Politics

[Ray B]

, the truth is that Russia has already lost this war. The question is how it gets out of it.

That is the question that real diplomats should be answering- What offramp is acceptable and face-saving to the Russians yet provides for terms acceptable to Ukraine.

 

[Red Leg]

That is the question that real diplomats should be answering- What offramp is acceptable and face-saving to the Russians yet provides for terms acceptable to Ukraine.

Probably so, but for the foreseeable future, the Ukrainians and their immediate neighbors in Central Europe will have a major say when this war ends and under what conditions. At the moment, they are winning and I do not believe they are very concerned what offramp is acceptable to Putin.

 

[Ray B]

With regard to the Carbon emissions discussion: Carbon is necessary for life- In fact it is the distinguishing factor between Organic and Inorganic chemistry. The other point relative to this discussion is the concept of limiting factor. Living organisms whether plant or animal have needs of various things and each's ability to grow and prosper is subject to the element that is in relatively short supply. A plant needs CO2, light, water and elements (fertilizer). It can only grow to the extent that the needs are met and there will be one need that is short in supply. A plant can have plenty of CO2, & water, but if it only gets a small amount of light, its growth will be limited by that amount. Same with CO2- infact, for most areas of the Earth, CO2 is the limiting factor for growth- there is plenty of light, water and nutrients for much more growth, but the plant is stunted by the shortage of CO2. Most of the air on Earth is made up of about 70% nitrogen. 20% oxygen & 10% other elements including CO2. Plants would be delighted if some of the oxygen was converted to CO2. So if people were concerned about the plants, they would do more to convert O to CO2.

 

[rigbymauser]

No, it isn't good strong analysis or remotely accurate.

Scott Ritter, along with being a convicted pedophile, has been a periodic paid voice of Russian TV for more than a decade. Before that, he made a name for himself when not trying to doodle 15 and 16 year old girls, by criticizing US Middle East Policy. Embittered and with no real credibility beyond the kook fringes in this country, he has become a regular critic of US and NATO policy on Russian TV. Echoing his fellow outcast, Douglas McGregor, one of his favorite topics for his Russian fans is the inevitability of Russian victory. The right wing America First isolationist movement has given him a breath of life again in this country.

In listening to these Russian apologists, it is important to remember the only thing that Russian TV allows on air is what benefits Putin and his regime. Its message, like his talking points in this podcast, is pure propaganda. He is a member in good standing of the "Hate America First" club.

This isn't hard to figure out. Russia has achieved none of its pre-war objectives. Because it no longer has the conventional military capacity to do so, the truth is that Russia has already lost this war. The question is how it gets out of it.

"Not even Ukrainians believe it is possible to recapture Kerson ....." That alone certainly aged like leftover seafood.

Also note he uses "special military operation" rather than war - doesn't want to get in trouble with his minders.

Op-ed column: Sandusky sex charges contrast with setup against Scott Ritter

The state of Pennsylvania has declared that Delmar native Scott Ritter is a violent sexual predator,

dailygazette.com

Thanks.

Didn`t know this...

 

[Ray B]

At the moment, they are winning and I do not believe they are very concerned what offramp is acceptable to Putin.

Do a good - bad evaluation of continuing the war, list things under each column for each country. Total at the end for a benefit plus or negative score

Ukraine
Good Bad


Russia
Good Bad


Other European Countries
Good Bad

United States
Good Bad


Total

 

[Woodcarver]

With regard to the Carbon emissions discussion: Carbon is necessary for life- In fact it is the distinguishing factor between Organic and Inorganic chemistry. The other point relative to this discussion is the concept of limiting factor. Living organisms whether plant or animal have needs of various things and each's ability to grow and prosper is subject to the element that is in relatively short supply. A plant needs CO2, light, water and elements (fertilizer). It can only grow to the extent that the needs are met and there will be one need that is short in supply. A plant can have plenty of CO2, & water, but if it only gets a small amount of light, its growth will be limited by that amount. Same with CO2- infact, for most areas of the Earth, CO2 is the limiting factor for growth- there is plenty of light, water and nutrients for much more growth, but the plant is stunted by the shortage of CO2. Most of the air on Earth is made up of about 70% nitrogen. 20% oxygen & 10% other elements including CO2. Plants would be delighted if some of the oxygen was converted to CO2. So if people were concerned about the plants, they would do more to convert O to CO2.

I agree completely. However, the gas mix is even thinner than you reference. Nitrogen makes up roughly 78% of the air, CO2 roughly 0.03-0.04%. Those claiming CO2 is a pollutant are completely ignorant of the necessity of CO2 in sustaining life on this big rock.

 

[CoElkHunter]

A question here for anybody with an insight into North Korea’s military funding. Where does NK get the funds to keep replacing all the missiles it’s been firing recently? I thought the country was basically broke?

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

PROXY (INDIRECT) MEASUREMENTS​

Data source: Reconstruction from ice cores.
Credit: NOAA

 

[sgt_zim]

PROXY (INDIRECT) MEASUREMENTS​

Data source: Reconstruction from ice cores.
Credit: NOAA

View attachment 504587

Not sure where the NOAA came up with that "historical" high water mark, but the highest known concentration of CO2 in the world's natural history was around 20K ppm, not 300.

 

[Ray B]

I don't have the information in front of me, but I recall another historical measure of atmospheric gases. It is of oxygen. The level of oxygen has fluctuated between 15 and 25%. In terms of parts per million I suppose 15% would be 150,000 parts per million- considerably less than 300. However the results of the change in oxygen affected wildfires. the cycle was plants growing and making more oxygen, increasing the percentage, then at about 25% things became very flammable- The Earth had significant wildfires- burning the plantlife converting a lot of oxygen to CO2. As the saturation of oxygen decreased fires decreased and virtually went out at oxygen levels of 15%, then the cycle resumed. When I was in high school 60 years ago the percentage of oxygen was noted as 20%- I suspect presently it is within a percentage point or two of that.

 

[RTG]

A question here for anybody with an insight into North Korea’s military funding. Where does NK get the funds to keep replacing all the missiles it’s been firing recently? I thought the country was basically broke?

Missiles supplied by the Chong Chang Ling rubber band factory in Pyongyang.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Missiles supplied by the Chong Chang Ling rubber band factory in Pyongyang.

Including their newest Long Dong missile?

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

A question here for anybody with an insight into North Korea’s military funding. Where does NK get the funds to keep replacing all the missiles it’s been firing recently? I thought the country was basically broke?

Looks like it’s mostly exports of minerals and agricultural/fish products to China.

Economy of North Korea - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[RTG]

Including their newest Long Dong missile?

They've been compensating ever since launching the No Dong missile in the early 1990's. Weird thing is, why they paint the Long Dong white?

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Not sure where the NOAA came up with that "historical" high water mark, but the highest known concentration of CO2 in the world's natural history was around 20K ppm, not 300.

Source?

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

I use to think human population had little influence on climate change. Then I saw a graph of world population and I modified my thinking. Consider the population of California in 1900 was around 1 million people and now it's 35+million. I am a firm believer in climate change, as the geologic record is pretty convincing about the rise and fall of sea level many, many times over millions of years. Just too many people in the world. How's that for an inconvenient truth?

 

[RTG]

I use to think human population had little influence on climate change. Then I saw a graph of world population and I modified my thinking. Consider the population of California in 1900 was around 1 million people and now it's 35+million. I am a firm believer in climate change, as the geologic record is pretty convincing about the rise and fall of sea level many, many times over millions of years. Just too many people in the world. How's that for an inconvenient truth?



View attachment 504592

Climate Change has been the only consistent on Earth since before mankind ever existed. From a ball of fire to a ball of ice and everything in between. Only thing we know for sure is we are not in control of it. Beware of those who say otherwise.

 

[Ray B]

Just too many people in the world.

So kill them- that'll save the Earth.

Are you related to Stalin or Hitler?

 

[Red Leg]

I don't believe anyone with a modicum of education believes that the climate hasn't and won't change. The one thesis that apparently can't be debated is to what degree human activity has with respect to climate change. It is rather like poor Galileo being convicted of heresy and sentenced to life imprisonment (house arrest) for debating the church's belief that the Earth was the center of the universe about which, among other things, the sun orbited.

Obviously modern day assumptions with respect to human influence on climate change are based on more than interpretations of biblical text. But the effort to shut down any alternative theses is just as dogmatic as the Inquisition of 1633. Moreover, I am suspicious of any dogma, religious or scientific subject where the discussion begins with "I believe ........." as it always seems to do with respect to this one.

 

[sgt_zim]

Source?

On a quick search: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

shows 2K ppm about 400M years ago.

One of the things we know for certain is that it was very cold at the end of the Pleistocene, and then experienced a rapid warm-up during the first half of the Holocene. During the late Pleistocene, sea levels were around 120 meters lower than they are now, and ice sheets about 2 miles thick covered much of present day Canada and the northern US. All of that ice melted during the 1st half of the Holocene, giving us present day sea levels which have remained relatively unchanged in the intervening 9000 years (give or take a little).

All of the light blue areas on this map are sea depths between 0 and 300 feet. Take a good look. All of that area was dry land 20 thousand years ago, and there had to be massive heating to melt the 10K foot thick ice sheets that existed in most of the northern latitudes at that time. It all melted without us. Note that present day UK was in fact part of the European landmass at that time, and there were no fjords in Scandinavia, and no Baltic sea. Papua/New Guinea and Australia were part of the same landmass, and there was no Indonesian archipelago, nor Malaysian peninsula. Tampa and Miami were probably a 100 or more miles from their respective present-day coasts. But long before that, we know that part of Florida was under water, and had been for a very long time. A special kind of rock, called oolyte, undergirds Miami. Oolyte only forms under water over a very long time period.

If you work out the math on the ice melt as a result of all that warming, you come to an average sea level rise of about 1 meter every 75 years, which is leaps and bounds faster than what the worst prognosticators are saying today. If all the world continental glaciers melted tomorrow, it still wouldn't even raise the seas by as much as they rose during the first half of the Holocene, between about 18K and 9K years ago. And if the rest of the glaciers melt in the next 1000 years, it won't be the first time, and certainly won't be the last.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
No, not one thing.