So it is the end of the paddling season again. We improved allot this year. Our open men's team went from finishing last to coming around 5th each time. We are now only a few minutes away from winning. So I suppose that it's time to get fit for next season.
I will post a longer account soon of my planned outrigging adventures. Also I have been in the Paluma Push and will post some photo's and details of that soon. Then it is sort of time to start thinking about Christmas. I hope that people have some ideas for this year as I am drawing a blank at the moment. Maybe I should take off to another country say Fiji and have a dive and relax in a tropical Paradise (oh that's right I live in a tropical Paradise).
Also soon I will post some photos of Dogs, Canoes and other things that I have acquired lately (the Dog and the house will be posted for you glen).
Monday, July 30, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Anticipation of Arguments
There is a show that is coming out soon on the ABC. It should give some people some ammunition to fire back at the people who realise that climate change is real and caused by humans. It's just a pity that they will be firing blanks. This show has been aired in the UK already and, Very prominant people in the UK, very smart people in the UK have already written about this show. They have written that while they are happy for discussion and are ready for someone to show them that climate change isn't true they do not want the facts misrepresented. So rather that continue with a poorly written diatribe from me I will present a well written account from some one else.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 13th March 2007.
Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the Dark Ages. All the great heroes of the discipline – Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein – took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today’s crank has often proved to be tomorrow’s visionary.
But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed that AIDS can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will one day be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have “any measurable effect” on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo(1).
The problem with “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the British government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands of people have been misled into believing that there is no problem to address.
The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots – the shorter they are, the higher the temperature(2).
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”(3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made – in this case in their arithmetic(5).
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”(8). This too turned out to be incorrect(9). Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. “We’ve often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work”, Schmidt says, “but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we’ve seen.”(12) None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the earth’s surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine(13,14,15).
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”(16)
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went quietly back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some of them, like the film makers, shriek “censorship!” This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have ever come across. If you demonstrate that someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Professor Wunsch says that he was “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” by the people who made it(17).
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director, Martin Durkin. In 1998 the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had “misled” his interviewees about “the content and purpose of the programmes”. Their views had been “distorted through selective editing”(18). Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already outdated and discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 13th March 2007.
Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the Dark Ages. All the great heroes of the discipline – Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein – took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today’s crank has often proved to be tomorrow’s visionary.
But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed that AIDS can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will one day be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have “any measurable effect” on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo(1).
The problem with “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the British government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands of people have been misled into believing that there is no problem to address.
The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots – the shorter they are, the higher the temperature(2).
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”(3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made – in this case in their arithmetic(5).
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”(8). This too turned out to be incorrect(9). Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. “We’ve often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work”, Schmidt says, “but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we’ve seen.”(12) None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the earth’s surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine(13,14,15).
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”(16)
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went quietly back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some of them, like the film makers, shriek “censorship!” This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have ever come across. If you demonstrate that someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Professor Wunsch says that he was “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” by the people who made it(17).
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director, Martin Durkin. In 1998 the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had “misled” his interviewees about “the content and purpose of the programmes”. Their views had been “distorted through selective editing”(18). Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already outdated and discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
References:
1. David Bellamy, 14th August 2004. An ill wind blows for turbines. Letter to the Guardian.
2. Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, 1991. Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science, Vol 254, 698-700.
3. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, 2004. Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data. Eos, Vol. 85, No. 39.
4. Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 2000. Reply to “Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited” by P. Laut and J.Gundermann. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 105, No 27, 493-495.
5. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.
6. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 1997. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: A missing link in solar-climate relationships. The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 59, 1225-1232.
7. Peter Laut, 2003. Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol 65, 801-812.
8. Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, 2000. Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. Physical Review Letters Vol 85, no 23. 5004-5007.
9. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.
10. Henrik Svensmark et al, 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society Volume 463, Number 2078, 1364-5021.
11. Danish National Space centre, October 2006. Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate.
http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate
12. Gavin Schmidt, 16th October 2006. Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
13. Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, 2nd September 2005. The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.
14. B.D. Santer et al, 2nd September 2005. Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.
15. Steven J. Sherwood, John R. Lanzante and Cathryn L. Meyer, 2nd September 2005. Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming. Science. Vol 309, pp1556-1559.
16. Tom Wigley et al, April 2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences: Executive Summary. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
17. Geoffrey Lean, 11th March 2007. An inconvenient truth… for C4. Independent on Sunday.
18. Independent Television Commission, 1st April 1998. Channel 4 to apologise to four interviewees in “Against Nature” series. Press release.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Global Warming for Dummies
An interesting argument for all those sceptics that still for some unknown reason are trying to not beleive in Global Warming. Maybe you don't have to beleive.
What can you choose and what can you not choose. What are the risks associated with doing nothing and with doing something.
What can you choose and what can you not choose. What are the risks associated with doing nothing and with doing something.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Sunsetbay Extreme Challenge
Whish me luck everyone I have a 500m sprint and a 12km marathon on Saturday and I have a 39km changeover race on Sunday. Then on Monday I am going to go for a bit of a bike ride to work out the lactic acid. Should be fun and I'll give an update next week.
Cheers Lewis
Cheers Lewis
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
A good look at Biofuels
Go to this Story on the Speigel Magazine website and you can read a good in depth look at biofuels and where they are now as well as were they are going.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Hinchenbrook
So I thought that if i didn't say something about my trip to Hinchenbrook soon I never would. Here is a breif description of the trip.
This whole trip really started at the end of last year when I was booking the places on the Island and booking the ferry. Karina (from the latest rogaine) decided much later that she would like to come along on the trip as well. the problem was that by thetime that she got organised the were no places left on the Island over easter (as there are only 30 people allowed on Hinchenbrook at any one time). Easter must just be a popular time.
It all worked out in the end though as Karina was able to get a spot from soome one who cancelled there trip.
Min, Karina and I went onto the Island at about 4pm on Easter friday. We were due to leave the Island on 12pm Easter Monday so there wasn't actually all that long for us to do the walk.
On the first afternoon we walked to Mulligan falls. camped and had a swim. Cooked our food and went to bed. You know the usuall stuff. Through the night though the wind came up and there was a breif storm. Not hard to deal with you reckon. Well it wouldn't have been but since there are three of us and I onld have a two man tent I had brought along my experimental (read unfinnished) Hammock. This brilliant piece of work has yet to be give a fly or water proof covering. So that first night I slept sondly untill 6am when the rain started and I woke up to a wet face and had to quickely put away my hammock and sleeping bag.
The walks through the day were brilliant great scenery and two great people to talk to all day. We took some stunning photo's of the walk and you can see them if you click on the Photo's link on the side bar.
The nights on the other hand we not so fun. My hammock, while comfy, was not condusive to a full nights sleep as for the next two nights it rained at least once every hour and a half. so I didn't get much in the way of sleep. At least I woke the other two up as well because i often had to hide in the tent for a while waiting for the rain to stop.
The second night we stopped at Zoe bay, where there is an awesome swimming spot. and the third night we stopped at Little Ramsey bay underneath the imposing presence of Mt Bowen. The walk from Zoe to Little Ramsey was the longest streatch that we had to do (6Hr) and also involved crossing a swamp through which Karina managed to provide suitable entertainment (ie. falling in sinking up to her knees etc.). Min nearly fell over laughing when Karina sank to her knees in mud then lost her shoes in there as well.
I highly recomend the walk but take awaterproof sleeping vessel.
This whole trip really started at the end of last year when I was booking the places on the Island and booking the ferry. Karina (from the latest rogaine) decided much later that she would like to come along on the trip as well. the problem was that by thetime that she got organised the were no places left on the Island over easter (as there are only 30 people allowed on Hinchenbrook at any one time). Easter must just be a popular time.
It all worked out in the end though as Karina was able to get a spot from soome one who cancelled there trip.
Min, Karina and I went onto the Island at about 4pm on Easter friday. We were due to leave the Island on 12pm Easter Monday so there wasn't actually all that long for us to do the walk.
On the first afternoon we walked to Mulligan falls. camped and had a swim. Cooked our food and went to bed. You know the usuall stuff. Through the night though the wind came up and there was a breif storm. Not hard to deal with you reckon. Well it wouldn't have been but since there are three of us and I onld have a two man tent I had brought along my experimental (read unfinnished) Hammock. This brilliant piece of work has yet to be give a fly or water proof covering. So that first night I slept sondly untill 6am when the rain started and I woke up to a wet face and had to quickely put away my hammock and sleeping bag.The walks through the day were brilliant great scenery and two great people to talk to all day. We took some stunning photo's of the walk and you can see them if you click on the Photo's link on the side bar.
The nights on the other hand we not so fun. My hammock, while comfy, was not condusive to a full nights sleep as for the next two nights it rained at least once every hour and a half. so I didn't get much in the way of sleep. At least I woke the other two up as well because i often had to hide in the tent for a while waiting for the rain to stop.
The second night we stopped at Zoe bay, where there is an awesome swimming spot. and the third night we stopped at Little Ramsey bay underneath the imposing presence of Mt Bowen. The walk from Zoe to Little Ramsey was the longest streatch that we had to do (6Hr) and also involved crossing a swamp through which Karina managed to provide suitable entertainment (ie. falling in sinking up to her knees etc.). Min nearly fell over laughing when Karina sank to her knees in mud then lost her shoes in there as well.
I highly recomend the walk but take awaterproof sleeping vessel.
Why can't I own a Canadian
I saw this on the net and I like it alot. It's a brilliantly written letter to counter the arguments against Gay rights in the US.
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
October 2002
/Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:/
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
Hope you like it Cheers Lewis
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
October 2002
/Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:/
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
Hope you like it Cheers Lewis
Monday, April 02, 2007
Adding some spice to life
So i get back from a big weekend regatta in Mackay and the next Morning I wake up to this Warning from BOM:
TSUNAMI BULLETIN
TSUNAMI THREAT TO EASTERN AUSTRALIA and Willis and Barrier Reef Islands, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre in Hawaii has detected an undersea earthquake near Solomon Islands and has issued a Tsunami Bulletin.
The earthquake has also been detected by Geoscience Australia.
UPDATED
*****
Willis Island Meteorological station reported NO noticable affect of waves at 9am by which time the Tsunami should have passed. They are checking to see if there has been any affect to beaches.
At this stage the Threat seems to have eased, will maintain the warnings until after any wave may pass near Cooktown after 9.30am.
*****
AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS
ORIGIN TIME - 6:40 am EST 02 APR 2007
COORDINATES - 8.6 SOUTH 157.2 EAST
LOCATION - SOLOMON ISLANDS
MAGNITUDE - 8.1
Based on the magnitude and location of the earthquake, tsunami could start affecting these locations at the following local time:
Cooktown from 0931am 02/04/2007
Cairns from 0949am
Brisbane 1033am
Gladstone 1139am
Mackay 1144am
This bulletin is also available through TV and Radio broadcasts and the Bureau's website at
www.bom.gov.au/tsunami/
This Certianly add some spice to your morning
TSUNAMI BULLETIN
TSUNAMI THREAT TO EASTERN AUSTRALIA and Willis and Barrier Reef Islands, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre in Hawaii has detected an undersea earthquake near Solomon Islands and has issued a Tsunami Bulletin.
The earthquake has also been detected by Geoscience Australia.
UPDATED
*****
Willis Island Meteorological station reported NO noticable affect of waves at 9am by which time the Tsunami should have passed. They are checking to see if there has been any affect to beaches.
At this stage the Threat seems to have eased, will maintain the warnings until after any wave may pass near Cooktown after 9.30am.
*****
AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS
ORIGIN TIME - 6:40 am EST 02 APR 2007
COORDINATES - 8.6 SOUTH 157.2 EAST
LOCATION - SOLOMON ISLANDS
MAGNITUDE - 8.1
Based on the magnitude and location of the earthquake, tsunami could start affecting these locations at the following local time:
Cooktown from 0931am 02/04/2007
Cairns from 0949am
Brisbane 1033am
Gladstone 1139am
Mackay 1144am
This bulletin is also available through TV and Radio broadcasts and the Bureau's website at
www.bom.gov.au/tsunami/
This Certianly add some spice to your morning
Thursday, March 29, 2007
YES it's REAL
So the Stern report has been published. This report was charged with reporting to the UK government about climate change it's validity the probable outcomes and ways to avoid the worst of the effects. These are the Key messages from the first section.
Key Messages
An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.
Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures. This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a globalscale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C.
If annual greenhouse gas emissions remained at the current level, concentrations would be more than treble pre-industrial levels by 2100, committing the world to 3 – 10°C warming, based on the latest climate projections.
Some impacts of climate change itself may amplify warming further by triggering the release of additional greenhouse gases. This creates a real risk of even higher temperature changes. Higher temperatures cause plants and soils to soak up less carbon from the atmosphere and cause permafrost to thaw, potentially releasing large quantities of methane. Analysis of warming events in the distant past indicates that such feedbacks could amplify warming by an additional 1 – 2°C by the end of the century.
Warming is very likely to intensify the water cycle, reinforcing existing patterns of water scarcity and abundance and increasing the risk of droughts and floods. Rainfall is likely to increase at high latitudes, while regions with Mediterranean-like climates in both hemispheres will experience significant reductions in rainfall. Preliminary estimates suggest that the fraction of land area in extreme drought at any one time will increase from 1% to 30% by the end of this century. In other regions, warmer air and warmer oceans are likely to drive more intense storms, particularly hurricanes and typhoons.
As the world warms, the risk of abrupt and large-scale changes in the climate system will rise. Changes in the distribution of heat around the world are likely to disrupt ocean and atmospheric circulations, leading to large and possibly abrupt shifts in regional weather patterns. If the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets began to melt irreversibly, the rate of sea level rise could more than double, committing the world to an eventual sea level rise of 5 – 12 m over several centuries.
The body of evidence and the growing quantitative assessment of risks are now sufficient to give clear and strong guidance to economists and policy-makers in shaping a response.
This obviously states that global warming is real and is happening. I find it difficult to believe that there are still people out there that refuse to believe that this is a real issue. I suppose that it is just a way of ignoring and inconvenient truth.
This is the link to the stern report. If you have some spare time read it. It has dire warnings in it but also alot of hope and optimism
Key Messages
An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.
Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures. This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a globalscale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C.
If annual greenhouse gas emissions remained at the current level, concentrations would be more than treble pre-industrial levels by 2100, committing the world to 3 – 10°C warming, based on the latest climate projections.
Some impacts of climate change itself may amplify warming further by triggering the release of additional greenhouse gases. This creates a real risk of even higher temperature changes. Higher temperatures cause plants and soils to soak up less carbon from the atmosphere and cause permafrost to thaw, potentially releasing large quantities of methane. Analysis of warming events in the distant past indicates that such feedbacks could amplify warming by an additional 1 – 2°C by the end of the century.
Warming is very likely to intensify the water cycle, reinforcing existing patterns of water scarcity and abundance and increasing the risk of droughts and floods. Rainfall is likely to increase at high latitudes, while regions with Mediterranean-like climates in both hemispheres will experience significant reductions in rainfall. Preliminary estimates suggest that the fraction of land area in extreme drought at any one time will increase from 1% to 30% by the end of this century. In other regions, warmer air and warmer oceans are likely to drive more intense storms, particularly hurricanes and typhoons.
As the world warms, the risk of abrupt and large-scale changes in the climate system will rise. Changes in the distribution of heat around the world are likely to disrupt ocean and atmospheric circulations, leading to large and possibly abrupt shifts in regional weather patterns. If the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets began to melt irreversibly, the rate of sea level rise could more than double, committing the world to an eventual sea level rise of 5 – 12 m over several centuries.
The body of evidence and the growing quantitative assessment of risks are now sufficient to give clear and strong guidance to economists and policy-makers in shaping a response.
This obviously states that global warming is real and is happening. I find it difficult to believe that there are still people out there that refuse to believe that this is a real issue. I suppose that it is just a way of ignoring and inconvenient truth.
This is the link to the stern report. If you have some spare time read it. It has dire warnings in it but also alot of hope and optimism
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Greenpeace are Stupid
Now I have some reasons for the title of this post. The Government has finally come out and decided that they should support Biofuels. Now biofuels in their current form are not the best at reducing CO2 emissions. This is because we are only using 10% ethanol to 90% Petrol mix this is a mix that allows for the fuel to be put strait into cars as they are now with no modification. There is not a huge reduction in the CO2 emitted per unit of fuel when only 10% of the fuel is from renewable sources. the next problem is that our current source of ethanol is from Cane sugar which is a good source of ethanol. There are better ways such as cellulose digestion to produce ethanol which use waste product to produce ethanol. This makes the agricultural side of the production much more efficient. Due to the farm being able to sell sugar and ethanol.
At this point I should say that Greenpeace has come out stating that there is no point in using biofuels like E10 petrol as there are no real CO2 emission reduction.
However Cellulose digestion and some other biofuels are still in the development stages. Either developing the techniques or developing the scale to be able to supply the quantities needed. To enable this development investment is needed and investment will only come when there is a market. Making that market is the job of entrepreneurs and Government. So Greenpeace coming out against or even dismissing the current biofuel market will slow down the development of better biofuels and real savings in CO2 emissions.
Wake up to your self Greenpeace!!!!!!!!!
At this point I should say that Greenpeace has come out stating that there is no point in using biofuels like E10 petrol as there are no real CO2 emission reduction.
However Cellulose digestion and some other biofuels are still in the development stages. Either developing the techniques or developing the scale to be able to supply the quantities needed. To enable this development investment is needed and investment will only come when there is a market. Making that market is the job of entrepreneurs and Government. So Greenpeace coming out against or even dismissing the current biofuel market will slow down the development of better biofuels and real savings in CO2 emissions.
Wake up to your self Greenpeace!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)