Final demise

Regretfully, if this page appears, then the author is more than likely horizontal, either temporarily, or permanently, and the blog will either resume at a later date, or will terminate at this date, the later being the more distressing!

There is a very small chance, and I do mean very small, that the author has lost his memory!

State of the person

There has been a considerable delay in publishing anything on this blog for many, many months - 'no time' is the excuse - I am not someone who can write at speed with the words flowing out in a torrent - it takes time - which can be frustrating - and during those months other things have taken precedence.

However, I'm hoping that the near future may alter that so that other subject may appear.

Good evening!

Good evening!

I was out to the post box yesterday, around 4 o’clock in the afternoon, just a short walk, when coming from the opposite direction was a young lad having just been disgorged from his school bus, aged possibly around seven, not the bus, him, who as he approached said very cheerfully, “Good evening!” I responded accordingly, but it made me think. My first thought was to consider how delightfully polite he was, either a credit to his parents or to his school or both, but then I wondered about his type of greeting.

To me it was afternoon, yet to him it was evening, or was that a greeting that he put out automatically at that time of day without considering the actual part of the day that he inhabited?

The time when the greeting ‘good morning’ is supplanted by ‘good afternoon’ is fairly clear if one decides that passing from am to pm is the deciding factor, in other words going through the mid-day time phase, or through twelve noon, and this could therefore be when the greeting should change.

That may be the official way of deciding, but to ordinary people they might consider the change time to be as they have their lunch, if they have such. This approach makes it easier to change the greeting because they don’t have to look at a watch or clock or the stars; they just need to consider their feeding habits, which is simpler.

But what about the change from ‘good afternoon’ to ‘good evening’? A general local survey amongst the natives proved quite inconclusive. The options put forward included the possibility that it could be related to lighting-up time which would vary as the year progressed, and would be extremely difficult to decide in the country with no lights, or to a fixed time such as 5 o’clock, or to when darkness fell which would alter through the year, or for children when they leave school to return home. I think the turn of the tide is a red herring, and that perhaps one of the other options should be the correct one, but I wonder which it should be.

Local mushrooms

I picked some mushrooms in the garden because I thought how good they would look on toast, with the size up to about 4in (10cm) in diameter, and they smelt just as mushrooms should. My juices flowed with the thought. Yum, yum! With enthusiasm I showed my wife.

Her instant response was " No way - how do you know they aren't poisonous?"

"Because they look good!"

"No! I'm not touching them! You can have them yourself if you like, but don't count me in on it!"

So I researched them on the Internet, but without definitive results. I next photographed them and sent copies to relatives and friends who know about such things. Their responses were similarly not encouraging, down to the comment "There are thousands of fungi, and I can't be sure of this one! Don't eat them!"

"Surely you can tell from a couple of photos?"

"You need to show the fungus to an expert in the field. There are too many poisonous ones about! I wouldn't eat them!"

Having kept them in a bowl during this investigation period, I now disposed of them, and upon them leaving the glass bowl the deposit they left behind was quite fascinating, but otherwise of no real value.

What had started out as being a possibly delicious light locally and wildly grown snack finished off in the dustbin. There really was no point in poisoning myself with nobody else willing to take the risk - no way!

Snow-man

A snowman was constructed in a local village depicting him sitting on a bench waiting for a bus - looked very good and everything about him seemed real - all in snow - but just waiting! He was in the middle of the village square, in full view of all who passed by, and was much admired by all.

Then along came four teenagers. They fancied being mischievous - not in a destructive sense - just mishievous - and this was the result!

Now the passers-by were more than just interested - they were amused and were thoroughly enjoying the view and it provided a great deal of animated discussion and most of them now photographed the image for their archives. They were treating the image in a very relaxed attitude, which was good, but would such a response make the perpetrators more adventurous in the future and go too far? I suspect they would have been told off for doing it, but also quietly much admired.

Global warming challenge

Those that pontificate about the humans race causing global warming have a slogan saying -- ‘We are destroying the planet by causing increased global warming through human involvement!’--

Firstly we need to isolate precisely what they say is causing the alleged human created global warming, and it would appear that carbon dioxide is the gas at the centre of the problem. They have a tendency to also bring other gases into the equation, as well as cloud cover, rain, deforestation, areas of snow reflecting surfaces, animal wind, population increases, etc., all alleged to be producing similar adverse effects on global warming. These are thrown into the discussion more as a distraction to take the concentration off the carbon dioxide blame when their arguments of the importance of human planet involvement are being eroded. So we need to concentrate on the possibility that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere may be a controlling influence on global warming, this effectively being what they are saying!

A considerable volume of research has been undertaken in the world on particular areas of the planet, and over specific time periods in its existence. All these time zones have been relatively recent in planet terms, but the thinking and conclusions deduced from these research periods have been extended to predict what the future holds for the planet. What you must not do, when graphing results, is to project a graph into the future without referencing to the behavioural pattern prior to the dates covering the graph time zone, or properly relating to what is happening within the graph itself, or have a very good justifiable reason for extending the graph line beyond its perimiter. Of course, the followers of human controlled global warming point to our way of life and our possible misuse of natural resources and that these are peculiar to this period on the planet, and they therefore claim it is acceptable to consider only a relative short period of global time for these research results to be relevant, and without such an approach they say there would be nothing to go on. Indeed they say this is the only way to deal with the problem.

Intentionally, or unintentionally, the human global warming concern has been combined with the ongoing reduction of natural resources through continuing demand for these materials, and the overall combined package is being treated as one problem, with the results of particularly specific research then being used to justify this combined approach, the parameters of the research having been chosen to concentrate on specific aspects that may be considered to be of benefit to the human race global warming thinking group. The policies that are then advocated are subsequently applied to the global thinking, with the result that everyone must contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide, whatever is the cost, at their own peril!

Let’s go to the core of the perceived problem, and concentrate on the historical evidence with regard to the relationship between the global temperature and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Research into this relationship over a time span of 600,000 years has produced information showing the relationship between the two, and the following graph is one of those that is available showing the effect of this research in graphical terms over a period of time of.400,000 years.

The figures resulting in this graph were deduced from Antarctic ice-core records. These have been peer reviewed and are therefore accepted by the professional community as being accurate, and they can therefore be relied upon.

The 400,000 years that this graph covers can be seen to be repetitive every 100,000 years or so. It can be seen that the temperature of the Earth reaches its maximum at nominally the same time as the concentration of the carbon dioxide also reaches its maximum, and similarly, both minimum temperature and minimum carbon dioxide happen at about the same time in each cycle. This is true until the last couple of centuries when the earth’s temperature reached it’s maximum and has gone no further, this being no more than the previous peaks, whereas the carbon dioxide has continued to soar, far more than at any other time in the last 400,000 years.

The lesson from this graph, which has data that has been peer reviewed, as already stated, is that the global temperature is controlled by other forces, which have been proved to be cyclical in nature, and they have not been, and are not being, controlled by the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. --'Therefore it can be stated quite clearly that the current man made increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing any similar related global warming, the temperature of this being no greater that that performed by the Earth, on its own, in the past.'-- Reducing the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is similarly not going to affect the global temperature by anything that could evenly remotely be considered to be of any importance whatsoever in the short time, regardless of what can seemingly be evaluated by supposedly relevant experiments.

The global temperature is at, or very close to, its peak in the cycles, and it is possible that a forced reduction in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere might cause the earth to go into an ice age more quickly than it would do otherwise, because there is a possibility that the current excess of the gas might be keeping the earth at its peak temperature for longer than intended. --'Now there’s a thought to ponder.'--

-------------------------------------------------

Dealing with unpleasant pollutants in the atmosphere for the benefit of mankind wellbeing, and dealing with over use of natural resources are both completely different problems and are not proved to be anything to do with global warming and they should therefore be dealt with completely separately.

Global warming not affected by mankind

Please go to updated site - Global warming challenge