What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
Now, how much ethanol do I have to drink to kill the Covid-19?
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
I have been informed by a letter from management that there is a confirmed case of Covid-19 in my apartment building. Mostly elderly and disabled people living here. [:(]
I do have a sinus infection with attendant other issues, but it is relatively minor.
Now, how much ethanol do I have to drink to kill the Covid-19?
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
I have been informed by a letter from management that there is a confirmed case of Covid-19 in my apartment building. Mostly elderly and disabled people living here. [:(]
I do have a sinus infection with attendant other issues, but it is relatively minor.
Now, how much ethanol do I have to drink to kill the Covid-19?
A persistent sinus infection is the symptom of what we think might have been Covid for me. My wife had something much worse with a horrendous cough. Still not sure as no tests, but these days I'm going to treat virtually anything as a Covid symptom.
ORIGINAL: DD696
Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.
How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).ORIGINAL: DD696
Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.
ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).ORIGINAL: DD696
Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.
The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.
Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).ORIGINAL: DD696
Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.
The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.
Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .
Yes, no one is disputing that there can be natural variability, and that some may be happening now. Even if most of the current temperature increase is natural, it is impacting us severely and will be more severe as we lose our ice cap cushions. So the question remains, do we try and do something proactive to influence events or just try and cope with the effects after the fact? Ya makes yer choice and ya takes yer chances ...ORIGINAL: Zorch
At the risk of getting this thread locked, I will make the following observation.
People need to understand the difference between the natural variability of climate, and human caused climate change. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough.
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).
The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.
Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .
The evidence of warming is not just in current temperature studies of air and ocean, but in behaviour of storms, wildfires and movement of insect/bird/animal/fish populations toward formerly cold regions they could not survive in. And ocean currents that reliably flowed for thousands of years are suddenly ceasing movement as the melting ice of the cold regions stops the northward movement of tropic waters.
As one scientist put it "The more energy you add to a system, the more chaotic the events in the system - like a pot of water going from simmer to full boil." That sure seems to fit with observations over my lifetime. Note that none of the above mentions politics, it is just describing what we are seeing/measuring. Politics only gets involved when we have to decide if we should do anything about what is happening. I will not go there if you don't.
We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth. For similar reasons, the penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high-latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene, warming was not uniform across the globe.
You're talking about the natural variability of climate. That's always been present. Human caused climate change is the issue, and that is comparatively recent.ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Global Warming, now there is a cesspool for politics. But if it weren't for global warming, the Earth, or at least most of it, would be covered by about 2 miles of ice. The Earth was previously warmer by about 4 degrees C nearly 2000 years ago . . .
The evidence of warming is not just in current temperature studies of air and ocean, but in behaviour of storms, wildfires and movement of insect/bird/animal/fish populations toward formerly cold regions they could not survive in. And ocean currents that reliably flowed for thousands of years are suddenly ceasing movement as the melting ice of the cold regions stops the northward movement of tropic waters.
As one scientist put it "The more energy you add to a system, the more chaotic the events in the system - like a pot of water going from simmer to full boil." That sure seems to fit with observations over my lifetime. Note that none of the above mentions politics, it is just describing what we are seeing/measuring. Politics only gets involved when we have to decide if we should do anything about what is happening. I will not go there if you don't.
I should have clarified that what is now England was that much warmer. But:
We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth. For similar reasons, the penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high-latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene, warming was not uniform across the globe.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... ial-period
Edit to include:
Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F hotter during the time of the Roman Empire - the warmest it has been for the past 2,000 years, study shows
Roman Empire coincided with warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Med
But the climate later turned colder and likely ended the Empire's golden period
Scientists studied amoeba species in marine sediments to reveal climate history
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... laims.html
You should also read about Dogger Land.
ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
How a government tackles the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout (both social and economic) is, inherently, a political decision. IMHO it is impossible to talk about the virus and avoid politics - unless you talk about the pandemic in abstract terms, like statistics (and it would still be impossible to avoid the political angle, like tying a spike to a too hasty reopening after a lockdown).ORIGINAL: DD696
Glad to see that the prevalent political discussion seems to be decreasing and there is more of a focus on covid-19, but I am absolutely positive that will not last.
The problem we face is that science isn't partisan. It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances. For example, I do believe in Global Warming and I think that we are running out of time. There: I gave my opinion about a scientific fact. But I'm sure that it will be intended as a political statement (so a big no no here) and possibly mark me as a leftist or whatever. The same is happening now about the measures needed to tackle the pandemic: in some countries politics overtook science - with the dire results we all are seeing. Darwinism in action in its purest form.
It is years of delusional behaviour that turned scientific ideas into political stances.