Harold Squared

Just to be more clear, the fictional Prometheus organism in the novel becomes airborne and consumes not only petroleum but just about anything derived from it, including plastics.

Could refraction by the atmosphere be involved? And am I wrong thinking perihelion is more of a yearly phenomenon than a daily one?

Curious about negative matter as opposed to the antimatter first postulated by Dirac and later confirmed by the discovery of antiparticles, thanks in advance for your gracious contributions.

I have considered all the above and more and am more confused than ever. For example, John C, your flat assertion that the CFCs are evenly distributed is at odds with the cited explanation of preferential planetary distillation. If you are correct in this, why is the condition of the polar regions of such grave concern? They are, after all, relatively thinly populated. Why not focus on the alleged detiorioration of the ozone layer in temperate or tropical regions? That would scare people more, which is pretty much the primary goal of the environmentalists. Furthermore, given that ultraviolet radiation is responsible for the formation of ozone to begin with, isn't some sort of temporary deficiency in ozone to be expected at the polar regions after months of continued darkness? The polar regions are notoriously variable, regardless of human activity. This would account for the recent "all-time low" reported in April 2011(universe today.com), as well as reports of low levels prior to the introduction of the CFC hypothesis and indeed the development of such now taboo refrigerants. R. Penndorf, "The annual variation of the amount of ozone over northern Norway", Annales de geophysique, time 6, fasc. 1, 1950, pp. 4-9. P.Rigaud and B. Leroy, "Presumptive evidence for a low value of the total ozone content above Antarctica in September, 1958", Annakes Geophysicae, 1990, 8(11), pp. 791-94. These introduce enough reasonable doubt to acquit said refrigerants, not guilty of assault on the ozone layer, next case. The example of April 2011 also contradicts the implied gradual post ban recovery of the phenomenon, naturally. Not that anyone on the thread would knowingly try to pull the proverbial wool over any observing eyes, of course.

Oh, heavens, more doomsayers, how novel from the boys who call "wolf" habitually. Despite a few brave souls in the Greeniac movement timidly admitting that nuclear power is a viable and logical alternative, most remain committed to the popular fiction that nuclear is somehow "too dangerous" and therefore taboo. So both fusion and fission research languish in relative obscurity while idiotic solar and wind schemes are heavily subsidized and loudly touted to a gullible public. Incidentally, the Arctic Ocean was already supposed to be ice free by now according to similar claims released to the popular press in 2007, 12/12, UK Telegraph, to be precise. According to AGW adherents the ice caps would have been gone for several years by now. Tipping points to the left of us, tipping points to the right of us, etc. but if short range forecasts are erroneous, just switch to long range ones and count on a forgetful public. It has been brought to my attention that my participation in this particular discussion is unwelcome, so I will let you gleefully contemplate the impending climate apocalypse(again) without further interruptions. Time alone will tell.

Why stop at microorganisms which eat plastic? There are already ones that eat crude oil, just amp those puppies up and watch 'em go! There is a novel called "Ill Wind" which explores the ramifications of such an event and billions die, oh happy day! Authors Kevin J. Anderson and Doug Beason, not that weather warden chick.

My thanks to those who have presented evidence so far in this thread. This of course specifically EXCLUDES posts citing forecasts for the end of the current century based on models of questionable merit. Not pointing any fingers here, of course. It takes little imagination or work to realize that the current conditions will in fact change and that by 2100 relatively few of us will be alive to continue the debate. It is safe to assume that the usual suspects will react to any adverse event in their traditional manner.

CO2 levels are going up and temperatures have remained largely stable for years now, despite media hype. One can "document" any trend you like by choosing the desired time scale. The current period is part of a "rebound" effect from the so called "Little Ice Age" which ended around the 1870s. The glaciers people are fretting about today were grinding whole cities into dust and forcing people to move south in Europe to regions where agriculture was still possible.And they didn't freaking drive there in SUVs, of course, but you can bet they were burning everything in sight trying to stay warm. eh-resources.org

A third alternative not mentioned so far is known as a shunt, a loop of synthetic material implanted subcutaneously which serves as a "scaffold" for natural vascular tissue to grow over which will remain patent after being punctured repeatedly- in theory. I have seen patients with such devices in all four limbs as they work better in theory than in practice for various reasons. The usual practice is to not stick the fistula too close to the last access point in order to avoid provoking an aneurysm or weak point, but one method is to never let such points completely heal by accessing the same spot repeatedly by carefully picking off the scab and then using a special blunt needle. If I were a patient I would prefer such a system, and a fistula as it involves no foreign body introduction. In conclusion the two access points, withdrawal and return, must be far enough apart to prevent ineffective filtration through the system, and using the blunt needle method would help prevent this error as well.

Fantastic topic, let us know how it turns out, please.

A major part of the AGW doctrine is that the influence of rising CO2 levels will bring about increasing incidence and severity of extreme weather events, most recently loudly trumpeted regarding Hurricane Sandy. So what does the historical record tell us? A completely different story, that's what. Instead of rains of blood and frogs, plagues of locusts and acne, we find relatively docile storm seasons around the globe as CO2 levels relentlessly creep upward. Don't take my word for it look for yourselves. If CO2 levels are the DOMINANT factor in climate why not give credit where credit is due? Because only nasty weather has anything to do with global warming according to said doctrine, res ipsa loquitor.

Thank you for the voice of candid experience! At least today's USN submariners do not have to deal with diesel fuel contaminating their dwindling rations as used to be the case. You can see the how desirable having fresh food available continually would be. Even in low Earth orbit, green growing plants seem to be important to spacefarers independent of their oxygenating benefits. It probably would not take much current to be equivalent to the amount of exercise of today's average feedlot cattle and I have heard Kobe beef cattle are pampered quite a bit to keep them tender but your point is one I had not considered.

You are correct, it may not be proper to speculate thus, but the pressure to conform to AGW is formidable, as you must be aware. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group pegs the margin of uncertainty at 0.05 C and the calculated difference between 2010 and 2014 at 0.01 C. So it might be trivial even if technically true.

Okay both agencies are less than half certain that 2014 is warmest on record, so why don't they consult the satellite records? Maybe because some heads will roll if it is found NOT to be so?

If you are an AGW cultist the odds are good that you fit such a shoe, colleague. The questions however, are more regarding the cause, consequences, and degree of said warming.

Thanks for the spiffy quote, nice to know that WIKIPEDIA is considered such an authoritative source in this community. But, dear colleague, you left out the bit about it only applying to "semi-volatile" chemicals such as lindane, DDT, and poly chlorinated biphenyls. To my knowledge, not even the most deranged environmentalist has implicated these compounds in the alleged artificial decline in stratospheric ozone levels and refrigerant gases are not mentioned at all in the cited WIKIPEDIA information. Are you sure you are posting to the correct thread? The hole is a seasonal phenomenon in no way affected by refrigerants. There are a few more facts for you, colleague. Would you like to know the origin of the myth to the contrary? And thanks for the solar update, but I am not so blind as you two seem to think- I can read WIKIPEDIA aaall day long. Is that what you guys do to get all that there "expertise"? Golly gee, maybe a rube like me could get some of it one day too!

Agreed. Vegan food leaves much to be desired to the palates of most people I know. Space travelers should at least be able to take the tastes and textures of Earth with them, since they must leave so much else behind. In order to support morale the crews of nuclear submarines enjoy exceptional dining, by design. The limited space, relative isolation and limited sensory stimulation of the submarine vessel are shared by most near term spacecraft and planetary settlements.

What can be learned? Do not build on the coastlines or in the North American areas prone to tornadoes. Have people learned this lesson? Obviously not. The good news is that storms are NOT getting more severe or frequent on average considering the historical record.

If you seriously think comparing Earth to Venus is valid in this regard you are hardly an expert in such matters. Earth, inhabited by people. Carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere. Venus, not so much. Carbon dioxide, principal component of its atmosphere. Furthermore, my acerbic friend, I do not even know your real name, so that would be out of the question in any case. Expert testimony is easy to find, however, in the person of Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph. D. and thirty year veteran of the climate research business. He says politics is driving the "science" of AGW and I am inclined to believe it, based on the sorry record of the Mann hockey stick graph and numerous other exposed lies of the AGW cultists. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT seems to agree. Eminent scientists, both of them. 2014, "hottest year on record"? Hardly.

For me he is DOMESTIC politician and fairly well known, Nobel Laureate and all that. Major supporter internationally of AGW, but zero scientific credentials. His "evidence" was presented in an error-riddled documentary which was heavily laden with alarmist propaganda and emotional sentiment. Despite scientific lack of merit of this infamous Academy Award winning film, I see no AGW cultist brave enough to repudiate it. Gore has done more to popularize the AGW cause than Arrhenius himself or any number of contemporary researchers. So you have the gall to hold me to a higher standard? John is so right. You crowd have so big a blind spot where your own errors are concerned it is amazing. Plus I was complying with your request to elaborate at the time. But but okay, I doubt that CO2 level has a significant let alone disastrous effect on world climate. Watch this space for reasons why.

Nitric acid and my old ratty bathrobe equals guncotton, mwahahahahah!

In the polar regions ozone is depleted by the same means which produce the auroras Borealis and Australis. Earth's magnetic field directs charged particles into the upper atmosphere ionizing gas molecules, including ozone. It is just that simple. Halocarbons have little to nothing to do with it. Seriously, does anyone think that the devious little(but heavier than air) halocarbon molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns before wreaking havoc? I mean, anyone SANE?

Too right, it is much more complicated than that, after all. For example leading AGW advocate, mediocre science student, Nobel Laureate and Academy Award Winner, former Vice President of the USA Albert A. Gore and his buddies paid $200 million for 15% of Canadian based PetroBakken, a natural gas producing fracking company back in 2013. Asked about the transaction, Gore responded that wind and solar were inadequate and that if he did not invest in the company someone else would. He compared himself to Robin Hood. So fire is good when it puts money in AL GORE's pocket. Or some kind of hood's...

Yet I shall not, for that is the position of the wind/solar/AGW advocates. It is pretty much all they do. "Fire BAD!"