A viewer sent in a question with a concern over how “nothing” constitutes a better answer to existence than “randomness”? Isn’t “nothing” just a parallel answer, similarly devoid of ontology, that doesn’t actually inform us of anything more than randomness didn’t?
What a great question!!!
Climate of Sophistry 
And what a great answer.
There cant be ontological math in language is not true, certain parts can be and were in ancient pre flood North Europe
I have like i told before the proof of that by reconstructing the color system language based on a mix of at least 4 north west European languages, including old Frisian dialect
So like when the blue word value is 3 and yellow is 5, then the word value for green = 8
I got that algebra worked out for all primary color mixtures, including the brown you get when mixing it all
Got it worked out for all the multiplications, like yellows is 4, blues = 5 and greens = 9
Got it worked out for the all color verbs like yellowing = 6, blueing = 9, and greening = 15
And for all 3 forms of all colors also the consonant and vowel algebra correct. Like vowels number value of yellow + vowels value of blue = vowel value of green
Totally ontological perfect …isn’t that wonderful?
Likewise with the word GOD, that word is very Ontological math chosen
It would be very anti-ontological to throw the baby away with other ontological bath water
Only countries in the world who say the word GOD are English speaking and Dutch/Afrikaner/Frisian speaking
Very similar is Scandinavia, they say GUD. Except Finland
Scotish, welsh, irish, and icelandish have a completely different word for it
@ JP
I did an effort/attempt to try to not let you fall further into anti base purity philosophy because i think you are a good person at default, just influenced and under peer pressure at certain levels
My standpoint has always been agnostic, but with a strong affection to a positive collective spirit in the now
The number 13 mirror story to the perfect 31 King/court ruler, from decoding the word “court jester”, derived from Frisian language was also ontological by the way. Not made up and open for interpretation, real story, One of Shakespeare plays
https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/shakespeares-fools
(https://files.catbox.moe/zqd9yz.mp4)
FEDs trespassing on land “testing water”, find anthrax.
Saskatchewan.
Wow boomie…shite.
Shitposting is an art
https://www.kapwing.com/videos/630d31d956cdcf009062ac92
Australia is going through the roof too by winter, sorry Oz dwellers, I am really sorry, but the US will follow soon enough.
Jo Nova cited
If that happens to us in Canada…those prices would make heating more than the mortgage payment.
Amazing, isn’t it? A worldwide nuclear program could have cut costs, saved lives, provided more energy and made a very efficient global network of power. Seeking more efficient nuclear and better alt energy to get us to the stars. To have hope for a future and be thankful humanity exists. Instead, we get this crap.
Something benevolent humans would do, not those who hate humanity.
Joe got hit by a Potholer fanboi over on Twitter. He hates you (Ceist something) you must have hit him hard somewhere. Seat to authority and hid behind peer review.
“Come on, cite just ONE Atmospheric Physics textbook that agrees with your nonsense claim about the GHE?”
You can’t. There ARE none.
Trying to find the one where I could almost see the spittle frothing on his lips…😂
More:
“It’s not wrong. You’ve just been brainwashed by Postma’s pseudoscience nonsense.”
“You’re just parroting Postma’s pseudoscience waffle about thermodynamic/radiative heat transfer physics again.
You claim that physics/thermodynamics support your claim that the GHE is “bunk”.
Put up or shut up. Post ANY physics textbook that agrees with you. You can’t”
He’s got a hard one for you brother.
Link? I can login again now.
On Twitter?
sent you the link
Boomie,
Germany’s electricity- price chart closely parallels the cumulative-case-growth chart of COVID-19 in Germany, which, if we were correlation/causation idiots, would lead to the absurd conclusion that it’s all COVID-19’s fault, which was all Trump’s fault, which is all Trump’s fault. (^_^).
You guys seen this version? It’s on the wiki for the “Greenhouse effect”.
I wish more people could appreciate how surreal and goofy this really is.
They turn 168 w/m^2 into what, 492?
I was using this version in an argument today.
Wow that’s a good one. It looks so much like science! Lol. So much like a Carnot cycle or something.
But it’s complete fiction, and mocks all these professors who think they understand thermodynamics and teach it.
It does look like a Carnot cycle.
We should get Nepal to do the analysis on that…if it could be applied that way…? Long time since I looked at that…but I should again. That’s probably what is tricking physicists into accepting it, because it looks like something they’ve seen before. If it could be applied like that cycle, I am sure that you would find problems with the equations! The fluxes have to be temperatures instead, to start with, etc.
@boomie789
Thanks for the diagram. I believe that this is progress.
The big issue is of course we still have a flat Earth model with the incident Sunlight diluted by 4 and no dark nighttime exhaust surface.
How to fix this?
First double up the input values for the day lit surface:
+235 becomes +470
+67 becomes +134
+168 becomes +336
Next, we add a dark unilluminated night time surface to the model.
Now we fix the outgoing values for the whole globe (lit day plus dark night):
-195 becomes -390
-40 becomes -80
For the machine to work the lit day surface must be warmer that the dark night.
(A truly amazing concept /sarc)
So, the bypass day plus bypass night = -80
And TOA emission day plus TOA emission night = -390.
Here is the tricky bit: How to apportion the internal elements of the Carnot Cycle between the two components of the machine viz – the lit and unlit hemispheres? For this we need to use the DAET climate model that Stephen Wilde and I have been working on since 2019.
Work in progress.
@boomie789
What this diagram poorly represents is the system retention of thermal energy by a mobile fluid under a constant flux of solar energy as the mobile fluid moves between the lit surface energy source (daytime) and the TOA thermal radiant sink (night/winter).
But simply the process describes how the atmosphere (and oceans) heat up and then maintain a dynamic thermal equilibrium.
Two lines and a swirly in the middle represent it almost as well.
“We should get Nepal to do the analysis on that…”
Giving pre-grad students homework again, are we? 😄
I’m not sure the idea was coherent.
Considering college grads don’t know how the planet cools since TOA solar forcing is all they are ever taught, would be a good exercise for a promising future physicist (who actually understand physics and not just repeats textbook garble).
Joe,
Did you ever reply to Ceist?
No not yet sorry. Heading out camping now today.
Have fun with friends or family as in drinking and/or recreation. Friends and family would entail recreational drinking.
Not a problem at all, have fun.
Claiming that the opponent thinks that heat can flow from cold to hot will get nowhere, besides trolling purposes, since that is not what at least the higher up climate scientists claim
It is claiming what the fundamental differences of opinion are, while both parties agree on both claims, a form of trolling based on the over simplifications of their models
They also don’t claim that objects can get hotter than the potential from solar heating. Just that objects get faster to the max heating potential temperature and slower cooling down, what results in an higher average
Both would agree that the 2-d models are way to much oversimplified, to point that the description doesn’t cover the actual final explanation
And both would agree that the term back radiation doesn’t cover the slowing cooling what they claim it does, and that it incorrectly presumes direct heating potential what it doesn’t have
The temperature profile of the surrounding of an object does have an effect on the cooling ratio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling
They claim however that the slower cooling relation is 1 on 1 with w/m2 solar heating, what gives them the right to oversimplify the models, call it the same, since they claim the outcome is the same
And they claim that the cooling of gasses explained with the Joule Thomson effect is irrelevant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect
And they claim that atmospheric pressure is only a result of temperature and deny that gravity from the atmospheric mass above it makes it an extra pressured zone with higher temperature output when the daily sun heat flows through it
Last 3 example points touch actual fundamental viewpoint differences, instead of wrongly understanding each other at the start of the conversation, ending up in Babylonian confusion of speech,
But WE do not oversimplify their pedagogical models. We use them as is, and simply point out what they mean.
If you point out what my model means, you get reality.
@ JP
That is why context is so important when using certain arguments. When wanting to point out how f-up the education system is for children and even students who take a climate science lecture, then it are perfect trolling arguments
Defeating the climate science priests and cardinals is another level of gaming, with a different set of arguments
Bit like with theological philosophy. There are many levels of understanding. Can proof by flying in an airplane that no God sits on a cloud, but that just disproves 1 level of understanding/explaining
And sure. For answering the question if the sun can create the climate should look at heat flow and real time input. It is not a replacement for a model what tries to understand the internal chaos inside the atmosphere trying to get equilibrium out of chaos tho
The most popular claims from degree holders are:
#1 TOA solar forcing but they use fluxes to justify the system is not in energy equilibrium and thus the surface must increase in temperature to cool.
#2 The heated atmosphere by ghgs (for they ignore convective currents and the rest of the heated atmosphere) slows cooling of the surface which “forces” the surface to get hotter.
Both claims are linked to TOA radiative forcing. Showing an error in this logic in regard to TOA radiative forcing is a good place to start with a published paper.
Anyone?
@ CDM
Philip Mulholland and Stephen Wilder made a pretty good effort on understanding the internal heat flow, and earth system batteries with their DAET model
Other pathways are things like pressure/density + gravity, potential energy, separate cooling systems besides radiating directly
They believe that radiation is both cause and effect. The Alpha and Omega, without other factors in play
Just pointing out the other factors in play what disrupts their perceived conception will win the case
Thanks MP
I am now working on incorporating the Atmospheric Window as a lossy process into our DAET model. It is interesting work.
Perhaps Dr. Holmes could give you a hand. I heard he might have free time.
@ Philip Mulholland
Great PM, would love to see the new outcomes
I want to read up on the DAET model, where to start and in what order to go through all the papers?
CDM
Start with the Venus paper, that lays out the concept of the DAET model.
Inverse Climate Modelling Study of the Planet Venus
The paper that has the most views is our critique of the standard model.
An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget
Looks like I have run foul of WordPress.
Third attempt
Then look at the Earth paper where we apply the DAET concept to an atmosphere that has a 3 cell structure (Hadley, Ferrel & Polar).
Return to Earth: A New Mathematical Model of the Earth’s Climate
Finally look at our poster on Venus where we show how that high surface temperature is caused by topside solar heating of the atmosphere.
The Venusian Insolation Atmospheric Topside Thermal Heating Pool
Thanks Philip.
Has anyone encountered this “Weekly_rise” troll, boy is he a piece of work.
Since Kooks is no longer with us, can anyone else fill his shoes in chemistry? I need some things looked at in regard to ocean acidification as I am dealing with a chemist or a pretend chemist. Some of his equations and replies look suspect. Pierre was my “go to guy” for chemistry.
Joe, I think you axed some of his and Nepal’s replies which covered some of my queries.
Nepal do you recall any of that OA conversation?
Philip Mulholland,
DO you have any sites, posts or links that cover this?
He is a Potholer Troll, once in a while I like poking the fanatics.
Joe,
Enjoy camping don’t worry about it. 😁
Anyone else,
this is the chat so far. Please keep in mind my initial lead was to provoke the fanatics. Yes, it always works for Potrollers. They, like Peter, cannot have a civil conversation.
Brevity is not his friend.
CD Marshall
One, I am basically just being obdurate on purpose. Because the Potter Fan Club can be easily offended.
Of course you can say “ocean acidification” but that doesn’t mean it is technically correct just as “heat” is not trapped in the atmosphere.
The intermediate point is defined as “neutral.” It has a pH of 7. The definition of a neutral solution is equal concentrations of hydronium and hydroxyl ions. Correct? Sea surface mixtures do not account for the entire oceans. A pH 8.2 is to 8.1 is simply not acidification.
Henry’s/Graham’s Law doesn’t change for political motivated narratives. MEANING any drastic change in pH is always localized and relatively short term.
Toxic dumping in the oceans would cause more pH change than atmospheric CO2 ever could. However, also very true that toxic air pollution falls out to the neighboring oceans and China, North Africa and Siberia are the largest contributors to toxic air pollution.
How carbonic acid is broken down and processed in the oceans is relatively simple process. Pollution of the oceans is not.
Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline. The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it.
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2
CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2
Potroller A
engooda
“obdurate on purpose” Hhhm. What a noble ambition.
Just look up “ocean acidification” if you want a list of organisations/scientists who use that technically correct term: eg, The Royal Society, NASA, NOAA, Union of Concerned Scientists, UNESCO, Encyclopedia Britannica etc.
“The definition of a neutral solution is [one with] equal concentrations of hydronium and hydroxyl ions.” Correct.
(I’m a bit old-fashioned and still refer to hydronium ions as hydrogen ions. The hydroxyl (-OH) group occurs in organic compounds eg alcohols, you meant the hydroxide ion)
However, although commonplace, the definition of neutral as pH 7 is not correct. Or, rather, it is ONLY correct for pure water at c.25degC – at all other temperatures (including those pertaining in nearly all sea water) it is not correct. For example, the pH of pure (neutral) water, containing equal numbers of hydrogen and hydroxide ions, at 350degC and 17MPa pressure is 5.96. At higher temperatures (and pressures) the PH of pure water falls further.
“A pH 8.2 is to 8.1 is simply not acidification.”
More nonsense. A decrease in pH is acidification. Change from pH 8.2 to 8.1 is a decrease. You can work out the rest for yourself.
“MEANING any drastic change in pH is always localized and relatively short term”.
You provide a nonsensical non-sequitur. Henry’s Law refers to the amount of a gas dissolving in a liquid being proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid, and Graham’s Law to the rate of diffusion. Neither have the remotest relevance to your meaningless sentence. Adding CO2 to sea water causes a shift in equilibria therein, including that of the ratio of hydrogen to hydroxide ions: ie it changes the pH, albeit that there are buffering equilibria that reduce the shift to less than that that would occur in pure water. The long term buffering, that of dissolution of solid carbonates on the ocean floor, CaCO3(s) + H+(aq) <=> Ca++(aq) + (HCO3)-(aq) , is a VERY long term process.
“Toxic dumping” etc.
Nonsense. Around 15 billion tonnes of human generated CO2 dissolves in the oceans annually. Toxic dumping is a serious problem, but most toxins are organic compounds or metallic ions, and the quantities, though causing serious pollution, do not greatly effect pH.
“North Africa and Siberia are the largest contributors to toxic air pollution.”
What on Earth are you on about?
“How carbonic acid is broken down and processed in the oceans is relatively simple process.”
Actually, the carbonate chemistry of sea water is quite complex, involving numerous inter-related equilibria.
“Aqueous calcium bicarbonate has a natural pH of about 8.2 but runs from 8.1-8.3, slightly alkaline”
Solid calcium bicarbonate does not exist at the temperatures and pressures found in the oceans or land surface. In solution, Ca++ and HCO3- ions do not associate. “Aqueous calcium bicarbonate” always includes H2CO3(aq), CO3=(aq), as well as hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions.
The pH of such a solution depends on the concentration of species present and is NOT restricted to the range pH 8.1 to pH 8.3.
“The more carbonic acid you have, the more calcium silicate will react to neutralize it. CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2”
Calcium silicate (CaSiO3) is a solid. It does not exist in sea-water. It is not particularly common, occurring as wollastonite in metamorphosed calcium rich sediments by the reverse of your above reaction (I found it once on Skye where chunky calcite (CaCO3) gryphea shells surrounded by sand (SiO2) had been metamorphosed). (The formula CaSiO3 is however used to represent silicates in general, as an acceptable, if somewhat incorrect, simplification of their composition to illustrate the process of terrestrial WEATHERING by rainwater, which is to what you unwittingly refer in your equation above.)
“CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2”
better written as
CO3=(aq) + 2H+(aq) <=> 2HCO3-(aq)
The Ca ions play no part in the reaction, which is an equilibrium, hence <=>.
CDM
I can’t really help much here, but I can observe that prior to the adoption of the term “Ocean Acidification” the correct way to describe a movement of pH towards 7.0 was neutralisation.
Hence you would neutalise a strong acid with pH 1 by adding a strong base to the solution. Similarly a strong base with pH 13 would be neutralised by adding a strong acid to the solution.
The key point is that by moving the pH towards 7 from either direction the solution becomes less chemically aggressive (less caustic or less acidic) and therefore less dangerous. The word neutralisation will not fit the political narrative and so the terminology was changed.
boomie789
Yet I see comments like this, and it does make you wonder why they are doing this.
“I do’t know how these farmers here in Kansas can stand growing another bumper crop of wheat, there’s already 4 years of harvested wheat laying on the ground under huge tarps. Every grain elevator has millions of bushels of wheat, corn, barley, and soybeans just sitting there…”
Top that off withs ince BIden nearly a100 food plant shave been burned down.
Hunger Games 2030
Philip,
Thank you, good sire of the shire.
@ CDM
High intensity UV light and starfishes are the main cause of A bleaching and B decline at some spots
It bleaches when there is a solar driven temperature peak. Don’t worry tho, it always recovers. Bleaching is not death, just protection mode
And also don’t worry about the starfish who eat coral, it keeps generating back
When there is a temperature peak Henry law of particle pressure relation in the air vs gasses in the ocean/water demands that more co2 escapes from the water
So the bleaching occurs in a less co2 holding water environment
Henry law has a fixed water temperature as law, so works in relation with solubility of gasses at different temperatures
That is why escape of gasses from water, like co2 at higher water temperature
The process is not one way like climate science orthodox suggest
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
“Back radiation” cant bleach, since long wave radiation can only penetrate the first few mm of water
Only high intensity sunlight including UV can do that
I’ve been hearing about “Chitins” in insects that can’t be digested and are cancerous/terrible for human consumption. There is NO WAY to process it out. Cooking, freezing, no amount of processing will get rid of it.
Birds, fish, and other critters can process it but humans can’t. It will make us sick.
“Electric Universe” proponent critiques the gravitational theory of planet formation.
Mann has released his source code (or a heavily doctored version).
https://www.datacommons.psu.edu/commonswizard/MetadataDisplay.aspx?Dataset=6325
The lapse rate is not anchored to the TOA it is anchored to the troposphere.
“The lower slope of the lapse rate when water vapour is present lowers the surface temperature where that occurs. If the anchor stays roughly constant at the average atmosphere (~5km), then a smaller slope leads to lower surface temperature developed beneath the anchor. This is why deserts can get so much hotter because for them the atmospheric lapse rate is about 10 K/km, rather than the smaller 6.5 K/km for humid air.” _JP
So, my chemistry query with Pottroller has closed on my side, he can splutter all he needs to at this point. He was correct one some points, I was as well. He on the other hand, out of arrogance, will never concede I was right.
I am ending it here splutter all you want.
“…After being absorbed by the oceans, the CO2 dissolves in seawater, leading to an acidification.
**This does not mean that oceans are becoming acid, only that their chemistry is progressively changing towards a higher level of acidity. **
The acidity of a liquid is determined by its concentration of hydrogen ions H+ (protonnes). It is not practical to refer to the concentration of protonnes, as numbers are very small. To simplify, we use the pH scale with values ranging from 0 to 14.
The lower the pH value, the higher the acidity of the liquid.
A liquid with a pH of 7 is called neutral, one with a pH lower than 7 is acid, and if the pH is higher than 7 it is said to be basic.
The pH scale is a bit unusual, much as the Richter scale used to measure the magnitude of earthquakes a liquid with a pH of 6 is 10 times more acidic than a liquid with a pH equal to 7, 100 times more acidic that a liquid with a pH of 8 and 1000 times more acidic than a liquid with a pH of 9.
Why is this phenomenon called “ocean acidification”, even if our oceans will never actually become acidic (pH < 7)?
Acidification is a process: the decrease in pH (increase in hydrogen ions and acidity). The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This terminology can be compared to the one used for temperature: if the temperature of the air goes from -20 to -10, it is still cold, but we call it “warming”.”
-Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Ocean scientist and expert in ocean acidification.
Tracked down Music track during Trump closing remarks this night Rally in Pennsylvania
Those who have overthrown our country in a silent takeover (well sort of) will not allow that man to become president.
Thanks MP, for your tips as well.
Some people are just incapable of actually modeling reality in their head. If you are a person that can, you might take for granted others can as well.
I would suspect being able to model reality in your head is a more masculine trait as well.
At minute 5 in the vid below the WWG1WGA sound track from Richard Feelgood is played
Starting at 3:40 can hear thunder sounds. Those thunder sounds are from the start of another soundtrack from Richard Feelgood, named “I am Q”
There is plausible deniability but it is a mind scratching “coincidence”
Here is the other sound track named “I am Q”
Trump team used the exact starting of sound track thunderstorm sounds/booms 3 times between minute 3 and 5 in the vid above
P Mulholland, I’ve just read https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340886704_Inverse_Climate_Modelling_Study_of_the_Planet_Venus
Excellent.
I’m surprised you referred to greenhouse gasses at all considering your contribution to the proof they don’t exist.
(https://files.catbox.moe/02xa2i.mp4)
WHEEL…OF…COLLAPSE!
*applause
So who/what are these ” patriot front” group.
Naturally they are labeled “alt right” even though racism was alt left.
Racism.
Nazis.
Anti-Semites.
All Leftist ideologies.
@J Cuttance.
Thanks. The real issue is thermal radiant opacity and how to describe and assign it.
Now look at our follow on paper and published poster where we use the concepts championed by JP our host here to limit the zone of thermal heating to the top of the Venus atmosphere.
A Modelled Atmospheric Pressure Profile of Venus
The Venusian Insolation Atmospheric Topside Thermal Heating Pool
It is nearly impossible not to use greenhouse gases when dealing with this stuff to others. You have to bait them with something relatable. “A dipole moment in a polyatomic molecule” just doesn’t resonate very well with most people. Most have heard of ghgs even if they don’t understand what they really are.
@CDM
I agree, it’s all a matter of presentation.
…And this guy claims to be equal to Joe in physics, maybe in bazaar clown world.
“Tom Plesier
@TomPlesier
The sun and moon do not create cycles of climate. The Earth itself does over thousands of years. Today, we are creating cycles of climate, mainly scorching the place.”
(https://files.catbox.moe/cfh1iy.mp4)
NOW – EU will propose a “mandatory target for reducing electricity use at peak hours” in order to “flatten the curve.”
Sounds familiar.
It’s actually about control. Increasing the power distance between the 2 classes in the NWO.
Knowledge advantage, technology advantage, genetic advantage.
Increase the power distance between the masses and the elite until the masses are powerless against them and fully dominated like cattle.
The Middle Class will be eliminated in global socialism.
If you want to genocide now a days you have to paint the people you want to genocide as genociders. Then, you can wage an anti-genocide, genocide.
So label the people you want to genocide, Nazis.
Nazis are, in the minds of the goyim, genociders, so they need to genocide them.
To prevent a genocide.
Just addressing an earlier comment from Boomie or CD…… If these flat earthers are running with their blanket/stopping the earth from cooling as quickly shill…..
Then to me wouldn’t that arguement be moot???…… As in if CO2 is apparently providing an obstacle for the heat to leave then it wouldn’t matter how much CO2 there would be in the atmosphere because the energy input from the Sun remains the same…… So If 250ppm emits a collective amount of energy then 350 or even 500ppm can only emit the same amount of energy because the SUNS energy hasn’t changed????
Its time addressed this slower cooling garbage. I’d love to hear what peoples thoughts are.
JOE??
Yes, that’s right. Slowed cooling can’t raise temperature to higher than the input, what is what their RGHE requires.
LOOK AT THIS MADNESS FROM AUSTRALIA…….. Our idiot government just passed our climate bill into law which is a NET ZERO by 2030
heres a great video which is an interview with one of our better senators……. Our new Climate Law is based on NO SCIENTIFIC imperical evidence in fact Our climate authority the CSIRO has even admited verbally that our temperatures are NOT UNPRECEDENTED
Our country is officially doomed
Joe,
Check this out. Maybe he should interview you?
Philip Mulholland,
Question.
In your experience in oil and gas has it ever been decided exactly where the source of petroleum comes from. Is it renewable like some of the theories or is it a combination of resources or as the alarmists claim, “a finite resource” which just so happens to “not be” running out anytime soon.
Coal is understandable and the process seems relatively simple. Green Energy desperately wants oil NOT to be renewable or semi-renewable or quasi-renewable…
The energy available from petroleum does question the original idea if its origin. Methane compression would sound more believable in the recipe of the final product. However, I am not an expert.
Thoughts or personal experiences?
That’s a great interview CD! Yes I wonder if he would like the GHE debunk.
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speech/keynote-speech-delivered-hrh-prince-wales-world-economic-forum-davos-switzerland
The true king is Rothchild.
@CD
I watched something recently on how oil doesn’t come from ancient life.
I think the most blaring piece of evidence I remember is the oil deposits are deeper than any ancient swamp or jungle. Way below the fossil record.
Unless I saw it here and telling you what you already know. In that case, sorry. Lol.
Boomie,
I agree it seems like coal makes sense as advertised, petro does not. I was curious what one with experience in the field and a scientist thought about it.
YT are full of idiots.
ME: Oceans are warmed by solar forcing or geothermal.
IDIOT:” Oceans are warmed by solar forcing or geothermal “, [citation needed], and not from Judith Curry or Anthony Watts.
ME: [childish assertion1] I expect a competent level of intellectual comprehension from the subject matter. I will not do homework you should have completed before posting. Please study shortwave electromagnetic radiation and the EM spectrum.
Shortwave radiation can reach an ocean depth of 1,000 meters to the dysphotic (twilight) zone although is most effective up to 200 meters in the euphotic (sunlight) zone. Low level longwave radiation cannot pierce the ocean’s skin layer (micro layer) reaching depths of a mere 0.1 to 1 mm.
IDIOT: More childish insertions.
These retards will destroy the planet…as they are in fact planning, knowingly or otherwise.
I love it when inbecile#1 brings in inbecile#2 to support the clown show.
IDIOT #2
Look, full disclosure on my part. I don’t like the way Milan approaches folks like you. I’m just trying to be helpful. You might be a nice guy ( I don’t know or care), but you are not looking good when you pretend to be knowledgeable of science just to gaslight people. I also don’t like that people are laughing at you.
FFS these guys are mental 🤡
where is this?
It’s all rhetorical gaming at this point.
I think YT is throttling her site, comments pop up and disappear.
Under:
Hartlor Tayley
6 days ago
CO2 is life
This is a great video. Wow Tony nails it.
Oh yes YT has an AI or a bunch of retards very carefully trained to shadow ban and remove and manipulate comments on all sorts of topics…especially climate. They have ever user profiled and will not let you post even when you are in certain moods…everything has to be sanitized.
CDM,
I believe that the issue of the biological origin of oil is well established. The key piece of evidence for this comes from biomarkers found in petroleum. Biomarkers are complex organic molecules of indisputable biological origin and are in effect chemical fossils.
Better than that however, biomarkers are used to match an oil to the unique source rock of the oil. Source rocks are organic rich shales deposited in water (marine or lacustrine) that was anoxic (deprived of oxygen). Better still, the biological age of the oil biomarkers matches the geological age of the source rock and is consistent with progressive evolutionary changes with time.
Rtetet rug pppf ddasss foofreths xdnxc;sdc cdsakj;ksdvh asd.kjcas;idg
So how much oil is there?
To answer this, I am going to go way outside the box and address the question of atmospheric oxygen.
We know from geology that the Earth in the deep past did not have an oxygen rich atmosphere. Indeed, the process of formation of banded iron stones in the Archean Ocean requires a process of chemical conversion of soluble Iron II to insoluble iron III as the biosphere ramped up the production of oxygen gas. This chemical conversion of the oceans required a lot of oxygen so how did this work?
It is generally accepted that the oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere was generated by photosynthesis.
Now the current planetary surface atmospheric pressure is 101,325 Pascals and that the air consists of 21% oxygen gas. So, the partial pressure of oxygen is 21,278 Pascals, which for a gravity of 9.80665 m/s/s amounts to a mass of 2,170 kg/m^2 of oxygen for every square metre of the planet’s surface.
Now the process of generating oxygen by photosynthesis requires the reduction of oxidised carbon gas to form sugar with the effective creation of CH2 chain molecules. So, the mass ratio of Oxygen to CH2 is 16 to 14 (for every oxygen atom liberated one CH2 link is formed). This means that there must be somewhere buried in the crust of the Earth 1.9 tonnes of hydrocarbons per square metre.
Now the oil consumption question.
Total surface area of the Earth is 510,000,000 sq km.
So, the total mass of hydrocarbons in the crust of the Earth is 9.68263E+14 tonnes.
Now global annual oil consumption is 35,442,900,000 barrels which equates to 5,544,800,000 metric tonnes per year.
So, if we divide 9.68263E+14 tonnes by 5,544,800,000 tonnes the answer is 174,600 years to run the planet’s oxygen level down to zero by combustion of all of the stored reduced carbon in the Earth’s crust.
OK that’s unrealistic, so suppose we reduce the Earth’s oxygen from 21% to 20% (this is a proportionate drop of 5% of the oxygen thereby consumed) then this will allow us to burn fossil fuels from the Earth’s lithic store of reduced carbon for 8,700 years at the present rate.
Run out of hydrocarbons? Not going to happen anytime soon.
The most obvious criticism is that I have ignored the mass of the living biosphere, however I am confident that the current living biomass is not 2.1 tonnes of reduced carbon/m2 for the whole planet, so the lithic store must be the significant part of this number.
I suspect that the modern oxygen content of the atmosphere is a dynamic equilibrium process, there is good evidence that in the past the oxygen level was much higher (Carboniferous) and then there is the issue of the Permian desert deep weathering depletion of Carboniferous coals etc.
But I hear you say, what about the carbonate rocks which are by far the greatest store of sequestered oxidised carbon on the planet?
The key issue is where does the free oxygen to form carbonates come from if the carbon in carbonates was originally chemically reduced by the biosphere?
For example, in order to store CO2 gas as carbonate rock the carbon must be oxidised (self-evidently) so, if my assessment is right reduced carbon (oil) would necessarily deplete the atmospheric oxygen gas reservoir on conversion back to oxidised carbon.
One other possible oxidation route in the lithosphere however is iron oxide reduction as a source of oxygen atoms, so as an example we could envisage a process in the mantle of CH2 + 3FeO = 3Fe + CO2 + H2O
This would deplete the CH2 while not removing oxygen gas from the atmosphere and we know that there is plenty of iron in the core that must have been produced somehow if the primary iron containing “star dust” from the time of the solar system planetary formation was oxidised.
Quite a lot of WordPress grief back there. If the post is too long WordPress ditches it, Then, if you reduce the post by cutting it up WordPress flags “Duplicate Post” and does not proceed, this is in spite of the fact that it failed to post your first attempt.
A random screed of gibberish at the beginning often gets you round the duplication post censor.
@ Joseph E Postma says:
2022/09/07 at 11:55 PM
Why an rejection of their non nonsensical averaging in the first place, and after that make a averaging counter argument what is supposed to make total sense?
I understand reverse psychology, reverse + reverse not so much
Thanks Philip.
Illuminating as always.
Joe,
Whole video is great but 34;00-37:00 interesting he was careful
We’ve scheduled Nelson to come on our TNT Radio show. We had Heller at one point scheduled but he must have canceled or something.
I like Nelson, he gets it.
The James Webb Telescope is going to pry some eyes open. I wonder how much they will keep to themselves.
Why do you say that?
CDM
Thanks. My key message is that this planet is far bigger than we realise.
We live on its surface, however the true size of the rock volume beneath our feet is almost incredible.
What if they discover things that goes against the narrative. What if they discover the universe was created out of nothing.
I hope they do see something that would give them pause to think about what they’re actually trying to do.
Philip Mulholland
I was exploring the concept of how humanity can survive the next glaciation. Everyone can’t pile on in the tropics. Well, they could, but doubt it will play out that way. Many will be forced to live deeper in the Earth and make use of geothermal.
CDM,
May not be as bad as you think. For an ice age to develop ice must be stored on land to grow major icecaps there, typically this means Canada, Scandinavia and high mountain ranges (e.g., The Chilean Andes). Icecaps create two major environmental changes; they lower global sea level, and they form atmospheric barriers to surface wind flow.
The lowering of sea level results in major land surface gains in tropical southeast Asia.
The majority of ice cap growth occurs in the northern hemisphere, Antarticia is already full of ice and Australia is too low level to have any seed glaciers on high alpine mountain ranges that could swamp this region with ice.
The atmospheric wind flow diversion by the northern hemisphere icecaps moves the locus of the Ferrel cell towards the equator, this brings rain to Saharan Africa.
So, on the plus side we have:
Sahara Desert 9 million sq km.
Arabian Desert 2.25 million sq km
Australia 7.5 million sq km
While on the debit side we have:
Canada 10 million sq km
Europe 10 million sq km
We lose the USA but gain Tropical SE Asia.
This set of maps better shows the picture I am trying to paint:
How the world looked during the last ice age
Have a look at the interesting work of Alex Pope, he has a different take on ice ages.
See Pope’s Climate Theory Presentation on his webpage.
P Mulholland
I loved your O2 comments. Though it’s simple applied thought, it adds up to genius.
What are your thoughts on weathering scrubbing out all of the CO2 from the atmosphere into lime? Do you have any calculations regarding that?
P.S. the wordpress gibberish get-around was brilliant too.
J Cuttance,
You are too kind (the gibberish was fun).
The role of CO2, SO2 and H2O as the main chemical erosive compounds that impact the rocks of the Earth are profound. (Sorry, No numbers for you).
All of geochemistry can be reduced to Basalt plus acids creates Limestone, Silica and Clay. That is why on the Earth our store of CO2 is the lithic precipitates Calcium /Magnesium Carbonate and we have acidic rock continents made of granite, whereas on Venus all of the CO2 has remained as gas in the atmosphere.
p.s. I forgot to mention the Gypsum/Anhydrite and Halite. The soluble Sodium and Potassium salts are why the ocean is saline
Joe,
I’m trolling on Twitter.
This really set them off. 😂
“If you don’t know what a flux is maybe science shouldn’t be your field of study… Just saying plenty of room left in gender studies.”
“Being right isn’t easy or every climate scientist would be doing it.” 😎
Haha good one!! Lol
“Same goes for Earth. The more complex, high-DOF molecules you have in the atmosphere (H2O, CO2), the more energy is removed from the surface via evaporation, advection and convection, the more energy is transited to the upper atmosphere, and the more energy is emitted in the upper atmosphere to space.”
Anyone want to explain this?
the more energy is removed from the surface via evaporation
does not make sense.
Joe,
If you have the time to visit Twatter. You’re up.
TrixX
@RstrixxX
·
2h
I’m not fibbing. You don’t necessarily agree, but the fact is the Earth’s temp has never and will never be at the behest of CO2. CO2 follows, it doesn’t drive and you’ve had more than enough people point that out to you in many ways now.
Noel John Turner
@NoelTurner194
Replying to
@RstrixxX
@kevpluck
and 48 others
Confirmed but none of them have a background in quantum mechanics…
Mitchell Taylor is a Polar Bear researcher who has caught more polar bears and worked on more polar bear groups than any other, but he was effectively ostracized from the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) specifically because he has publicly expressed doubts that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions.
Email:
“Hi Mitch,
The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.
I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.
I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.
Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.
Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.
I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.
Best regards,
Andy (Derocher)”
@ J Cuttance
Revisiting my piquant vinaigrette here is another thought:
Looking at the situation in the Archean when the banded ironstone precipitates were formed, and the blue-green algae worked tirelessly to supply oxygen to the ocean which was then captured by the iron II in solution and converted to iron III precipitate. So, with the certainty of a relentlessly anoxic planetary ocean how did the decaying organic matter get oxidised back to CO2 and water?
This is where it really gets interesting. With the initiation of plate tectonics, an Archean ocean crust loaded with iron deposits and organic matter gets subsumed into the mantle. A perfect chemical mix for natural iron smelting.
Fe2O3 plus CH2 generates 2Fe + Co2 +H20
Neat huh?
The Earth truly is a remarkably well-designed planet.
Thanks Slartibartfast. Great Job!
Earth is also responsible for creating the first terrestrial fission reactor.
Someone is arguing that Helium-3 reactors would increase the molar mass of the planet making it much hotter. Nice theory but does it have any credence?
Given that Helium 3 is lighter than Helium 4 and that the residence time of Helium 4 in the Earth’s atmosphere is essentially zero, I think that is a no.
Do these people not realise that Helium gets its name from its spectroscopic discovery in the corona of the sun? Hence the name! The gas was unknown on Earth until it was found in underground natural gas deposits.
Negligibly. Fission reactors are decreasing it then.
Thank you, kind gents.
CDM,
I am still trying to get my mind round the weird idea that adding Helium 3, a low atomic weight noble gas, to the Earth’s atmosphere will increase its mean molecular mass. They are trying to game you. Add Xenon and they might have a point, otherwise this is pure BS.
I always thought stable Helium-3 plants on the Moon would be excellent for space research development. The low G makes it a perfect shipyard.
Meteors being a plausible downside. Too bad the Moon isn’t orbitally locked; a side might not get bombarded with Meteorites as much.
Yeah, it’s “The Designer” the son of EM F, both are nuts. EM F said Joe should be in prison for supporting that the GHGE doesn’t exist or that oil isn’t evil or something insane, been a while.
Both know enough science to lie about it efficiently to others.
This parasite is on Twitter
Climate Scientist Peter Kalmus
@ClimateHuman
19h
Eventual society-wide emergency-mode climate action is assured. Things are intensifying – it’s physics – and the shift to emergency mode WILL happen once enough people freak out. What I’m pushing for is for this shift to occur as soon as possible so we save as much as possible.
This may be too simple but do clouds actually keep the surface warmer (at night) or is clouds keeping water vapor closer to the surface that keeps the surface warmer (at night)? Typical clouds are too high in the sky to act in anyway like a blanket or insulation as a meteorologist pointed out, clouds are not blankets. They can warm the air surrounding them via LWR.
…And from the tops SWR.
Can SWR evaporate clouds?
Am I blind I am trying to find “Single Pulse Resolution” and multiple pulse resolution, and it is nowhere on these specs?
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/missions/current-missions/jason-3/instruments/poseidon-3b.html
Jason-3
“The altimeter measures sea-level variations over the global ocean…(1.3inches or 3.3 cm), with a goal of achieving 1 inch or 2.5 cm).”
Cameras don’t use goals; they use the existing technology they were equipped with. Which doesn’t sound like it can detect any mm sea level rise. So WHAT are they measuring and with WHAT are they measuring it with? If the satellites can’t measure sea level rise in the mm they have to use tidal gauges as proxies?
Sorry but this is irksome. Nowhere on here does it disclose the pulse resolution capabilities or the bias of error in that resolution.
Poseidon-3B Main parameters
7
Emitted Frequency (GHz) Dual-frequency (Ku, C) – 13.575 and 5.3
Pulse Repetition Frequency (Hz) 2060 interlaced {3Ku-1C-3Ku}
Pulse duration (microseconds) 105
Bandwidth (MHz) 320 (Ku and C)
Antenna diameter (m) 1.2
Antenna beamwidth (degrees) 1.28 (Ku), 3.4 (C)
Power
Redundancy Yes
Specific features Solid-State Power Amplifier.
Dual-frequency for ionospheric correction,
High resolution in C band (320 MHz)
CD my thoughts are that, by virtue of the fact that clouds are not falling as snow, they are above zero and will prevent frosts below them.
It is weird, even in winter clouds keep things warmer. If it is too cold, it won’t snow.
Joe,
Peter Ridd said he’d go on anywhere, just ask. Maybe another for the radio show? I really like Tom Nelson he’s all right.
Ridd contact?
Have to ask Tom Nelson for that one.
Is Ridd the Aussie-based American who studied carbon residency and isotopes left over from nuclear testing? If so he did a brilliant speech one time ruined by his chewing gum throughout it. ( I might have the wrong guy tho)
Peter Ridd is the foremost expert in corals, fired by Cook U.
I could try and contact Peter Ridd…….. He is a coral reef scientist……. He was fired from James Cook University for questioning a newspaper article that said the great barrier reef was dying……… ive read a lot of his literature he is a coral reef guru
Here is Peter Ridd on Sky News
WordPress lockout again
df;asjghn fds;aghas a;sfdgj;oamm ygt’gk
@ MP 2022/08/30 at 6:51 PM
Here is the outcome:
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s semi-opaque troposphere
Executive Summary:
The Hadley Cell is the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.
@ Philip
So far just looked at conclusions since it is late where i live. this conclusion sentence seems promising tho
“a complete computational agreement between the standard Vacuum Planet equation
derived from astronomy and radiative physics”
Assuming the not read yet pillars of reason are correct it should be able to redefine it in simple 2d or 3d presentations without the tidal separation, from witch the original logic is derived
@MP
The full balance of the logic in our work is this:
On one side of the scales of reason we have the Vacuum Planet Equation of Astronomy based on Opacity derived from Radiative Physics.
On the other side of the scales of reason we have the DAET model of Meteorology based on Adiabatic Convection derived from Mass Motion Physics.
The essence of our discovery is that the geometric infinite summation of Halves of Halves, which lies at the heart of the process of thermal radiant opacity blocking of the standard model, occurs twice. This mathematical procedure also occurs as an identical process of infinite geometric summation of Halves of Halves at the heart of the mechanism of thermal energy retention by adiabatic convection, within the gravity mediated atmospheric circulation of the Hadley cell.
@ Philip
Impressive paper!
It makes total sense to apply the same kind of metrics to Adiabatic Convection thermal atmospheric capturing as to direct radiation caused. What implies that the current over simplified climate models very much overestimate the effect of directly radiation caused system capturing.
Also quite brilliant to use the atmospheric window what is a key pillar of climate alarmists as the final corner stone/puzzle piece what can be reverse engineered.
Spotted at page 20 the word “father” from the sun, what should be “further”, auto correct thingy
Saw at page 12 that you already made a 2d graphic presentation, very nice.
@MP
Typo Noted Thanks.
This paper has been 3 years in the making (and is based on 50 years of Geoscience study).
The bit I like that comes from all of this is that there are now only 2 fundamental controls on climate for a thermal radiant semi-opaque troposphere. These are
1. The downwelling solar irradiance filter of the planetary Bond Albedo.
2. The upwelling thermal radiant filter of the Atmospheric Window.
That’s it!
The 2D graphic is based on the K&T 1997 numbers. It was the final piece of the jigsaw that convinced me that our Adiabatic DAET opacity model is correct.
@ Philip
I made a referral post on a Dutch climate alarmist skepticism site. Asked in the comment section to the site owner Hans Labohm if he could take a look at your paper and maybe make an article about it
https://www.climategate.nl/2022/09/piers-corbyn-over-hete-zomer-heeft-niets-met-co2-te-maken/comment-page-1/#comment-2418432
You already got a hit on it.
“Thanks. I have communicated a lot with Stephen Wilde and trust him 100%.
I can’t delve into their paper now because I’m on vacation but I’m definitely going to look at it.”
“
@MP
I have now added to Research Gate the Excel Workbook that contains the active DAET spreadsheets for the Earth System Adiabatic DAET Opacity Model paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363582274_Earth_System_Adiabatic_DAET_Opacity_Model_14Sep22
Both the radiative theory and our DAET process are capable of explaining the greenhouse effect on their own but to maintain long term stability one needs both acting in opposition to each other so as to neutralise imbalances arising within either.
Previously I had thought we had to choose between one or the other but what our model demonstrates is that both are needed and both are invariably present even within solids such as the Earth’s mantle.
Both are present running in parallel on every planet and within every body in space that contains mobile fluids of any density.
The principle applies to planets with atmospheres and hard surfaces, gas planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and even the universe itself.
We appear to have stumbled on to a universal principle which has cosmological implications.
Is it my imagination or did Nepal disappear from the chat? 👀
Joe,
This guy thought he was being clever (they always do) over the TOA.
“You do realize that the energy imbalance is just the time integral of the surface-averaged flux imbalance multiplied by Earth’s surface area, right? So a flux imbalance leads to a corresponding energy imbalance. This isn’t hard.”
He’s been trying to mix heat and energy ever since the post.
Yes well as we all know they’re just making it all up.
OK – so….CO2 delays a photon travelling at 300,000km/s from leaving the atmosphere for how many milliseconds? The time integral then equating to a few thousandths of a Watt? lol
They don’t even do their own math that they pretend they’re doing.
This is a NASA climate scientist on Twitter. He is an activist and proudly admits it.
“Climate Scientist Peter Kalmus
@ClimateHuman
·
23h
Irreversible global heating, all the incredibly dire implications, and the fossil fuel industry’s collusion to stop action are much more important stories than Roger Federer’s retirement. With no disrespect to the great tennis player.
I still have trouble understanding how we can be so close to collapse scenarios with such a large fraction of the public blissfully unaware. This of course is why politicians don’t feel any real pressure to act on climate. If I seem hard on the news media industry, this is why
It’s all a ruse…sophistry.
Their “action” on climate would lead to the end of life on Earth, and at least the actual collapse of humanity, as they pretend to not want but are actually engineering, and not in a good way.
As I relate in my book.
Guys,
Posted above I made a comment that “The Hadley Cell is the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.” This is only partially true; the correct statement should be “An Opaque Hadley Cell is the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”.
Like Stephen, I too have had to realise that in following the numbers our work has clearly demonstrated the complementary and necessary duality of thermal radiant opacity and adiabatic atmospheric convection.
We have both always maintained that the divide by 4 dilution of solar irradiance is unphysical but, in my case, I incorrectly tried to identify the error in the radiant opacity model as being due to latent heat transport (a demonstrably non-radiative physical process).
I note that on planet Mars there is no Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, yet the atmosphere of Mars is almost pure carbon dioxide gas. Meteorological studies of Mars demonstrate that there is a tripartite Hadley cell, Ferrel cell and Polar cell structure in the low-pressure atmosphere of that rapidly rotating world.
So, the presence of a Hadley cell is not a prerequisite for the Greenhouse Effect, instead it is the presence of an opaque Hadley cell that causes the Greenhouse Effect, an opacity that is caused by atmospheric mass raising the planetary surface pressure above 0.1 bar.
@MP
Thanks for the link to climategate.nl. The site was closed to me but now I can see the thread, but I am not able to comment.
This seems to be a no. However, your link has generated 37 reads from the Netherlands on my Research Gate site.
It is clever they have stimulated a thought experiment in the minds of drones that IR only emits to space from the surface.
@MP
I have posted your two comments from the Dutch website here:
(I hope that Google Translate does them justice).
@ Philip
Quite funny google translation of certain in Dutch chosen wordings. What also could have derived from some typo’s from my side, since it was late when i posted that.
Overall it captures what i wrote there tho
Feel free to add on to or correct parts of the overall analysis.
MP my friend, can I ask you to elaborate on you comment that the Hebrews stole the history of the twelve tribes aka being Europeans? . I Have information pertaining to the Hyskos that may collaborate you assertion. Cheers Z
@ Zelator
The key is in the septenary code. What i can’t fully explain here since to much diving into the coding is not appreciated here
But in general can say that the coding is engraved into many wordings in the Dutch and English language, in the chosen words for rivers, tribes, and cities. While that is not the case in Hebrew culture, besides the bible.
Even in the bible there is way more clear coding in the English King James version than the Hebrew version.
Sometimes it is also evident that the Hebrew writers were not aware of the septenary coding. What assumes that they copied and translated many parts including Genesis from North west Europe language, but the coding meaning behind it got lost
A funny example is where God told to correct for the yearly cycle around the sun not being 360 days matching with 360 degrees. He told to correct the daily earth turning cycle (sundial) by ten degrees. But the coding says 5 degree correction what results in adding 5 days.
Hebrews took it literally, and not the coding behind it what resulted in them adding 10 days each year, and that resulted in having to skip a full month after 3 years to match reality
Anyhow. The start time of the Exodus from Egypt to the promised land does match the Eqyptian recording year of kicking out the Hyksos
And the word Hyks is very similar to the word “Heks” in Dutch, what means “witch”
Feel free to elaborate on your findings on this subject matter
Quick Note MP as I research your comment more deeply is likely the Tribe of Dan is the main player. Also your coding is appreciated by me massively and i am working with it. Please keep it coming. There is definitely a deletion/change in history and the criminals are the Name Changers of Old. Cheers Z