OT: Climate Change Bullshit

This really doesn't describe the French situation. One of the bargains that set up the European economic community was a deal that let the French subs idise their peasant farmers while most them were encouraged to move off the land, allowing the remaining farmers to work farms that could get big enou gh to mechanise.

That was a roughly forty year project, because most of the peasant farmers would rather die than give up the family farm.

Nowadays we holiday in France in a gite (never the same one, so far) - whic h is residential property in an agricultural area that used to accommodate farm workers (who have been replaced by machinery). The property has to be heavily gentrified before it can be rented out to well-heeled foreign visit ors, but running a big farm is a capital intensive business, and investing in tarting up unused structures to level that lets them be rented out as gi tes is one more way of exploiting that capital.

Australia would have had the same problem but the business of making agricu lture more efficient started earlier - Australia's rural population stopped rising around 1890.

Ask any right-wing nitwit who is too old to get stuck the the tedious work involved.

Academics don't work for Greenpeace, and are judged by the number and quality of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Some journals are more selective about what they publish, and are read by a larger audience, so where you publish is part of the quality assessment.

Successful papers do get cited by other authors in publications in peer-reviewed journal, and that is the largest single factor inthe quality assessment.

Greenpeace publishes propaganda - and it's rather obviously designed to be emotionally effective propaganda, which is why I don't like Greenpeace. They do dramatise, and they may well judge the impact by "likes" and "re-tweets".

Trying to conflate the two groups is a remarkably stupid thing to do.

Fraid so.

How many of you are there between those ears boy ?

Nope.

Then you need a new hearing aid, BAD.

They probably took a volume of air in large flask, threw in some barium chl oride solution, closed the flask and shook it up,filtered out the barium ca rbonate that precipitated out of the solution, and weighed it.

If I remember rightly you had to ash the filter paper in furnace before you could weight the barium carbonate - or if the furnace was hot enough - bar ium oxide.

But measuring CO2 levels in air is technically demanding. And what they did measure revealed that it would have been a good idea to climb up Muanu Loa to collect your samples - domestic environments do tend to have higher CO2 levels than open air, and open air around cities higher levels that over o cean.

The Museum of Arts et Metiers in Paris

I've seen them. My immediate impression was that he had a lot of money to s pent on getting his lab gear made - he was a tax farmer, and that lost him his head during the Terror stage of the French Revolution, but paid for som e very nice gear.

Not really. There is a enough published information from back then to make it clear the people doing the measurements were aware that what they saw de pended on the environment they sampled.

You've found one book that mentions a measurement. There are others.

Keeling didn't put his measuring up on Mauna Loa because he personally thou ght that it was a good idea - rather it solved a well-known problem.

But the conclusion you drew from what you had read happens to be wrong, pro bably because you hadn't read nearly enough, though a certain enthusiasm fo r denialist propaganda may have encoruage you to adopt an untenable positio n.

Since the consequences of Brexit seem to involve the destruction of the UK - or at least England - as a viable country - it's had to see de-railing it as treason.

Treason never prospers, for if it does nobody dares to call it treason.

John Larkin is sci.electronics.design most prolific poster.

He'd probably resent being called a troll, but he resents anything that conflicts with his vanity.

And Cursitor Doom warning other people against trolls does have a certain comic component.

John Larkin's all-purpose cop out. The joke is that he improvises electronics, and thinks that this improvisation is some kind of systematic design process.

He has mentioned that his average "development time" is two weeks, from concept to release to production.

One would like to see the evidence supporting that claim. John Larkin's choice of reading is dictated by it's flattery content - he needs a lot of flattery to stay interested - and you find more of that in propaganda than in rational analyses.

It might. Education could counteract it.

Perhaps. Again one would like to see links to evidnece

If John Larkin thought about the denialist propaganda that he recycles here, he'd be embarressed by his gullibility, so that isn't going to happen.

Meanwhile I'm not going to tolerate people dumping half-baked propaganda here - it needs to be labelled as mindless rubbish.

Some people die going to Denver, about a mile up.

And there are other hazards of altitude. Pens leak. Things explode.

What was the first thing that you designed professionally? When was that? How much were you paid?

Cursitor Doom wrote

Wrong, as always.

Nope. Only one nuclear power plant left in California:

The local Dungeness crabs don't have radiation problems. However, Domoic acid is a problem and has delayed the opening of crab season this year. Looks like it's mostly open now:

"Commercial Dungeness Crab Season Delayed in Northern California" More:

None of your business.

Erm, yes:

The main source of the annual variation is the vast forested landmasses of the northern hemisphere which get long days of sunshine and warmth and are frozen solid during winter. The variation of CO2 with latitude is quite interesting and almost completely absent at the South pole - there being no corresponding large land masses at the relevant latitudes in the southern hemisphere - just lots of deep open ocean.

The crucial evidence that the changes in CO2 concentration are coming from fossil fuels is the changing isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere which is consistent with burning materials that have been made by photosynthesis (which preferentially grabs C12).

The other feedback is that when the tundra permafrost melts potentially very large amounts of methane will get released relatively quickly in geological terms. Or at the onset of an ice age there is a lot of land in the northern hemisphere for snow to lie on changing the local albedo significantly as the snow line advances southwards year by year.

Putting a CO2 measurement station on top of an active volcano does not strike me as a particularly good idea.

Jeroen Belleman

It is interesting to note that many alarmists try to give the impression that the temperature rise is directly proportional to CO2 contents.

In reality, the relationship is logarithmic

dT = A ln(x(x0)

I which dT is temperature increase in Kelvins, x is the new concentration and x0 is the concentration of the base year in ppm e.g. during ice age or prior to industrialization. A is a proportional constant, often quoted as 5.33 K, but I have seen smaller numbers.

So if the CO2 contents doubles from 400 to 800 ppm, the temperature increase would be 3.7 K. Going from 800 ppm to 1600 pm and there will be an additional 3.7 K increase. Or counting backwards to 200 pm, this would give 3.7 degrees colder.

you won, get over it.

Paris has always enjoyed a good riot. The cause may vary but most times I have been there you don't have to go far off the main drag to find riot police sat in coaches tooled up for when the next one kicks off.