The Nature of Time.

Before you go to Darwin, could you please compose a paragraph for the newsletter on your next talk about The Nature of Time.

The nature of time is that the proper time will disappear into the past before you know it, unless you travel to Darwin at the speed of light. Time flies like an arrow!


The nature of time discusses the most important dimension we are able to perceive, the aptly named 4th dimension.
While seemingly simple to those of us stuck in it, it is actually a lot more complex.
Understanding it better is what has led us to the next scientific world , that of quantum mechanics.
This will be a light hearted look into the window of the physics of the future.

As Allan wrote time is an arrow.
It allows us to fit events that happen to us into the past, present and future.
What can we say about time generally?
[audience for insight]. Might find some new ideas here.
Comments. which where when why what how and who. are good questions for any scientist.

1. Time is perception, you cannot separate the two. how
2. Time is a severely local occurrence and current occurrence [when- now]. [where]
3. It is an observable but not repeatable phenomenon [cue Omar Kyam
“The moving hand writes and having written moves on.”] perception
4. Time seems to go only in one direction, from the past to the future.
often called entropy or decay and strangely related to heat or energy.

5. It describes rates of change between objects leading to the concepts of speed and mass.
Indeed this is often how it is measured. rate of change what
6. Events that recur regularly enable us to measure it by the frequency of how often they occur compared to other events.
But this is of course at our scale and with our human perception. [measurable]

5. We can discuss time at a human body level.
How many breathes we normally take in a minute.
How fast our pulse is in a minute.How many steps we can take in a minute.And we do.
These events occur to objects at a human speed and size.

Yet if we move up just a few scales or down a few scales time seems to change dramatically.
Objects at an atomic level move extremely rapidly in time, albeit over minute distances.
A computer can go through a hundred million actions during 1 heart beat. Far faster than the human mind can observe.
A star in the Sky will still be in the same position relative to most of the other visible stars during a human lifetime.
Yet this is all relative to our human sense of proportion.
Once we go either way far enough we find that time is not the same at other scales as it is at ours.
At one end we have the quantum effect. We can no longer predict whee and when an observable event will happen.
At the other end we can see our distant past but have no idea of the current state of objects far away.

2. A digression on local time
Time is measured by local phenomenon and events around us on the earth.
The initial concept was of day and night representing the 24 hour rotation around the earth.
The passage of the sun overhead throwing shadows that increased and decreased led to the sundial and a division into a 12 hour day [and assumed night].
Hour glasses of sand then enabled the hour to be broken into minutes and the minutes into seconds.
Clocks were a late invention 1500s? that enabled even more rapid and accurate measurement until we had the stopwatches of today with hundredths of a second.
Now time can be measured by the breakdown or radioactive caesium atoms, almost a true atomic scale.

At the same time physical properties were slowly being explored. The three dimensions classically are length, width and height.
Typically referred to as space.
If one were to use vectors for direction I would actually think there are 6 such dimensions as everything goes in a mirror direction [the other way] as well.
Time runs with vectors [or vice versa] and again always one way.
Mass and Gravity and electricity also exist but are not part of the four dimensions other than existing in them.
Gravity itself, but not mass, is actually a byproduct of time and space that does not exist as a real force even though we are held to the floor here by it.

The use of dimensions to describe nature is fraught.
We all have a basic understanding of what the first three are in a sense of measurement, and direction.
Time however lacks both measurable length and solidity.

It is all around us and part of us but untouchable.
We can only observe it through its effects on us and other objects.
That is why it is not included in the 3 dimensions.
Yet other things are measurable and palpable but undefinable.The jolt of electricity.
The sudden pull of a magnet and the feeling of mass from soft and squidgy or a breath of air to dense and impenetrable.
This raises the questions of are there other dimensions connected in some way to these other quantities.

* How many dimensions are there? Theoretically infinite
Practically how many of them exist that we may be able to detect in some way.Here is where maths and physics interconnect.
The multidimensional lobby invented string theory where the different dimensions, acting on mathematical principles, interact with each other.
Amazingly there are mathematical predictions and models which suggest it may be real.
Sub atomic particles [in name only] have spins and vectors positive and negative charges, matter and antimatter which follow these rules.
I would like to point out this interesting observation. A 2D creature can never directly see a 3D creature.
We can design cubes in the fourth dimension and yet are unable to represent them in 3D space.
Yet we can see both 3D and 2D in our minds and analyze them.This ability to perceive both space and time by necessity implies
that thought, the mind, is actually working in a 5th Dimension with 4D representation.

Time travel.
There is a simple way for observation to go back in time. Due to the marvels of video cameras we can rewind and replay past sequences.
The egg falling and breaking always breaks the same way.Yet always unscrambles perfectly on rewind.
No two eggs will break in exactly the same way.
This process of action going in one direction only is the definition of time passing.
There is an interesting notion of parallel worlds where every event can spiral off in a new pathway for ever.
Like the Sliding Doors film but on an unimaginable continued eternal program.
This would be a case of different time events as well.Ripples in time.
If it is feasible and if it is happening it would lead to changes that would most likely mean that it was impossible or totally probable.
Let me know if you ever find out so I can adjust the glitch.

Computer worlds or Sims.Another infinite mirrors paradox.
If it is possible then we must be living in a Sim.
Like Neo in the film.And here the concept of time takes on a new meaning A computer program can be paused [stopping time].
Rewound [Going back in time].And even reformatted [Changing the past] so the egg does not drop.
As you can see having proved it is impossible we can also prove that it is real. The definition of a Quantum state.

Now to try to achieve what Professor Hawking could not.
A simple explanation of time and relativity.
The laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference
Postulate 1: The laws of physics must have the same form in all inertial frames of reference.
Postulate 2: The speed of light through a vacuum is constant, regardless of the motion of the source or observer.
Forget the clocks running at different speeds.
The person going into space at near light speed returning young while everyone else is getting old.
For all practical purposes time and space actually work together.
What effects them is the presence of mass and motion
Mass can only exist if it has dimensions in both time and space.
Time and space can only exist where mass is present.
If a mass moves away from another mass [speed] it develops more mass [extra energy counted as mass] and becomes shortened[like a blue shift.
This is known as
As masses move apart [distance] time speeds up. As they move together it slows down.
If they move at the same speed, in the same vicinity they come closer to having the same time.
This is being close or relative to each other. Hence the theory of relativity.
The bigger a mass is the more it both slows and distorts time space near it.
Time passes faster atop a mountain than at sea level due to the mass of the earth.

Done!

Unusual examples.

Strange but true .
If we look at just the sun and the moon going through space together with no other planets or objects.
Just the two of them. At the same distance apart.
what can we say about them and their movement and forces?
1. The earth is rotating about the sun? ie in orbit
2. the sun is rotating about the earth? ie in orbit
3. The earth is also spinning in its rotation about the sun?
4. The sun is spinning in its rotation about the earth.
5. The two objects will crash into each other due to gravity?
6 The two objects will go in different directions but come back to each other?
7. The two objects will go in different directions and never return?
8. The two objects will come back together at some indeterminate time if they last long enough.
9. the earth has less mass than the sun.
10 . the sun has less mass than the earth.
11 They are both traveling through space in a straight line?
12. They are both traveling through space and time in a straight line?
13. They both are moving?
14. They both are not moving?
15. If they are both not moving do they have any velocity?

According to Newton an object moving through a direction in space will continue to move in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.
Hence both the sun and the moon must be moving in straight lines. [If they are moving.]
So how does the earth go around the sun if it is moving in a straight line?
The answer is that the volume of space and time that the earth is moving in is altered.
Due to both the mass of the earth and the sun on the space time continuum.
As an independent and unrelated observer we see the earth appear to orbit the sun.
To some one on the earth they are traveling in a straight line through their time space volume.
The line however is bent mathematically both in direction and time.
Continually changing with the mass effect.

If I can show a video of the famous trampoline example.
It gives an idea in 3D of what is actually happening in 4D which are minds are unable to visualize.On a flat surface the ball will just roll across and off the trampoline.
With the mass distortion of the bowling ball to the surface the other ball goes into a circular orbit.
Here the forces are friction and resistance from the altered trampoline surface.
In 4D the effect is the same without any force.

Philosophy, Heavy stuff.
Physics and maths describe effects which we perceive.
We can see a ball traveling through the air, estimate its path. Feel its impact on our fingers and hear its impact with out ears.
Yet virtually everything that we use to describe the mechanics can be broken down into a simple binary code of dots and dashes.
We do not need the ball to exist to describe time, length, height, width volume acceleration on a computer printout.
The mind works on or in different levels or dimensions to that of the physical world.
It is in one sense outside of them or inside of them to be able to perceive them which it is able to do for want of a better word by our senses.
We cannot find an analogy to to think of or explain perception other than that we know that we do it.

Time is a part of of our ability of perception.
We can describe it mechanically in terms of changes in other objects that we perceive.
Our perception depends on time passing and going in one direction.
We are able to augment our limited human senses with other devices that the world, just like a Road runner cartoon, supplies when the time is right.
We have a much better understanding of the codes that describe our physical world.
Yet like a mobius band or a blind person reading braille we can only go around in the meaning of the code.
Not understanding how or why it is written.

When discussing time we are discussing its nature and attributes in the physical or real world.
When we get down to the fine print there appear to be inconsistencies.
This is due to the Brownian motion effect. Our inability to be able to see the actual interactions without affecting them in our attempts to do so [microscopically]
or to be able to act at all on the macroscopic level.
We also lack the ability to tie concepts of mass and energy and electricity and magnetism together in a satisfactory way.
Quantum theory describes mathematics in 4th, 5th and higher dimensions.
If such concepts exist mathematically . They do.
Then giving mass and energy motion and dimensions demands that they exist at higher levels and that the parts visible in our dimension
have other qualities in the other dimensions.
Which they do.
Hence the power of the atom and the incredible forces bound up in tiny rotating and moving particles.

Rocket science

‘Time is elastic’: Why time passes faster atop a mountain than at sea level Place one clock at the top of a mountain. Place another on the beach. Eventually, you’ll see that each clock tells a different time. Why? Time moves slower as you get closer to Earth, because, as Einstein posited in his theory of general relativity, the gravity of a large mass, like Earth, warps the space and time around it.

Scientists first observed this “time dilation” effect on the cosmic scale, such as when a star passes near a black hole. Then, in 2010, researchers observed the same effect on a much smaller scale, using two extremely precise atomic clocks, one placed 33 centimeters higher than the other. Again, time moved slower for the clock closer to Earth.

1 and 2 Neither the Sun nor the Earth rotate about the other.
Explanation: ? Both the Sun and the Earth orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system which is known as the solar system barycentre.
Imagine two donut-shaped spaceships meeting in deep space. Further, suppose that when a passenger in ship A looks out the window, they see ship B rotating clockwise. That means that when a passenger in B looks out the window, they see ship A rotating clockwise as well (hold up your two hands and try it!).
From pure kinematics, we can’t say “ship A is really rotating, and ship B is really stationary”, nor the opposite. The two descriptions, one with A rotating and the other with B, are equivalent. (We could also say they are both rotating a partial amount.) All we know, from a pure kinematics point of view, is that the ships have some relative rotation.
However, physics does not agree that the rotation of the ships is purely relative. Passengers on the ships will feel artificial gravity. Perhaps ship A feels lots of artificial gravity and ship B feels none. Then we can say with definity that ship A is the one that’s really rotating. [depends on definition of gravity]
So motion in physics is not all relative. There is a set of reference frames, called inertial frames, that the universe somehow picks out as being special. Ships that have no angular velocity in these inertial frames feel no artificial gravity. These frames are all related to each other via the Poincare group.

For the Earth going around the sun and vice versa, yes, it is possible to describe the kinematics of the situation by saying that the Earth is stationary. However, when you do this, you’re no longer working in an inertial frame. Newton’s laws do not hold in a frame with the Earth stationary.

This was dramatically demonstrated for Earth’s rotation about its own axis by Foucalt’s pendulum, which showed inexplicable acceleration of the pendulum unless we take into account the fictitious forces induced by Earth’s rotation.

Similarly, if we believed the Earth was stationary and the sun orbited it, we’d be at a loss to explain the Sun’s motion, because it is extremely massive, but has no force on it large enough to make it orbit the Earth. At the same time, the Sun ought to be exerting a huge force on Earth, but Earth, being stationary, doesn’t move – another violation of Newton’s laws.

So, the reason we say that the Earth goes around the sun is that when we do that, we can calculate its orbit using only Newton’s laws.

you may describe the motion from any reference frame, including the geocentric one, assuming that you add the appropriate “fictitious” forces (centrifugal, Coriolis, and so on).

But the special property of the reference frame associated with the Sun – more precisely, with the barycenter (center of mass) of the Solar System, which is just a solar radius away from the Sun’s center – is that this system is inertial. It means that there are no centrifugal or other inertial forces. The equations of physics have a particularly simple form in the frame associated with the Sun.
M1d2/dt2x? =GM1M2(r? 1?r? 2)/r3+…
There are just simple inverse-squared-distance gravitational forces entering the equations for the acceleration. For other frames, e.g. the geocentric one, there are many other inertial/centrifugal “artificial” terms on the right hand side that can be eliminated by going to the more natural solar frame. In this sense, the heliocentric frame is more true.

ust one thing! One mustn’t neglect the non-idealities of the barycenter itself, which has a location in the Milky Way that biases it gravitationally at least. On the surface this is splitting hairs, but the greater point is that the idealness of any reference frame is also relative, and no “ultimate” frame exists.

[Wittgenstein] once greeted me with the question: “Why do people say that it was natural to think that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth turned on its axis?” I replied: “I suppose, because it looked as if the sun went round the earth.” “Well,” he asked, “what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth turned on its axis?”

A rotating frame is distinguishable from a nonrotating frame, without reference to anything external. This is true both in Newtonian mechanics and in special and general relativity. There are various ways to tell if you’re in a rotating frame, including a Foucault pendulum, a mechanical gyroscope, or a ring-laser gyro of the type used in commercial jets. The Foucault pendulum as a proof of the earth’s rotation dates back to about 1850. (Long before then, heliocentrism had become accepted among physicists on less definitive grounds, such as the fact that Kepler’s laws have a simple form in a heliocentric frame.) As a relativistic example, the analysis of the famous Hafele-Keating test of general relativity required the introduction of three effects: kinematic time dilation; gravitational time dilation; and the Sagnac effect, which is sensitive to the rotation of the earth.
From the perspective of general relativity, there is something wrong per se with using a geocentric point of view to describe the entire universe. While coordinate systems are global in Newtonian mechanics, they are local in general relativity. Coordinate systems are local charts on Riemannian space-time in general relativity. They do not have universal extent. A mandated geocentric perspective does not make sense in terms of general relativity.
4 In fact, our gaseous sun is divided into different zones and layers, with each of our host star’s regions moving at varying speeds. On average, the sun rotates on its axis once every 27 days. However, its equator spins the fastest and takes about 24 days to rotate, while the poles take more than 30 days. The inner parts of the sun also spin faster than the outer layers, according to NASA.
All told, the Sun loses a total of 4 million tons of mass via Einstein’s E = mc² with each new second that passes. This mass loss, however small it is, adds up over time. With each year that goes by, the loss of this mass due to nuclear fusion causes the Earth’s orbit to outspiral by 1.5 cm (0.6 inches) per year. Over its lifetime so far, the Sun has lost the equivalent of the mass of Saturn due to nuclear fusion.

The straight line is in 4 dimensional space!! Seeing the 4th dimension earth curves a light beam goes much straighter due to velocity.

Your question suggests that you are using the term “spacetime” to mean just “space”. “The Earth is travelling in a staight line in spacetime” is a way of expressing Newton’s First Law of motion in four dimensional spacetime. Actually, they only move in straight lines if spacetime is Euclidian. I.e. If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In general, they move on trajectories that represent the shortest distance in four dimensions. This will generally be a curved path because spacetime is curved. Specially near a black hole.

Italian

The problems with learning a new language.

1. Learning new words for the ones we use.

Most language is repetitive and very few words are used.
The spellchecks and interpretive functions on I phones prove this.
It is often stated that a basic vocabulary of 3000 words or 5000 or whatever is all that one needs but this is a woeful simplicity.
Being able to use these 3000 words successfully involves possible variations of up to several million variations in general usage.
Worse language is not merely words but shrugs, facial expressions, rapid arm and hand movements or slow ones.
A rising volume or inflection can indicate a question even though the same words are also a statement.
Worse is the use of idiom, a saying in Italian can have quite a different meaning to the same words in English.
Not to mention dialects.
Not to mention different tenses that are often skipped over in English.
Not to mention the changed sounds of all the vowels.

2. The inability to immerse fully in a new language setting such as living only with Italians speaking Italian in Italy.

3. The length of time we are able to devote to learning a new language.

Most children learn a language and are reasonably adept within 3 years of total immersion.
People who go overseas into a new culture can often become proficient within 6 months.

4 Self belief doubts

Often the task seems to big and daunting and people start to believe that they cannot learn and hence they stop trying mentally if not physically.
Language however is just a skill like juggling or music.
It takes a lot of time to develop a little proficiency but once a barrier is crossed speed picks up rapidly.
Just that there seem to be a lot of barriers.

Setting achievable and realistic goals
Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon.
A trite but practical way of saying ignore the barriers and go for as much as you can do.
You may surprise yourself.

1. practice.

There are many different ways.
Play an Italian song on your music source.
Look at the news in Italian for a couple of minutes.
Watch an Italian film with and without subtitles.
Bore your Italian friends to death by constantly trying out your newest phase [Actually this is not a good way].
But above all read.
Books, Newspapers, Dictionaries and Italian language dictionaries.
Finally take Italian lessons, with friends or in a group

2 Practice.
Did I already say that? ” L’ho già detto?”
Ask yourself every day while you are committed have I learnt a new word or expression?
Have I practiced an old word or expression?
Good luck! Or “In bocca al lupo”

3. Find an interest in part of the vocabulary and practice this in different ways until you become familiar with it.
One technique is looking for the English words that have the Italian word in them but not obviously.
An example is the word light or la luce or la lampada.
Here we see the word lamp which is now old fashioned. The luce though exists in other words
such as lucent [shining[ and translucent letting light through.

500.

Welcome everyone to 500 today.
It is one year since we first ran a series of 6 classes.
The classes are billed as teaching how to play but in practice most people were well aware of how to play the game/
The few newcomers to the game picked up the ideas very quickly.

Keeping this in mind the sessions will run in a similar format to the last time.
As you arrive please introduce yourselves to others and sit at an available table to partner up.
Pairs are able able to sit together as a partnership. Games will run within a 50 minute time frame.
Pairs will be asked to swap tables for the next round of 50 minutes.
Hopefully this will accommodate a 4.00 o’clock start and a 6.00 finish.

A short break will occur at the 50 minute mark, new players will be introduced to everyone.
A drinks and rest break of 5 minutes and a short period where questions can be asked on the game and some tactics will be taught.

As an aside house rules apply which can be clarified by the Director.
We try to stick as close to the original 500 format as much as possible.

Misere is a special part of the game where one tries to lose all the tricks.
It is useful but overused can detract from the fun of the game.
I would specifically ask no more than 2 misere bids per partnership per game.
Part of the game is also to get the bidding to go every round if possible.
To this end I would encourage the first person in every hand to make an opening bid of 6 spades unless they have a proper bid to make.
This encourages the less daring to get used to making bids.
The spade bidder is under no obligation to bid again or to have any points in their hand.

Tips and cautions.
Misere has to be bid only after a seven level bid has been made and cannot be made if the person making it has already passed.
Extra tricks can be saved by discarding a weak side suit completely.
[Ask at the halftime break!]
For the novices Spades is the lowest bid suit followed by clubs diamonds and hearts.
A completed bid of 10 hearts, 10 no trumps or open misere for a side with a non negative score wins the game.
Otherwise one can only pass 500 and win by making a successful bid, not by defeating an opponents contract.
If nobody is making a bid the Joker is probably in the kitty!

Have fun and see you next week as well.

BOM Adjustments

Climate Driver Update
Climate drivers in the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans and the Tropics
2 February 2021
The 2020–21 La Niña has likely passed its peak, with all of the international climate models surveyed by the Bureau anticipating NINO3.4
will return to borderline or neutral values by mid-autumn.
Fascinating.
The graph shows 7, count them, Climate models.
BoM,CanSIPS,ECMWF,JMA,METEO,NOAA,UKMO.
A change from the 19/1/2021 Climate Driver Update which featured 8 international climate models.
Missing?
Only NASA.
Why? Surely not because NASA correctly predicted the moderate La Nina and had the temerity to predict
that it would keep going for at least 4 months
The opposite to BOM.
The sea surface temperature anomaly was predicted to go to -2.4 C for February, 2.6 C for March and 2.4 for April.
I am at a loss to fathom why they would drop the most highly respected data set, NASA after relying on it for years.
Perhaps someone could use the wayback machine on it.
I certainly feel they need to offer an explanation even if it is only a technical error.
It does seem a rather crude attempt to not publish data that disagrees with theirs.

ocp black swan

“What postmodernist relativism has wrought is, rather, something more insidious: by devaluing the concept of objective truth, it has undermined our own ability to combat objective untruths.”

We only know layers of truth at any one time.
When we go deeper into the layers we come across the paradox that our view which we thought was right is actually misplaced or wrong.

[As far as manipulation of the US election is concerned both sides do their best to manipulate results.]

I have found this at levels of science.
The atomic theory we were taught in school with electrons buzzing round a solid nucleus.
With chromosomal transfer of genetic traits, not that straight forward.
Physics itself, Newtonian physics was a truth, until it wasn’t.

So is there such a thing as objective Truth?
Only in a rigidly defined system which allows no exceptions.
As Bertrand Russell found out with mathematics, surely one of the most rigorous defined sciences there is no absolute truth.

I would say that the best we can do is have a [shudder] consensus on what is true until the inevitable OCP occurs.-
*An Outside Context Problem or OCP is a challenge utterly outside a given group’s (organisation, society, culture or civilisation) set of experience. Because an OCP is something that has never happened before, the end result is unpredictable.

viewpoint.

One of the most intriguing parts of the Climate debate is how people on both sides blindly follow some past concepts
and argue vehemently about others using precepts that may not be right.
There are many contrary things in Climate science that do notwork in the obvious way.
Today I wish to discuss the concept of World Temperature rises going up and down due to the effects of El Nino, La Nina.
Standard cause and effect.
The starting point to arguing whether these changes augment or distort Climate warming and as to whether there actually is
global warming or merely natural variation.

My contention is that neither El Nino or La Nina actually do anything.
They simply reflect where the heat currently is, they do not cause a temperature rise or fall.
Thus a La Nina actually reflects the fact that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is cooling.
An El Nino reflects that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is heating up.
In so doing there is a natural change in the temperatures of the oceans as they are part of the system gaining or losing energy,
not causing it to happen.

Where does that leave us?
For one it helps us to focus on the important changes in energy flux occurring to cause these variations in the earth’s temperature.
Which are not the observable phenomenon but the causes of the phenomenon.
Here is where the science knows what is happening but is curiously quiet on investigating it.

There are very few variables that actually count in determining temperature input and output on a daily basis.
The sun is the primary energy source.
The earth provides a steady and important minuscule backdrop of internal energy.
This varies depending on orbital position.
Radiation from all other areas in space is so much smaller again though not nil.

Perhaps someone could comment on gravitational forces and wave energy creation,
but if and what they are one presumes they are basically pretty constant.

That leaves changes in surface and atmospheric reflection which sum up as albedo changes.
Whether one is a believer or not the variation in temperatures is independent of the warming potential.
CO2 does not vary day by day enough to create temperature variations.

Water vapour and ice in the air in the form of clouds are the biggest variables in both GHG effect and albedo effect.
Here is where one of those seems obvious but is wrong factors comes into play.
El Nino is associated with increased global temperature.
At the same time El Nino is characterized by increased cloudiness at the equator.
La Nino is associated with colder temperatures but has much clearer skies at the equator.
There is the puzzle.
The more energy that hits the earth directly, the colder the atmosphere gets.
The less energy that gets through the more warm the atmosphere gets due to trapping of that lower energy in the atmosphere under the clouds,
warming both the air and sea.

Leaving that aside for the moment we could concentrate on the amount of water in the atmosphere.
Here the surprising fact is that this is almost invariant as well, at least it has much less fluctuation than most people think.
People who espouse the GHG theory do not like to admit this. The talk of the short residence time of water in the atmosphere
is a crutch to distract from the fact hat water is by far and away the greatest GHG by volume and is permanently in the air,
just like O2 CO2 and Nitrogen.
How does a fairly constant amount of water vapour in the atmosphere come to play a major role in the variability of the earth’s temperature?
The answer is in the amount of cloud formed by the water vapour and where and when it is formed.
This is one of the major areas that needs to be explored and documented more fully.
Cloud formation is seasonal, aerosol dependent and both ocean and atmospheric current dependent.
There may be other more exotic theories and practicalities in cloud formation but these are the main ones.

How does it work? Again counterintuitively.
The more clouds there are, the less actual energy reaches the earth’s surface but this lower amount of energy persists longer
and causes a higher atmospheric temperature than clear skies and no clouds.
When we talk about the temperature of the world increasing due to cloud formation or lack of
we are measuring the wrong parameter in terms of global warming.
The actual temperature changes are not related to the GHG effects of CO2 or water
but rather the amount of cloud induced warming of the lower atmosphere.

The actual warming due to CO2 increase is real and both known and unknown.
We know what the warming should be, usually expressed in terms of doubling of CO2.
But we do not know the nature of the feedbacks.
The simple positive feedback due to an increase in CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere is countered by the effects of more cloud cover.
The height at which the cloud cover appears, The amount of actual energy that enters the system.
Which is lower due to increased albedo from the clouds, greening due to vegetation and lower if less ice is present.
Counter intuitively more albedo may lead to a higher atmospheric temperature.
While less albedo might lead to more energy returning to space and a lower temperature.
The opposite of that we naively expect.

How to sort out the conflicting ideas?
The first thing to realise is that Climate Change is
in some senses a zero sum game.
That is that any change which provokes an increase or decrease in temperature of the atmosphere is almost immediately countered by
an array of feedbacks that negate the increase.
Easy to say and easy to prove.
Any changes in forcing that could lead to a runaway GHG temperature increase has had the equivalent of 3 billion years to do so in.
And yet the hottest the globe has been able to reach in 3 billion years of trying is a mere 4 degrees higher than today and is quite compatible with life.
How do we know?
Because you are alive today and reading these words.
In other words it has never been able to get hot enough to wipe out life on this planet.

Is the reverse true?
Sadly not.
A lot of mechanisms exist that can decrease the temperature of the earth.
While water vapour increase heats the earth up [33 degrees] dust provides an increased albedo with no heat retentive properties.
Snowball earth has been a reality several times with life existing by virtue of underground life forms and Equatorial temperatures
still consistent with life.
The planet as a whole is cooling slightly but life will be able to continue to exist
in the nexus between the cold of space and the underground warmth of the plane for aeons.

The conundrum we are faced with today is that human activity is increasing the potential temperature of the earth slightly.
There are a lot of feedback mechanisms that in the past have averted any catastrophe of warming.
Warming overall is good for life, we are energy dependent depending on the sun
producing enough heat for plants to thrive and provide oxygen to keep us alive.
The chances of any harmful increase in temperature are remote.
Life just moves to the region which has the right temperature and enough of it to sustain it.

What is more important is recognizing the potential of human activity to produce short term deleterious effects on the planet.
This end is shared by warmists and skeptics alike though they both seem to deny it at times by their shortsightedness.
Some green measures are desired by everybody.
Less pollution for a start.
More care for our shrinking wild life.
As many curbs on human overpopulation as possible.

There is no excuse for abusing science and the scientific process in achieving this however.
No matter how much one wants to save the planet.
Ignoring the realities of Climate having many short term changes and long term variability in order to push a concept that
every change in the weather is due to CO2 increase is not noble.
When it fails, the consequences on trying to do something sensible about the planets problems will be much more difficult.
If it succeeds, by ignoring science and probability and frightening people, the type of world it will produce is not one that
is helpful.

One of the most intriguing parts of the Climate debate is how people on both sides blindly follow some past concepts and argue vehemently about others using precepts that may not be right.
There are many contrary things in Climate science that do notwork in the obvious way.
Today I wish to discuss the concept of World Temperature rises going up and down due to the effects of El Nino, La Nina.
Standard cause and effect.
The starting point to arguing whether these changes augment or distort Climate warming and as to whether there actually is global warming or merely natural variation.

My contention is that neither El Nino or La Nina actually do anything.
They simply reflect where the heat currently is, they do not cause a temperature rise or fall.
Thus a La Nina actually reflects the fact that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is cooling.
An El Nino reflects that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is heating up.
In so doing there is a natural change in the temperatures of the oceans as they are part of the system gaining or losing energy, not causing it to happen.

Where does that leave us?
For one it helps us to focus on the important changes in energy flux occurring to cause these variations in the earth’s temperature.
Which are not the observable phenomenon but the causes of the phenomenon.
Here is where the science knows what is happening but is curiously quiet on investigating it.

There are very few variables that actually count in determining temperature input and output on a daily basis.
The sun is the primary energy source.
The earth provides a steady and important minuscule backdrop of internal energy.
This varies depending on orbital position.
Radiation from all other areas in space is so much smaller again though not nil.

Perhaps someone could comment on gravitational forces and wave energy creation,
but if and what they are one presumes they are basically pretty constant.

That leaves changes in surface and atmospheric reflection which sum up as albedo changes.
Whether one is a believer or not the variation in temperatures is independent of the warming potential.
CO2 does not vary day by day enough to create temperature variations.

Water vapour and ice in the air in the form of clouds are the biggest variables in both GHG effect and albedo effect. Here is where one of those seems obvious but is wrong factors comes into play.
El Nino is associated with increased global temperature.
At the same time El Nino is characterized by increased cloudiness at the equator.
La Nino is associated with colder temperatures but has much clearer skies at the equator.
There is the puzzle.
The more energy that hits the earth directly, the colder the atmosphere gets.
The less energy that gets through the more warm the atmosphere gets due to trapping of that lower energy in the atmosphere under the clouds,
warming both the air and sea.

Leaving that aside for the moment we could concentrate on the amount of water in the atmosphere.
Here the surprising fact is that this is almost invariant as well, at least it has much less fluctuation than most people think.
People who espouse the GHG theory do not like to admit this. The talk of the short residence time of water in the atmosphere is a crutch to distract from the fact that water is by far and away the greatest GHG by volume and is permanently in the air,
just like O2, CO2 and Nitrogen.
How does a reasonably constant amount of water vapour in the atmosphere come to play a major role in the variability of the earth’s temperature?
The answer is in the amount of cloud formed by the water vapour and where and when it is formed.
This is one of the major areas that needs to be explored and documented more fully.
Cloud formation is seasonal, aerosol dependent and both ocean and atmospheric current dependent.
There may be other more exotic theories and practicalities in cloud formation but these are the main ones.

How does it work? Again counterintuitively.
The more clouds there are, the less actual energy reaches the earth’s surface but this lower amount of energy persists longer and causes a higher atmospheric temperature than clear skies and no clouds.
When we talk about the temperature of the world increasing due to cloud formation or lack of
we are measuring the wrong parameter in terms of global warming.
The actual temperature changes are not related to the GHG effects of CO2 or water
but rather the amount of cloud induced warming of the lower atmosphere.

The actual warming due to CO2 increase is real and both known and unknown.
We know what the warming should be, usually expressed in terms of doubling of CO2.
But we do not know the nature of the feedbacks.
The simple positive feedback due to an increase in CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere is countered by the effects of more cloud cover.
The height at which the cloud cover appears, The amount of actual energy that enters the system.
Which is lower due to increased albedo from the clouds, greening due to vegetation and lower if less ice is present.
Counter intuitively more albedo may lead to a higher atmospheric temperature if it is due to clouds trapping IR.
While less albedo might lead to more energy returning to space and a lower temperature in a GHG environment without clouds of IR trapping GHG.
The opposite of that we naively expect.

How to sort out the conflicting ideas?
The first thing to realise is that Climate Change is in some senses a zero sum game.
That is that any change which provokes an increase or decrease in temperature of the atmosphere is almost immediately countered by an array of feedbacks that negate the increase.
Easy to say and easy to prove.
Any changes in forcing that could lead to a runaway GHG temperature increase has had the equivalent of 3 billion years to do so in.
And yet the hottest the globe has been able to reach in 3 billion years of trying is a mere 4 degrees higher than today and is quite compatible with life.
How do we know?
Because you are alive today and reading these words.
In other words it has never been able to get hot enough to wipe out life on this planet.

Is the reverse true? Sadly not.
A lot of mechanisms exist that can decrease the temperature of the earth.
While water vapour increase heats the earth up [33 degrees], dust provides an increased albedo with no heat retentive properties.
Snowball earth has been a reality several times with life existing by virtue of underground life forms and Equatorial temperatures still consistent with life.
The planet as a whole is cooling slightly but life will be able to continue to exist
in the nexus between the cold of space and the underground warmth of the plane for aeons.

The conundrum we are faced with today is that human activity is increasing the potential temperature of the earth slightly.
There are a lot of feedback mechanisms that in the past have averted any catastrophe of warming.
Warming overall is good for life, we are energy dependent depending on the sun
producing enough heat for plants to thrive and provide oxygen to keep us alive.
The chances of any harmful increase in temperature are remote.
Life just moves to the region which has the right temperature and enough of it to sustain it.

What is more important is recognizing the potential of human activity to produce short term deleterious effects on the planet.
This end is shared by warmists and skeptics alike though they both seem to deny it at times by their shortsightedness.
Some green measures are desired by everybody. Less pollution for a start.
More care for our shrinking wild life. As many curbs on human overpopulation as possible.

There is no excuse for abusing science and the scientific process in achieving this however.
No matter how much one wants to save the planet.
Ignoring the realities of Climate having many short term changes and long term variability in order to push a concept that every change in the weather is due to CO2 increase is not noble.
When it fails, the consequences on trying to do something sensible about the planets problems will be much more difficult.
If it succeeds, by ignoring science and probability and frightening people, the type of world it will produce is not one that is helpful.

The views expressed here are my own and are contestable.
I try to get the science right but acknowledge that some of the scientific comments here may be due to misunderstanding on my part.
Please correct them as soon as possible .

Sent in to WUWT but unlikely to be published Needs some work.

Rud istvan

Wuhan Coronavirus–a WUWT Scientific Commentary
Guest Blogger / February 10, 2020

Guest post by Rud Istvan

Introduction

The Wuhan coronavirus potential pandemic has been much in the news recently. ctm discussed my doing an update to a rather long comment a few weeks ago. I first agreed but then demurred until now.

The reasons for agreeing were the numerous analogies (below) to climate change ‘science’ and ‘prognostications’—albeit on usefully shortened testable time frames like this year, not 2100. Examples below include assuming we know what we actually don’t based on models, and reporting worst case but unlikely scenarios as ‘likely” because ‘if it bleeds, it leads’.

First reason for originally demurring was that the factual situation was too fluid for rational qualitative analysis—alarmist rumors were flying all over, like from ‘reputable’ UK research groups who modeled an R0 near 4 (horrible, as defined below). Pure unsubstantiated alarmism, just like AGW prognostications.

Second reason (ironically), I came down with a wicked, likely coronavirus (less runny nose, more sore throat and cough) cold last week and am still recovering at day nine. So was too sick to even think about a guest post until yesterday evening day 8. Finishing this draft today merely proves that I am finally recovering on day 9 and that it probably was a human common cold corona virus since the typical rhino duration is ‘only’ 5 days, not 9-10.

Qualifications

None, if you are a CAGW ‘believer’. I am not a microbiologist, a virologist, or an infectious disease MD. A CAGW/skeptic ‘critique’ all too familiar at WUWT.

But, I served as CEO for a decade of a small private company that attempted (unsuccessfully for reasons beyond the scope of this post) to commercialize a novel topical antimicrobial PERSISTENT against all bacteria, all fungi, and many viruses including all colds, influenza and pinkeye. I had to teach myself the topic and its medical ramifications in order not to mislead my investors or misuse their several million dollars. Plus, we formed a pre-eminent science advisory board on infectious disease. Plus, in the 2009 swine flu scare, my corporate board forced interactions with NIH (Dr. Fauci), CDC, the FDA, and even the National Security Council (special briefing in the EOB at the WH, 2 hours, spooky)—because our FDA regulatory guy DIED in June 2009 from the swine flu contracted while on a cruise vacation to Mexico with his family (more below).

Those not interested in the background science sections can skip to the last sections of this longish comment, where the intervening basic science is applied to Wuhan coronavirus without further explanation.

Basic Virology

What follows perhaps oversimplifies an unavoidably complex topic, like sea level rise or atmospheric feedbacks to CO2 in climate science.

There are three main types of human infectious microorganisms: bacteria, fungi, and viruses. (I skip important complicating stuff like malaria or giardia.) Most human bacteria are helpful; the best example is the vast gut biome. In human disease some bacteria (typhoid, plague, tetanus, gangrene, sepsis, strep) and certain classes of fungi (candida yeasts) can cause serious disease, as do some human viruses (polio, smallpox, measles, yellow fever, Zika, Ebola).

There are two basic forms of bacteria (Prokaryotes and Archaea, neither having a genetic cell nucleus). Methanogens are exclusively Archaean; most methanotrophs are Prokaryotes. Membrane bound photosynthetic organelle containing cyanobacteria are the evolutionary transition from bacteria to all Eukaryotes (cells having a separate membrane bound genetic nucleus) like phytoplankton, fungi, and us. Both Prokaryote and Eukaryote single cell (and all higher) life forms have a basic thing in common—they can reproduce by themselves in an appropriate environment.

Viruses are none of the above. They are not ‘alive’; they are genetic parasites. They can only reproduce by infecting a living cell that can already reproduce itself. The ‘nonliving’ viral genetic machinery hijacks the reproductive machinery of a living host cell and uses it to replicate virions (individual virus particles) until the host cell ‘bursts’ and the new virions bud out in search of new hosts.

There are two basic virus forms, and two basic genetics.

Form

1. Viruses are either ‘naked’ or ‘enveloped’. A naked virus like cold causing rhino has just two structural components, an inner genetic whatever code (only the two basic types–DNA and RNA–are important for this comment) and an outer protective ‘capsid’ protective viral protein coat. An example is cold producing rhinovirus in the family picornavirus (which also includes polio).

2. Enveloped viruses like influenza and corona (Wuhan) include a third outer lipid membrane layer outside the capsid, studded with partly viral and partly host proteins acquired from the host cell at budding. These are used to infect the next host cell by binding to cell surface proteins. The classic example is influenza (internal genetic machinery A or B) designated HxNy for the flavor of the (H) hemagglutinin and (N) neuraminidase protein variants on the lipid membrane surface.

Conceptual images of both virion forms follow from CDC.

Naked Rhino Enveloped Influenza

clip_image002[1] clip_image004[1]

Genetic Type

The second major distinction is the basic genetics. Viral genetic machinery can be either RNA based or DNA based. There is a huge difference. All living cells (the viral hosts) have evolved DNA copy error machinery, but not RNA copy error machinery. That means RNA based viruses will accumulate enormous ‘transcription’ errors with each budding. As an actual virology estimate, a single rhinovirus infected mucosal cell might produce 100000 HRV virion copies before budding. But say 99% are defective unviable transcription errors. That math still says each mucosal cell infected by a single HRV virion will produce about 10 infective virions despite the severe RNA mutation problem. The practical clinical implication is that when you first ‘catch’ a HRV cold, the onset to clinical symptoms (runny nose) is very fast, usually less than 24 hours.

There is a related epidemiological consequence of great concern. It has been proven possible for a single mucosal cell to be infected ‘simultaneously’ by more than one viral seriotype. That is a simple math probability of virions and host cells Example: you have an easily transmissible ‘normal’ coronavirus cold already (defined below), go to Wuhan and also contract Wuhan. In your body those two different coronaviruses can now both be replicating in the same host cells, and because of RNA replication are indiscriminately exchanging genetic material. So you might end up with an attenuated virulence Wuhan, or a more virulent Wuhan—but most likely both.

The history of the 2009 Swine flu scare showed this. The novel new H1N1 seriotype started in Mexico, where my guy contracted his early fatal infection. For reasons explained below, flu is strongly seasonal. It was winter in South America, so the first hard hit country was Argentina. The mortality data were horrific (5.5%). But, this in hindsight meant the most virulent strains were already burning themselves out, since dead people cannot replicate virions. By the time swine flu reached the North American winter several months later, it was already significantly less virulent (1-2%, still very bad). What actually saved the situation was that based on Argentina, the world appropriately panicked, commandeered global conventional flu vaccine production, and crashed through a swine flu vaccine in just under 6 months at the expense of the normal next year stockpile.

Upper Respiratory Tract viral infections.

So-called URI’s have only two causes in humans: common colds, and influenza. Colds have three distinguishing symptoms–runny nose, sore throat, and cough—all caused not by the virus but by the immune system response to it. Influenza adds two more symptoms: fever and muscular ache. Physicians know this well, almost never test for the actual virus seriotype, and prescribe aspirin for flu but not colds. Much of what follows in this section is based on somewhat limited actual data, since there has been little clinical motivation to do extensive research. A climate analogy would be sea surface temperature and ocean heat content before ARGO. Are there estimates? Yes. Are there good estimates? No.

Common cold URI’s stem from three viral types: RNA rhinovirus (of which there are about 99 seriotypes but nobody knows for sure) causing about 75% of all common colds, RNA coronaviruses, for which (excluding SARS, MERS, and Wuhan) there are only 4 known human seriotypes causing about 20% of common colds, and DNA adenoviruses (about 60 human seriotypes, but including lots of non-cold symptom seriotypes like conjunctivitis (pink eye and pharyngoconjunctivitis) causing about 5% of common colds.

Another climate change related analogy. The internet (including Wikipedia) gets the previous paragraph’s facts mostly wrong. For example, Wiki distinguishes picornviruses from rhinoviruses without realizing the later is a subset of the former, so double counts.

Available data says rhinovirus seriotypes are ubiquitous but individually not terribly infective, coronavirus seriotypes are few but VERY infective, and adenoviruses are neither. This explains, given the previous RNA mutation problem, why China and US are undertaking strict Wuhan quarantine measures.

This also explains why there is no possibility of a common cold vaccine: too many viral targets. You catch a cold, you get temporary (RNA viruses are constantly mutating) immunity to that virus. You next cold is simply a different virus, which is why the average adult has 2-4 colds per year.

This also explains why adenovirus is not very infective. It is a DNA virus, so mutates slowly, so the immune memory is longer lasting. In fact, in 2011 the FDA approved (for military use only) a vaccine against adeno pharyngoconjuntivitis that was a big problem in basic training. (AKA PCF, or PC Fever, highly contagious, very debilitating, and unlike similar high fever strep throat untreatable with antibiotics.) In the first two years of mandatory PCF vaccine use, military PCF disease incidence reduced 100 fold.

These data expanded to influenza also explain why the annual flu shot is so hit or miss. The intent is to match the most common HxNy A or B types from end of this season for vaccination next season. That guess is never perfect. Plus, RNA based influenza mutates rapidly. So even IF the annual flu shot was a good initial match, the flu that spreads by the end of the vaccinated season will be the bits the guess missed—basic Darwinian evolution at work explaining the limited efficacy of the annual flu shot.

A clinical sidebar about URI’s. Both are worse in winter, because people are more indoors in closer infectious proximity. But colds have much less seasonality than flus. Summer colds are common. Summer flus aren’t.

There is a differential route of transmission explanation for this empirical observation. Colds are spread primarily by contact, while flus are spread primarily by inhalation. You have a cold, you politely (as taught) cover your sneeze or cough with a hand, then open a door using its doorknob, depositing your fresh virions on it. The person behind you opens the door, picking up your virions, then touches the mouth or nose (or eyes) before washing hands. That person is now probably infected. This is also why alcohol hand sanitizers have been clinically proven ineffective against colds. They will denature enveloped corona and adeno, but have basically no effect on the by far more prevalent naked rhinos.

There is an important corollary to this contact transmission fact. Infectivity via the contact route of transmission depends on how long a virion remains infective on an inanimate surface. This depends on the virion, the surface (hard doorknob or ‘soft’ cardboard packaging), and the environment (humidity, temperature). The general epidemiological rule of thumb for common colds and flus is at most 4 days viability. This corollary is crucial for Wuhan containment, discussed below.

The main flu infection route is inhalation of infected aspirate. This does not require a cough, merely an infected person breathing in your vicinity. In winter, when you breathe out outside below freezing ‘smoke’ it is just aspirate that ‘freezes’ and becomes visible. Football aficionados see this at Soldier and Lambeau Fields every winter watching Bears and Packers games. The very fine micro-droplet residence time in the air depends on humidity. With higher humidity, they don’t dry out as fast, so remain heavier and sink faster to where they don’t get inhaled, typically minutes. In typical winter indoor low humidity, they dry rapidly and remain circulating in the air for much longer, typically hours. This is also why alcohol hand sanitizers are ineffective against influenza; the main route of flu transmission has nothing to do with hands.

Wuhan Coronavirus

As of this writing, there are a reported 37500 confirmed infections and 811 deaths. Those numbers are about as reliable as GAST in climate change. Many people do not have access to definitive diagnostic kits; China has a habit of reporting an underlying comorbidity (emphysema, COPD, asthma) as cause of death, the now known disease progression means deaths lag diagnoses by 2-3 weeks. A climate analogy is the US surface temperature measurement problems uncovered by the WUWT Surface Stations project.

There are a number of important general facts we DO now know, which together provide directional guidance about whether anyone should be concerned or alarmed. The information is pulled from reasonably reliable sources like WHO, CDC, NIH, and JAMA or NEJM case reports. Plus, we have an inadvertent cruise ship laboratory experiment presently underway in Japan.

The incubation period is about 10-14 days until symptoms (fever, cough) evidence. That is VERY BAD news, because it has been demonstrated beyond question (Germany, Japan, US) that human to human transmission PRECEDES symptoms by about a week. So unlike SARS where all air travelers got a fever screening (mine was to and from a medical conference in Panama City). Since transmission did not precede symptoms, SARS fever screening sufficed; with Wuhan fever screening is futile. That is why all the 14-day quarantines imposed last week; the only way to quarantine Wuhan coronavirus with certainty is to wait for symptoms to appear or not. Quarantine is disruptive and expensive, but very effective.

Once symptoms appear, disease progression is now predictable from sufficient hundreds of case reports—usual corona cold progression for about 7-10 days. But then there is a bifurcation. 75-80% of patients start improving. In 20-25%, they begin a rapid decline into lower respiratory pneumonia. It is a subset of these where the deaths occur with or without ICU intervention. And as whistleblower Dr. Li’s death in Wuhan proves, ICU intervention is no panacea. He was an otherwise healthy 34 years old doctor.

There are two (really now three) key epidemiological numbers: R0 pronounced medically as ‘Rnaught’ (or, as we now know, R0 before and after symptoms). R naught is how many naïves will a single infected individual infect? We know from the Japanese cruise ship Diamond Princess quarantine that R0 is at least ~2. (As of now, 63 diagnosed out of 2667 passengers and ~1100 crew). Since Japan has moved the 63 symptomatic patients to hospital isolation, that same cruise ship may in the next 14 days also provide an experimental symptomless Wuhan R0 estimate. Late revision update, now 69, so asymptomatic R0 is unfortunately above 1.

The second important number is mortality, a virulence metric. We don’t know the mortality rate yet even given 811 deaths/37500 diagnosed. That is because of the multi-week disease progression, even if there were no other data issues. SARS was about 10% in the end (774 deaths from about 8000 diagnosed). The “Spanish flu’ of 1918-19 was also ~10% or perhaps a bit higher (CDC guesstimate is 40-60 million died out of about 500 million infected). BTW, for those wanting to deep dive that last lethal viral pandemic, I highly recommend the NYT best selling book THE GREAT INFLUENZA by John Barry. Wuhan is very unlikely to reach anywhere close to that mortality; otherwise we would already have seen many more deaths.

We also now know from a JAMA report Friday 2/7/2020 analyzing spread of Wuhan coronavirus inside a Wuhan hospital, that 41% of patients were infected within the hospital—meaning the ubiquitous surgical masks DO NOT work as prevention. The shortage of masks is symptomatic of panic, not efficacy.

Scientists last week also traced the source. There are two clues. Wuhan is now known to be 96% genetically similar to an endemic Asian bat corona. Like SARS and ‘Spanish flu’, it jumped to humans via an intermediate mammal species. No bats were sold in the Huanan wet market in Wuhan. But pangolins were, and as of Friday there is a 99% genetic match between pangolin corona and Wuhan human corona. Trade in wild pangolins is illegal, but the meat is considered a delicacy in China and Vietnam and pangolins WERE sold in the Wuhan wet market. This is is similar to SARS in 2003. A bat corona jumped to humans via live civets in another Chinese wet market. Xi’s ‘simple’ permanent SARS/Wuhan coronavirus solution is to ban Chinese wet markets.

This is similar to what is now known about the 1918-19 H1N1 ‘Spanish flu’. It started as a 1917 avian H1N1 (wild duck, Mississippi flyway, fall migration) influenza. It was hosted and incubated in an intermediary species, hogs, in Haskell County, Kansas for the rest of that year. A country doctor tending surprisingly many severe flu cases among hog farmer families as winter 1918 began raised an alarm, but his public health warnings were ignored. Then it jumped from Haskell County, Kansas hog farmers to Camp Funston, Kansas soldiers during winter 1918, where doughboys were training then deploying to Europe to finish the great war. The rest was history, with an R0 guesstimated between 2 and 3.

Conclusions

Should the world be concerned? Perhaps.

Will there be a terrible Wuhan pandemic? Probably not.

Again, the analogy to climate change alarm is striking. Alarm based on lack of underlying scientific knowledge plus unfounded worst case projections.

Proven human to human transmissibility and the likely (since proven) ineffectiveness of surgical masks were real early concerns. But the Wuhan virus will probably not become pandemic, or even endemic.

We know it can be isolated and transmission stopped with 14-day quarantine followed by symptomatic clinical isolation and ICU treatment if needed.

We know from infectivity duration on surfaces that it cannot be spread from China via ship cargo. And cargo ship crews can simply not be given shore leave until their symptomless ocean transit time plus port time passes 14 days.

Eliminating Chinese wet markets and the illegal trade in pangolins prevents another outbreak ever emerging from the wild, unfortunately unlike Ebola.
Share this:

phones sigh

i wotever, sounds like your calls are actually going through voicemail. Take alook at the following and try the disable codes on your phone.

Here’s how it’s done:

To enable voicemail:
*61*101**30# Divert to 101 when unanswered after 30 seconds
*62*101# Divert to 101 when unreachable
*67*101# Divert to 101 when busy
*21*101# Divert all calls to 101

To disable voicemail:
#61# Cancel divert when unanswered
#62# Cancel divert when unreachable
#67# Cancel divert when busy
#002# Cancel all diverts

I spent many hours searching for this last night. This thread was the #1 result in Google searches for “Telstra Call Forward codes”, and many of the pages on the Telstra site which deal with call forwarding didn’t show up on Google until the 6th or 7th page. So I thought it would be best to post the actual forward codes in this thread to help anyone else in the future.

To summarize:

Turn on Call Forward: **code*(phone number to forward calls to, including area code)*10#
Turn off call Forward: ##code**10#
Check if forwarding is on: *#code#

Where: “code” is:
21 for “All calls”
61 for “No answer”
62 for “Unreachable”, ie “out of coverage”
67 for “Busy”

Specifically for “no answer”, you can set the duration your phone rings before it diverts using the the following:
**61*(phone number to forward calls to, including area code)**(number of seconds)#

This was compiled from the following Telstra pages (though I will point out that none of the pages mention the “unreachable” diversion – this oversight should be corrected):

https://go.telstra.com.au/helpandsupport/-/turn-call-forward-on
https://go.telstra.com.au/helpandsupport/-/turn-call-forward-off-on-your-mobile
https://go.telstra.com.au/helpandsupport/-/check-if-call-forward-is-turned-on-or-off-on-your-mobile

https://go.telstra.com.au/helpandsupport/-/change-ring-time-before-calls-divert-to-messagebank-on-yo…

View solution in original post

Italian Story

C’era una Volta tre animale si trovano perduto nella bosca. C’erano un cangaru,un wombat u una rana verde dell’alberi.
“Il mio boomerang non ha ritornato” lamentarsi il cangaru con lacrime nel suoi occhi.
“Non fretta “ dice il wombat. “Comprero un nuovo quando torniamo a casa“
“Ma dov’e i nuoi casa“ urlo la piccola rana.”Non la vedo “

“Non ti fretta” dice il wombat ancora.” Stai placida”.
“di un piano”.
“Guarda questa collina davanti” ha detto.
“Cercheriamo di la.
Ma i alberi hanno bloccato il suo visione.
“Fammi aiutare”ha preghato il wombatche era scimmiando sul spalle del cangaru, ma i rami e fogli erano nella via.
La piccola rana ha salvuto il giornata.
Ha saltato nel capo del wombat e ha veduto il tetto rossa della loro casa lontano fa.
“Andiamo”.

Il messagio e semplice quello.
Senta alla rana sempre.

Other endings are possible but hard to say.
We can see further standing on the shoulders of giants.
Three heads are better than one.
Things work out when everyone helps.
Etc.
Can you make up a moral for this story as well?

Italian Story Corrected
C’erano una volta tre animali si trovavano perduti nel bosco. C’erano un cangaro, un wombat e una raganella verde.
“Il mio boomerang non è ritornato” lamentava il cangaro con lacrime agli occhi.
“Non c’è fretta “ disse il wombat. “Ne comprerò uno nuovo quando torniamo a casa“.
“Ma dov’è la nostra casa“ urlò la piccola rana. ”Non la vedo “
“Non c’è fretta” disse il wombat di nuovo.
”Stai calma”
“Ho un piano”.
“Guarda questa collina davanti” disse.
“Cercheriamo là
Ma gli alberi bloccavano la sua veduto.
“Aiutami” ha preghato il wombat che si era arrampicato sul spalle del cangaro, ma i rami e le foglie ostacolavano la veduta.
La piccola rana salvò la giornata.
È saltata sul capo del wombat e ha veduto il tetto rosso della loro casa lontana. “Andiamo”.
Il messagio è semplice.
Ascoltare sempre la raganella.
I cannot think of an Italian saying that would have the same meaning (Lelia)
Other endings are possible but hard to say.
We can see further standing on the shoulders of giants.
Three heads are better than one.
Things work out when everyone helps.
Etc.
Can you make up a moral for this story as well?

Once upon a time there were three animals who found themselves lost in the woods. There were a kangaroo, a wombat and a green tree frog.
“My boomerang didn’t come back” complained the kangaroo with tears in it’s eyes.
“Don’t worry”” said the wombat, I will buy you a new one when we get back home.
“But where is our house?”cried the little frog. “I do not see it”.
“Dont worry” said the wombat again.”Stay calm. I have a plan”
“See that hill in front” he said.
We will search [from] there””.
But the trees blocked his view [blocked him from seeing it?].
Help me” he asked the wombat who climbed on the shoulders of the kangaroo, but the branches and leaves blocked the view.
The little frog saved the day.
He jumped on the head of the wombat and saw the red roof of their house far away.
The message is simple.
Always listen to the tree frog.
or
Don’t go into the woods without a back up frog.
Boomerangs do not always return.
Jump around a lot when you get into trouble.
Have a house that you can easily identify [Isle of Burano story.]
It wont surprise you that Burano is famous for seafood.
The most popular place to eat seafood in Burano is Trattoria al Gatto Nero on Via Giudecca 88.

Are you looking for Causation or Blame?

I get the point that there are
Events caused by Anthropogenic effects
Events caused by Anthropogenic Climate Change
and that the general effect of the latter will cause more harm than the more localised effect of the former.

Attribution of either is complicated leading to a moral and scientific issue.
Are you looking for Causation or Blame?
One is a scientific approach and one a moral approach.

One can of course do both, find a cause and find blame in the same event.
This is helped by using story line approaches as they incorporate a moral lesson in their very definition.
“given that an event has occurred, how might climate change have influenced this event?”

“The claim is that in trying to separate the human influence from the natural variability of weather, extreme event attribution creates a new nature-culture divide.”
People have looked for causation in weather for ever. A rare event, did something I did cause that weather effect? People have always wanted to attribute causation and blame their actions or lack of them to explain misfortunes and occasionally good luck.
Once you attribute Blame or Causation to human action you open a divide between those who want to believe [naturalists] and those who want to understand [culture/science].

“The problem here is that extreme event attribution typically tries to understand how the event might be different because of anthropogenic-driven climate change,”
Even here what you are saying is that extreme events are natural and that in your view human causation might make it worse.
I say worse because if human causation ever made things better you would not feel concerned to investigate it further.
Hence the problem of trying to prove that rare extreme events are ever capable of offering proof of climate warming.
“if we don’t distinguish between natural and anthropogenic influences, how do you then avoid people simply concluding that it’s natural, or using this to argue that it’s natural?”
Hence the crux of the matter, do we tell them a story line to emphasis how bad we believe it may be and only choose, always, the bad side of that story line for emphasis?
– Or do we tell them the truth.

There will be a number of consequences that will become self evident in time.
We cannot prove this conclusively now but believe it to be so.
We are working on improving our attribution to everyone’s satisfaction.
We are not looking to blame or shame anyone.