| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v734bh$me5h$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:23:12 +1000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 220 Message-ID: <v734bh$me5h$1@dont-email.me> References: <v6n40v$20818$7@dont-email.me> <rf9u8jh9anq08pcgr3ommovhtp2para8h8@4ax.com> <v6o1r7$2blhc$5@dont-email.me> <v6rnj6$344nh$1@dont-email.me> <v6suq5$3e2fd$4@dont-email.me> <v6ua44$3lm73$2@dont-email.me> <v6vjd9$3vr4c$3@dont-email.me> <v703k0$2hni$1@dont-email.me> <v70amp$3lr4$3@dont-email.me> <v7105p$7mtq$2@dont-email.me> <ou689jh1pi93p9govqdkc8koaq1kr5ngs3@4ax.com> <v71kng$b7mr$1@dont-email.me> <56o89jdh2i55uma2rsh6pu268v99qtbm37@4ax.com> <v71nt6$b7mr$3@dont-email.me> <j5q89jp2r4s3gtqu5ddnk7o9gfj5pgleoo@4ax.com> <v72p54$kofh$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:23:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fd972c65e1a1a75c17ca615b80e1bf17"; logging-data="735409"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aEoF2OqKcpC/VuCETBdbk1tSovdLX/2U=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:PwOeLT5vayzfzc6PpYCbHF53BYE= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v72p54$kofh$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 240715-0, 15/7/2024), Outbound message Bytes: 11676 On 15/07/2024 7:12 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:20:57 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:38:26 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:45:41 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <patchmoney@gmx.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote: <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and >>>>>>>>>>> you'll see a completely different picture emerge. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my >>>>>>>>>> undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue >>>>>>>>>> what this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is >>>>>>>>>> the one that fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly >>>>>>>>>> obvious commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in >>>>>>>>>> critical thinking, you wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in >>>>>>>>>> printed scientific journals, which you don't seem to have >>>>>>>>>> bothered to read. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot >>>>>>>>> of wasted time! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals >>>>>>>> always are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an >>>>>>> awful lot of wasted time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of >>>>>>>>> those so- called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 >>>>>>>>> levels of 1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, >>>>>>>>> from reference books > CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were >>>>>>>> written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't >>>>>>>> all that good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level >>>>>>> equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back >>>>>>> in the 1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top >>>>>>> of mountains. Cite? >>>>>>>> https://sealevel.info/co2.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food >>>>>>> for the mind. It's an on-line source, but - unlike you - it cites the published references from which it's data was extracted. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt Here's one of them Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, and V.I. Morgan. 1996. Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of Geophysical Research 101:4115-4128. The Journal of Geophysical Research isn't a textbook you can buy, but it's going to be accessible in a university library near you. >>>>>>>> Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which >>>>>>>> worked on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, >>>>>>>> and rapidly found that his results in urban environments were all >>>>>>>> over the place, which is why he set up his observatory at the top >>>>>>>> of Manua Loa in Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had >>>>>>>> spent a long time blow across the Pacific and had had time to get >>>>>>>> more or less homogeneous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that >>>>>>>>> since those levels didn't change over the course of the most >>>>>>>>> polluting century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2 >>>>>>>>> cannot possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole >>>>>>>>> AGW agenda is an outrageous scam. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were >>>>>>>> all over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal >>>>>>>> fires, next to factories powered by burning coal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your >>>>>>> thermometers so as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your >>>>>>> phoney figures. Areas with high concentrations of concrete >>>>>>> structures and close to airport runways are being utilised for the >>>>>>> same purpose. That's Anthony Watts' demented theory. Measuring the average surface temperature of the earth has gotten a little more sophisticated in recent years. >>>>>>>> They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse >>>>>>>> individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and >>>>>>>> aren't going to let mere facts get in your way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I >>>>>>> just hope there may be even one person reading this who will do >>>>>>> their own, proper, book-based research and find out the truth for >>>>>>> themselves: AGW is a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and >>>>>>> I suspect you know that damn well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds >>>>>> the energy of most. >>>>>> >>>>>> We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in tead "Unsettled: What >>>>>> Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters". >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius: >>>>>> >>>>>> .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf> >>>>> >>>>> What we are being directed to here is just another link to an online >>>>> source. The fact that it purports to be some sort of discourse on the >>>>> subject written in Victorian times counts for nothing. These things >>>>> are trivial to fake with AI. There are no shortcuts, I'm afraid. >>>>> Anything that's served up to the viewer for nothing is worth about >>>>> pretty much the same. You need to get elbow deep in physical text >>>>> books and if you don't have the time to do that, forget about easier >>>>> and quicker alternatives and just don't bother at all. >>>> >>>> Not exactly. It's a summary of the data known as of 1900 or so about >>>> the atmosphere. The original article was in German, but the Royal >>>> Society published the same article in English. >>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========