Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Gregs24]

But isn't it good that it changes as more information becomes available ?
I get the impression that some people in this thread wouldn't trust a MD with their medical care, and would rather Google how to treat themselves. You know, doing their own "research"

I KNOW THEY DO !

They usually pay for it in the long run !

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; Not sure when you started in the thread but early on a few jumped on him hard. He has fought back. Now several are in their respective corners and it does get very testy. Perhaps you already know why they felt they had license to attack him.

Fought back

 

[Gregs24]

Lol, I know right ? I'm almost excited to see what it is

You will soon get bored - it is the same over and over again

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Ok, as long as you understand that just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Got it. Believing it makes it true. Not believing it doesn't make it not true.

 

[sk47]

Earth's inner core has been growing faster on one side than the other (msn.com)

Quote from the text of the link follows. “Even though it doesn't leave the core lopsided, this uneven growth rate suggests something in the outer core under Indonesia is removing heat from the inner core at a faster rate than it is under Brazil on the opposite side of the planet, the team said.”

Hello; (my words following in italics) First let me say this proves nothing from the simple understanding there may be a heat transfer going on in the interior of the earth. I chose to post the link because of the mention of what appears to be some uneven heating of the interior. That heat is moving from deep inside the earth to a more outer layer.

One understood thing about heat is that it moves from a hotter place to a cooler place. So over time the extra heat ought to move on from the outer core. A person might do a WAG that there could be there is a bit more warming of the mantle under Indonesia. This might show up as a measureable difference of warming at the surface or perhaps increased magma activity. (memory tells me molten rock is called magma when underground and then lava if it reaches the surface.)

Let me say I understand this may have nothing at all to do with climate change warming at all. It is a recent discovery and does involve heat on a global scale.

As is normal, if you want to get all the information please open the link and read for yourself.



One last comment from me. I had some handwarmer packs years ago. They consisted of a solution in a plastic pouch. It started out as a solid. You could boil the pouch and in a few minutes the solid would change to a liquid state as it absorbed heat energy. The solution would stay in a liquid state until triggered. There was a small metal device in the liquid which you could click. The clicking would trigger the solution to change back into a solid state which was actually crystals. Changing into a crystal was an exothermic process and so heat was released. I mention this because the article mentions iron crystal formation and this may be the extra heat source I think.

 

[sk47]

Be very careful here. The R value for COVID (even the early strains) was around 3.5 and some of the more contagious strains such as 'delta' may well be nearer to 4.

To calculate herd immunity 1-(1/R) as a percentage, so at R 3 it is 67% and R 4 it is 75%. This also assumes that everybody classed as 'immune' has 100% immunity (which they don't) and that immunity prevents spread in 100% of cases (which it doesn't)

This also assumes that no escape mutant arrives on the scene.

As has been mentioned many times, we are none of us safe until we are all safe - countries with out of control COVID such as Brazil and India mean the risk of a mutation is very high. Every time the virus replicates it can go wrong, so the more cases the greater the risk.

So no - you don't have herd immunity in the US (we are ahead of you on vaccination and we don't yet) but the vaccine does mean that 'available hosts' are much reduced so the maximum unconstrained R is probably nearer 1.5. However, (and this is another biggy) you cannot take national percentages to assume herd immunity as in the UK and US there are certain groups of people (whether that is religion, medical condition, politics, or anti vax nutters) who have refused vaccination. If a lot of these people live near each other exponential spread will occur.

Assuming 50% of US citizens have had it naturally is a bold assumption, that would be very much at odds with the rest of the world based on testing results. You are still getting 20k cases per day which somewhat suggests herd immunity has not happened yet.

Other factors such as masks, social distancing etc all affect the R rate to a greater or lesser extent and can all be used in the armoury against the virus.

And before anybody comments, my masters degree did include virology, epidemiology and immunology, so I do know what I am talking about!

Hello; Let me again point out the quote of DR. Makary was from an article I linked. Those were Dr. Makary's comments and were not mine. If I recall he is a professor at a top university. That information is in the link I provided as well.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; Let me again point out the quote of DR. Makary was from an article I linked. Those were Dr. Makary's comments and were not mine. If I recall he is a professor at a top university. That information is in the link I provided as well.

No problem.

I personally feel the following article better explains where the US may be. It also distinguishes between herd immunity and community level immunity as I mentioned which is really important. It also goes on to consider the way the pandemic may continue depending on certain circumstances.

Is herd immunity closer than we think? | AAMC

The community level immunity variation is certainly a problem in some UK cities and I suspect will also be in some of the US states with poor vaccine take up.

 

[Super-Genius]

Got it. Believing it makes it true. Not believing it doesn't make it not true.

Umm ... congratulations or something

 

[Chef jpd]

 

[Burkey]

Just thought I’d throw this one into the mix as “food for thought”. Whether it’s accurate or not I can’t really say, but is does raise some interesting points that have repeatedly emerged throughout this entire thread.

https://slate.com/technology/2017/1...re-more-susceptible-to-believing-in-lies.html

 

[Burkey]

Earth's inner core has been growing faster on one side than the other (msn.com)

Quote from the text of the link follows. “Even though it doesn't leave the core lopsided, this uneven growth rate suggests something in the outer core under Indonesia is removing heat from the inner core at a faster rate than it is under Brazil on the opposite side of the planet, the team said.”

Hello; (my words following in italics) First let me say this proves nothing from the simple understanding there may be a heat transfer going on in the interior of the earth. I chose to post the link because of the mention of what appears to be some uneven heating of the interior. That heat is moving from deep inside the earth to a more outer layer.

One understood thing about heat is that it moves from a hotter place to a cooler place. So over time the extra heat ought to move on from the outer core. A person might do a WAG that there could be there is a bit more warming of the mantle under Indonesia. This might show up as a measureable difference of warming at the surface or perhaps increased magma activity. (memory tells me molten rock is called magma when underground and then lava if it reaches the surface.)

Let me say I understand this may have nothing at all to do with climate change warming at all. It is a recent discovery and does involve heat on a global scale.

As is normal, if you want to get all the information please open the link and read for yourself.



One last comment from me. I had some handwarmer packs years ago. They consisted of a solution in a plastic pouch. It started out as a solid. You could boil the pouch and in a few minutes the solid would change to a liquid state as it absorbed heat energy. The solution would stay in a liquid state until triggered. There was a small metal device in the liquid which you could click. The clicking would trigger the solution to change back into a solid state which was actually crystals. Changing into a crystal was an exothermic process and so heat was released. I mention this because the article mentions iron crystal formation and this may be the extra heat source I think.

Only one real problem that I can immediately identify…
If the heat were being emitted from within the planet, you’d see the increase in heat in the stratosphere, but we don’t. We see the troposphere warming (as is consistent with the current theory) and the stratosphere cooling (as is also consistent with the current theory).

Yeah, ok, maybe the extra heat IS coming from the core, but you now need to explain the phenomenon I just detailed. WHY is the stratosphere cooling?
How does the core theory account for the data?
What predictive capacity does it produce?

 

[sk47]

Only one real problem that I can immediately identify…
If the heat were being emitted from within the planet, you’d see the increase in heat in the stratosphere, but we don’t. We see the troposphere warming (as is consistent with the current theory) and the stratosphere cooling (as is also consistent with the current theory).

Yeah, ok, maybe the extra heat IS coming from the core, but you now need to explain the phenomenon I just detailed. WHY is the stratosphere cooling?
How does the core theory account for the data?
What predictive capacity does it produce?

Hello; So you are trying to say an apparently newly recognized heat source from the interior of the earth ought to warm the troposphere which is that layer of atmosphere closest to the earth and this inside the earth heat ought to be warming the stratosphere which is a layer very high above the surface of the earth?

Well, does this actually make sense to you?

 

[Burkey]

Hello; So you are trying to say an apparently newly recognized heat source from the interior of the earth ought to warm the troposphere which is that layer of atmosphere closest to the earth and this inside the earth heat ought to be warming the stratosphere which is a layer very high above the surface of the earth?

Well, does this actually make sense to you?

Yes, you “should“ see an increase in the temp of BOTH, although obviously to differing degrees.
GHG theory explains exactly why the uppermost level is cooling whilst the lower layers are warming.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s quite possible that this might well be CONTRIBUTING to the problem, but that doesn’t make it a primary cause OF the problem.

To my knowledge (and I’m more than happy to be corrected on this), if all other factors are identical and you then introduce a heat source inside the atmosphere, the earth will radiate more heat into space, which would mean that it MUST be heating upper layers as we just discussed, unless there’s some physical law that prevents this from happening. Do you happen to know of it?
Thats a serious question because if you can expand my knowledge, I’m all ears.

As always, I’m totally willing to accept that I might not have the right info on that front, but that is MY understanding of the situation at this point in time based on what I’ve read.

Unfortunately, neither of us are well versed enough in the relevant fields to have an opinion that is worth a damn, which is why we need to wait and see what those who ARE qualified have to say on the matter, with evidence that is backed by all of the formulas and calculations and submitted to other people of similar credentials for their assessment and rebuttals.

 

[sk47]

Yes, you “should“ see an increase in the temp of BOTH, although obviously to differing degrees.
GHG theory explains exactly why the uppermost level is cooling whilst the lower layers are warming.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s quite possible that this might well be CONTRIBUTING to the problem, but that doesn’t make it a primary cause OF the problem.

To my knowledge (and I’m more than happy to be corrected on this), if all other factors are identical and you then introduce a heat source inside the atmosphere, the earth will radiate more heat into space, which would mean that it MUST be heating upper layers as we just discussed, unless there’s some physical law that prevents this from happening. Do you happen to know of it?
Thats a serious question because if you can expand my knowledge, I’m all ears.

As always, I’m totally willing to accept that I might not have the right info on that front, but that is MY understanding of the situation at this point in time based on what I’ve read.

Unfortunately, neither of us are well versed enough in the relevant fields to have an opinion that is worth a damn, which is why we need to wait and see what those who ARE qualified have to say on the matter, with evidence that is backed by all of the formulas and calculations and submitted to other people of similar credentials for their assessment and rebuttals.

Hello; First thing is someone found what may be a natural heat source in the earth. One of the big objections has been the authorities have claimed there is not a possible natural heat source. Before I ran across the link I had commented that did not seem to be something to bank on.
I did some reading about the cooling and shrinking of the upper layers of the atmosphere. I have a decent background in the sciences and could follow the two articles found so far. I do have some questions about the described process to work out before making much in the way of comments.

Not clear as to why an internal Earth heat source ought to have much to do with the top most layer of the atmosphere. I likely will look into this a bit more.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Back in 2001 I damaged a knee. Went to a specialist. He told me I had a problem with my knee cap and wanted to do a surgery on the tendons of my patella (knee cap). This did not make sense to me as the pain did not seem to be from around the knee cap.
I went to a second doctor who had a MRI done, but he could not find the problem. Took the MRI film to a third doctor and within five minutes of looking at the MRI and doing an exam decided it was a torn meniscus. He did a scope surgery that has worked out well.

The case, just in my own experience, is doctors have made a poor diagnosis some other times. Had one issue which three different doctors came up with three different diagnosis. To be sure I do some checking out before allowing a doctor to just go ahead. If their diagnosis makes sense and fits the symptoms then I am more comfortable.

Have blind trust if you want, but I would have had a kneecap surgery which would not have fixed my knee had I trusted the first doctor. His practice has since folded here. I do not think he is out of the business, just somewhere else.

Sponsored