This description of the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs is a bit sobering.

[Burney]

Just in case you were entertaining any notions of human significance. :thumbup:


“The meteorite was so massive that it didn’t notice any atmosphere whatsoever,” said Rebolledo. “It was travelling 20 to 40 kilometres per second, 10 kilometres – probably 14 kilometres – wide, pushing the atmosphere and building such incredible pressure that the ocean in front of it just went away.”
These numbers are precise without usefully conveying the scale of the calamity. What they mean is that a rock larger than Mount Everest hit planet Earth travelling twenty times faster than a bullet. This is so fast that it would have traversed the distance from the cruising altitude of a 747 to the ground in 0.3 seconds. The asteroid itself was so large that, even at the moment of impact, the top of it might still have towered more than a mile above the cruising altitude of a 747. In its nearly instantaneous descent, it compressed the air below it so violently that it briefly became several times hotter than the surface of the sun.
“The pressure of the atmosphere in front of the asteroid started excavating the crater before it even got there,” Rebolledo said. “Then, when the meteorite touched ground zero, it was totally intact. It was so massive that the atmosphere didn’t even scratch it.”
Unlike the typical Hollywood CGi depictions of asteroid impact, where an extraterrestrial charcoal briquette gently smoulders across the sky, in the Yucutan it would have been a pleasant day one second and the world was already over by the next. As the asteroid collided with the earth, in the sky above it where there should have been air, the rock had punched a hole of outer space vacuum in the atmosphere. As the heavens rushed in to close this hole, enormous volumes of earth were expelled into orbit and beyond – all within a second or two of impact.
“So there’s probably little bits of dinosaur bone up on the moon?” I asked.
“Yeah, probably.”

[Sir C]

Just in case you were entertaining any notions of human significance. :thumbup:

No one tell George Monbiot, the **** will try and tax the poor fúcker.

[Burney]

No one tell George Monbiot, the **** will try and tax the poor fúcker.

No, George would love it. He likes anything that kills human beings - even if it means taking everything else with it.

[IUFG]

No, George would love it. He likes anything that kills human beings - even if it means taking everything else with it.

Extinction Rebellion Protester...

a protest isn't a protest until someone sprays "Frack Off" on a government building

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/earth-death-spiral-radical-action-climate-breakdown

:rolleyes:

[Burney]

Extinction Rebellion Protester...

a protest isn't a protest until someone sprays "Frack Off" on a government building

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/earth-death-spiral-radical-action-climate-breakdown

:rolleyes:

The trouble with these chaps is that they're perpetually crying wolf and fail to realise they lose credibility as a consequence. They just come off as an old-fashioned millennial domesday cult who predict the end of the world because - deep down - that's what they actually want to happen.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

But the Earth’s systems are highly complex, and complex systems do not respond to pressure in linear ways. When these systems interact (because the world’s atmosphere, oceans, land surface and lifeforms do not sit placidly within the boxes that make study more convenient), their reactions to change become highly unpredictable.

Small perturbations can ramify wildly. Tipping points are likely to remain invisible until we have passed them. We could see changes of state so abrupt and profound that no continuity can be safely assumed.

The non-linearity and highly unpredictable nature of natural systems should even be within the grasp of an arty farty literary type like you b.

My question to any climate change denialist is what do you actually think the net affect of a few millions extra tons of CO2 in an atmosphere will do - nothing?

[Sir C]

The non-linearity and highly unpredictable nature of natural systems should even be within the grasp of an arty farty literary type like you b.

My question to any climate change denialist is what do you actually think the net affect of a few millions extra tons of CO2 in an atmosphere will do - nothing?

I’m interested in this question as well, h, so thank God you’re here to clarify it for me. Can you just tell me how many million tons of CO2 there should be in the atmosphere? How many million tons has human activity added? Could you express this additional amount as a percentage of the ideal? What does such an additional quantity of CO2 do to the atmosphere? Ha e there been occasions in the past when ’extra’ CO2 occurred naturally in the atmosphere? If so, how does that event compare with this event in terms of percentage of the ideal? I’m keen to hear all of your expertise, please go ahead.

[IUFG]

I’m interested in this question as well, h, so thank God you’re here to clarify it for me. Can you just tell me how many million tons of CO2 there should be in the atmosphere? How many million tons has human activity added? Could you express this additional amount as a percentage of the ideal? What does such an additional quantity of CO2 do to the atmosphere? Ha e there been occasions in the past when ’extra’ CO2 occurred naturally in the atmosphere? If so, how does that event compare with this event in terms of percentage of the ideal? I’m keen to hear all of your expertise, please go ahead.

Of course, one of the major reasons for an increase in CO2 in the atmos is that there are way too many facking humans on the Earth.

Sort that one out, Lefties...

[Sir C]

Of course, one of the major reasons for an increase in CO2 in the atmos is that there are way too many facking humans on the Earth.

Sort that one out, Lefties...

If we could persuade naive Africans, wiley Chinamen and, well, Indians, to stop breeding like fúcking rabbits, we'd all be better off.

[IUFG]

If we could persuade naive Africans, wiley Chinamen and, well, Indians, to stop breeding like fúcking rabbits, we'd all be better off.

Don't the Chinesers already have a 'baby limiting' law?

[Sir C]

Don't the Chinesers already have a 'baby limiting' law?

I think they knocked it on the head.

[IUFG]

I think they knocked it on the head.

ah. So, they're the problem..?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Beijing_smog_comparison_August_2005.png

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I’m keen to hear all of your expertise, please go ahead.

yer mum

. . . . . . . .

[PSRB]

ah. So, they're the problem..?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Beijing_smog_comparison_August_2005.png

"ah, so", slightly racist, imo

[Rich]

if we could persuade naive africans], wiley chinamen and, well, indians, to stop breeding like fúcking rabbits, we'd all be better off.

iahyk.

Aaaaaaaaaaaa

[IUFG]

"ah, so", slightly racist, imo

"ah. So,..." not at all racist, psrb. Nor was it meant to be.

But don't worry about it. I'll accept your apology.

[Burney]

"ah. So,..." not at all racist, psrb. Nor was it meant to be.

But don't worry about it. I'll accept your apology.

'aporogy' imo

[Burney]

The non-linearity and highly unpredictable nature of natural systems should even be within the grasp of an arty farty literary type like you b.

My question to any climate change denialist is what do you actually think the net affect of a few millions extra tons of CO2 in an atmosphere will do - nothing?

As you rightly point out, h, I am a words man. I'm awfully good at analysing and decoding language to extract its deeper - often unintended - meanings. For this reason, when I espy words and phrases such as 'non-linearity', 'highly unpredictable', 'could', 'can', 'may' and 'are likely to', I'm forced to conclude that the writer is bullshítting wildly and has no more clue of the likely outcomes than do I.

[IUFG]

'aporogy' imo

http://www.dailynews.lk/sites/default/files/news/2017/12/08/z_p11-Albert-01.jpg

[Sir C]

http://www.dailynews.lk/sites/default/files/news/2017/12/08/z_p11-Albert-01.jpg

Francoise Pascal. My word.

[Burney]

Francoise Pascal. My word.

I'd have thought the lady on the right would be more your speed?

[Sir C]

I'd have thought the lady on the right would be more your speed?

The daughter of Nippon? They've got sideways fannies, b.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

iahyk.

Aaaaaaaaaaaa

You're not an african Rich. You're a knob.

[Burney]

You're not an african Rich. You're a knob.

Are you saying white people can't be African, h?

[Burney]

The daughter of Nippon? They've got sideways fannies, b.

Is she a nip? I thought she was a Jimmy Stink, tbh.

Either way, they all píss in the same pot.

[IUFG]

Are you saying white people can't be African, h?

Certainly not indigenous Africans, b.

The whiteys are all mad Dutchers and Rhodesians innit

[Sir C]

Is she a nip? I thought she was a Jimmy Stink, tbh.

Either way, they all píss in the same pot.

Jimmy Stink?

Milm?

Have you been learning Martian?

[Sir C]

Certainly not indigenous Africans, b.

The whiteys are all mad Dutchers and Rhodesians innit

There's no one madder than the remaining British Kenyan farming community. Those lads are living firmly in 1953 and they're having a lovely old time of it.

[AFC East]

As you rightly point out, h, I am a words man. I'm awfully good at analysing and decoding language to extract its deeper - often unintended - meanings. For this reason, when I espy words and phrases such as 'non-linearity', 'highly unpredictable', 'could', 'can', 'may' and 'are likely to', I'm forced to conclude that the writer is bullshítting wildly and has no more clue of the likely outcomes than do I.

Well that’s virtually the entirety of science and medicine wiped out then.

[Burney]

Certainly not indigenous Africans, b.

The whiteys are all mad Dutchers and Rhodesians innit

Ah. So how long do you have to be there to be considered indigenous, would you say? After all, we're all indigenous Africans if you go back far enough, aren't we? And since people have this tiresome tendency to move about, any definition of indigeneity is going to be pretty arbitrary, isn't it?

[barrybueno]

I’m interested in this question as well, h, so thank God you’re here to clarify it for me. Can you just tell me how many million tons of CO2 there should be in the atmosphere? How many million tons has human activity added? Could you express this additional amount as a percentage of the ideal? What does such an additional quantity of CO2 do to the atmosphere? Ha e there been occasions in the past when ’extra’ CO2 occurred naturally in the atmosphere? If so, how does that event compare with this event in terms of percentage of the ideal? I’m keen to hear all of your expertise, please go ahead.

The short answer is if the dinosaurs had paid tax they'd still be here today. CO2 isn't a problem if it's taxed correctly.

[Burney]

Well that’s virtually the entirety of science and medicine wiped out then.

But this isn't a scientific document. It's a scare piece designed to engender as much fear as possible without presenting any supporting evidence.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

As you rightly point out, h, I am a words man. I'm awfully good at analysing and decoding language to extract its deeper - often unintended - meanings. For this reason, when I espy words and phrases such as 'non-linearity', 'highly unpredictable', 'could', 'can', 'may' and 'are likely to', I'm forced to conclude that the writer is bullshítting wildly and has no more clue of the likely outcomes than do I.

Allow me to elucidate. In mathematics, a linear equation is one that describes a straight line. It is simple to see the precise relationship between the given values of the x and y plane (staying in the two dimensional domain) with each other. Non-linearity is just a way of asserting that the relationship is far more complex and difficult to quantify accurately.

The problem is that literary types have purloined the term non-linear for descriptive rather than definitive purposes. They will even describe a piece of music or art as non-linear, bóllocks as you rightly say. I use the term purely in its mathematical sense.

If someone can look even briefly and myopically at this world and not conclude that we are in the process of doing grave and perilous damage to our ecology then they would have to be an imbecile.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Are you saying white people can't be African, h?

How can you be sure Rich is white b? It's an assumption that I find a little racist. He may be as black as a coal miner's arse crack.

[Tony C]

Hang on...so there’s a chance...albeit an incredibly low one that the dinosaurs ended up somewhere else?

Lol

Can you imagine being on another planet millions of miles away...you’re playing football with your kid in the back garden when bang.....a dinosaur comes hurtling out of sky and squashes you :clap:

The odds on that?? All of the money ever in existence / 1?

[barrybueno]

How can you be sure Rich is white b? It's an assumption that I find a little racist. He may be as black as a coal miner's arse crack.

We've seen a picture of him and Franky Lamps in a VIP area of a s****y club H

He is Daz Ultra white...

[WES]

Allow me to elucidate. In mathematics, a linear equation is one that describes a straight line. It is simple to see the precise relationship between the given values of the x and y plane (staying in the two dimensional domain) with each other. Non-linearity is just a way of asserting that the relationship is far more complex and difficult to quantify accurately.

The problem is that literary types have purloined the term non-linear for descriptive rather than definitive purposes. They will even describe a piece of music or art as non-linear, bóllocks as you rightly say. I use the term purely in its mathematical sense.

If someone can look even briefly and myopically at this world and not conclude that we are in the process of doing grave and perilous damage to our ecology then they would have to be an imbecile.

I'm loving the idea of non-linearity implying that the scientists are making it all up. I can imagine what Burney's mind would do if someone attempted to explain quantum mechanics to him, that would be the quantum mechanics that deals entirely with probability.

It would, of course, also be the quantum mechanics that led to the development of the nuclear bomb. Imagine that, when all those scientists gathered in New Mexico all those years ago they were guessing at the outcome. Oppenheimer and the rest were all stood there with their fingers crossed hoping it would work because the absence of a linear equation meant they didn't really know.

:clap:

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Little japanese plumber in a Hiroshima greasy spoon in '45 at 8:15 saying to his mate "E = MC2 - load a bollócks more like!"

[IUFG]

Ah. So how long do you have to be there to be considered indigenous, would you say? After all, we're all indigenous Africans if you go back far enough, aren't we? And since people have this tiresome tendency to move about, any definition of indigeneity is going to be pretty arbitrary, isn't it?

I think we can only go back to the advent of the slave trade, sc.

whats that 1750ish?

[Burney]

Allow me to elucidate. In mathematics, a linear equation is one that describes a straight line. It is simple to see the precise relationship between the given values of the x and y plane (staying in the two dimensional domain) with each other. Non-linearity is just a way of asserting that the relationship is far more complex and difficult to quantify accurately.

The problem is that literary types have purloined the term non-linear for descriptive rather than definitive purposes. They will even describe a piece of music or art as non-linear, bóllocks as you rightly say. I use the term purely in its mathematical sense.

If someone can look even briefly and myopically at this world and not conclude that we are in the process of doing grave and perilous damage to our ecology then they would have to be an imbecile.

What you've done there is employed the cheap rhetorical trick of saying that anyone who disagrees with you is an imbecile. You're better than that, h.

Regardless, I remain unaligned on the topic. I have drawn no conclusion either way, since I freely admit that I quite simply do not know enough to draw one. :shrug:

This means I have to fall back on that which I can see and understand. And what I do see is a highly aggressive lobby that has effectively sought to outlaw dissent from peers; that claimed consensus early (which has of course become a self-fulfilling prophecy, since it becomes impossible to get a job if you question the orthodoxy and meant that those who did and had tenure could be marginalised); and been careful to infiltrate all layers of government and media so as to ensure that its conclusions become unquestionable.

This in turn has created and nurtured a host of rent-seeking industries that harvest huge public subsidies whilst its lobbyists ensure that their opposition is taxed to a position of disadvantage.

I also see a lobby that, whilst asserting the incontrovertible nature of its data, makes a point of persecuting those who disagree to a quite remarkable extent. As someone who has always understood that the great thing about empiricism is that it allows nonsense to be dismissed easily through the sheer weight of evidence, I find myself asking why people who are that certain of their ground should feel this need? I also see a lobby that has been proven to have fiddled its figures. Again, I find myself asking why, if your evidence is so overwhelming, you would feel the need to fiddle your figures?

So as I say, no conclusion either way. Just some suspicion, some questions and a healthy scepticism of authoritarian tactics and vested interest.

[Sir C]

The non-linearity and highly unpredictable nature of natural systems should even be within the grasp of an arty farty literary type like you b.

My question to any climate change denialist is what do you actually think the net affect of a few millions extra tons of CO2 in an atmosphere will do - nothing?

You would do well not to trust scientists.

1. Most of them work ast universities - in effect, still at school when they're 50.
2. They have to publish stuff to get a grant every year, so guess what? THEY MAKE SHÍT UP.
3. White-coated workshy ****s.

[Burney]

I think we can only go back to the advent of the slave trade, sc.

whats that 1750ish?

Which slave trade, i? There was the Arab slave trade (which pre-dated ours by some centuries) and then the Portugee and the Spaniards were at it long before we got in on the act.

What you mean, of course, is that it should date from the involvement of white, English-speaking males (Boo! Hiss!, etc) in doing slavery, which can basically be traced to the foundation of the Royal African Company in (I think) 1660-1670-ish? No other slavery before that counts.

[IUFG]

Which slave trade, i? There was the Arab slave trade (which pre-dated ours by some centuries) and then the Portugee and the Spaniards were at it long before we got in on the act.

What you mean, of course, is that it should date from the involvement of white, English-speaking males (Boo! Hiss!, etc) in doing slavery, which can basically be traced to the foundation of the Royal African Company in (I think) 1660-1670-ish? No other slavery before that counts.

Oh, I don't know ( I told you history was a shít subject earlier). Probably the latter you mentioned.