend says, plants are best around 800 to 1000ppm -our current CO2 levels are low in the long term history of the planet. Total natural sources of CO2 have not been quantified and our current rising level is going to be mostly due to the steady warming over the last 300 odd years causing the oceans to emit CO2. This is the reason the CO2 levels lag, not lead, the temperatures in the ice cores.

The problem we have is one of perception. The T shirt shown claims that 'Science is the truth' well it isn't! Science is more a pursuit of truth by testing hypotheses and failing to disprove them. Not everything in a scientific paper is truth, it depends on the attitude of its authors - there is plenty of poor science and deliberate fraud that goes on. Most scientific topics are split between factions and each defends its position. I have just watched a documentary about the Battle of Hastings proposing it took place at Crowhurst, not near Battle - it talked about 'academic reputations'. That is the problem where a paradigm becomes fashionable, the consensus if you like, but could easily be wrong. In medical science, the Australian doctor who discovered Helicobacter Pylori was vilified because of the money being made from antacid drugs, and the reputations of the scientists and clinicians involved. He went against the 'scientific truth' but was proven right. In the Lancet, a revue was published suggesting up to 50% of medical science could be simply wrong as it cannot be replicated. The purpose of scientific publications is not to show how clever you are but to put your work up for others to refute, disprove or support. Unfortunately to say that this is done in a fair dispassionate and gentlemanly fashion is actually a laughably naive view! The 'Climatgate' e-mails show collusion promote the 'warming' narrative and stop any 'contrarian' papers being published - including trying to get an editor sacked for publishing a paper not supporting global warming.

Global warming was pushed first by an environmental activist working for a branch of NASA whose predictions failed to come true. Look up how many other deadlines for 'saving the planet' have already passed. Scratch the surface and the whole narrative dissolves into uncertainty. So it has got warmer over the last few decades, so CO2 has increased, so we have had some bad weather this lawt winter? That is fine, but one of the rules of science is that it is not enough to prove a correlation between factors. In my college days 35odd years ago, we were shown a graph with a straight upward line showing increased cancer rates against another factor. We were asked if we thought the factor was the cause of the cancers? Of course it is, look at the correlation. However, the plot was cancer rates vs the number of landline telephones (no mobiles then). Clearly the correlation does not show a cause and effect - it is likely that the increase is caused by other factors such as increased wealth, and also longer life expectancy. Climate change shows some associations but has not proved cause and effect. Our recent warm spell from the late 80s to the early 00s corresponds to strong solar activity with record sunspot numbers. The sun today is virtually blank, and we are having some stormy wet weather. The IPCC does not consider solar activity's indirect effect on the climate as it is simply not fully understood.

I work at a place full of scientists, UCL so no surprise that I have seen the evidence and yes, the earth is warming up as a result of human activity on the planet.

And here's the rub. Climate change is worth millions in research grants for universities, if you propose research countering the current paradigm, you are unlikely to get funded. If the earth is warming up as a result of human activity, why did it start doing so 350 years ago, and why have temperatures leveled off since 1996? There were two strong El Nino events in the interregnum, but the underlying trend is pretty flat. The latest temperatures are showing a decline! If catastrophic global warming was happening, it would show up in the raw data in every weather station, and there would be no need to adjust historic temperatures downwards to get rid of the 1940s 'blip' whereby temperatures were at least as warm as today. Every report of a record temperature that comes up, there is someone willing to look up in the past to prove that this is incorrect and that records have been equaled in the near past! It's funny that mistakes are never corrected once reported and record cold is always ignored.

I will not support the hypothesis of human caused catastrophic climate change as a) temperatures are not rising as was predicted back in 1988 by James Hansen b)CO2 levels are not unusually high and have been rising steadily whereas temperatures haven't (i.e. no correlation is demonstrated) c) the weather we have today is not unprecedented when looking into the past d) the IPCC does not adequately consider solar effects and doesn't model clouds at all. e) long term temperatures are falling towards another ice age f) raw data is being 'homogenised' to show warming that isn't there. g) scientists I have met from fields such as geography, geology etc whose jobs don't depend on research grants don't support the man made global warming theory. h) It has been said by the former executive of the UNFCCC that their motive is to change the economic model of the world, and has nothing to do with the climate (i.e. it is entirely political)

Sunny Jim

[Wittsend]

From first hand experience I can say the scientists chase the grant money.
You have to, if you want a job you need a grant(s) to fund your work.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.


 

[w3526602]

Hi,

It all started the day that Fred forgot his sandwiches!

I can't remember exactly what happened (*up or down?) but the "climate" in New York improved following 9/11, apparently because fewer aircraft were flying overhead. How many different "co-relations" can be assumed by that? Will the current 'flu scare have a similar effect?

Perhaps we should polish the surface of the Moon, to improve it's reflective powers? More natural light, so less need to generate electricity for lighting.

602

* I assume the temperature dropped in New York, 

[w3526602]

Hi,

My last mail was only a few minutes ago.

A quick Google ... "Climatic conditions in New York following 9/11" suggests something changed. Probably an increase in Skin Cancer?

602

[oilstain]

I thought that was baking powder.
Hywel, sub 70

YES so do I, also sub 70

[Grandadrob]

Money, power and politics, no hope for the truth anytime soon then. 

Ok baking powder it was, sorry.

[Porkscratching]

You can always tell when a politician is lying..it's mouth is moving...
Clearly the same applies to any "hirelings" brought in to support the above ( £££ )

[g6anz]

This may be a simplistic outlook ,but. As a species we are burning more fuels than ever. Burning produces heat, some of this heat will disappear into space but some will be retained by the atmosphere. So the earths temperature will rise.
It doesn't matter what's burnt or where or how man is adding to the temperature of the earth.
Is that a reasonable assumption ?

[oilstain]

It doesn't matter what's burnt or where or how man is adding to the temperature of the earth.

So does thsat mean we can all burn coal, wet wood and build more coal fired power stations