Don't want to be down wind of that place!
"Bromine pentafluoride is severely corrosive to the skin, and its vapors are irritating to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Exposure to 100 ppm for a few minutes is lethal to most experimental animals. Chronic exposure may cause kidney damage and liver failure." - Wikipedia

Don't worry the government will quickly edit the PPM to reflect the new safe levels for your area.

Two drops. That was 1.44g of mercury exposure. That's as much as ~300 fluorescent light bulbs. A "safe" level of mercury is considered to be 1 ppm.

This is real life horror show stuff. Mercury is a deadly Neurotoxin.

*Brain. *Promote. *Related=https://videosift.com/video/How-Mercury-Causes-Neurodegeneration-Brain-Damage

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

The slap bands don't work because the arms are at angles to each other. Slap bands can only rotate in a straight direction (They are basically tape measure metal), so they wouldn't be able to come back to meet in the center like they illustrate. Also they have the motors all prettily lined up and facing directly off the wrist, that would require the material to be able to twist.

For the rotor size, these are fixed pitch rotors. You can change the pitch of the rotor to give you different flight characteristics and in general you have to match the pitch to the motor to be the most efficient. I may have this reversed, but a lower pitch prop gives you more torque and less overall speed, but a higher pitch prop gives more top speed, less torque. Making a prop that can be injection molded at that size that even works is difficult, making one that is super efficient would be even more so. QC would have to be incredibly exacting. As a gauge, the 2" x 2" quad has 1" props. They can lift it and buzz it around pretty well. Those things were a pain to get correct and I have a hard time imagining anyone making them more efficient than they are. In the case of the 2" quad, we didn't even paint the body because we want to limit the impact on flight time from added weight. All molded in color. That's how sensitive these things can be. There are better motors if you are willing to pay, but even then it may not be enough.
Go Pro records in HD, but doesn't actually broadcast anything (plus it is big enough to keep this thing from flying anywhere). If you want to broadcast video you have to do it in 640x480 tops. To do that you need something like an FPV system that broadcasts on a spread spectrum. If you went bluetooth you have an effect range that is pretty small. Wifi requires more power to get a longer range. A video transmitter system would require a separate device to attach to your phone to receive the signal and translate it to a PPM signal for through the headphone jack. But a VTX is pretty heavy as well.
And things may drain just a little bit of power, but it stacks up. At most you have a 250mAh Lipo battery that can fit in there. That isn't going to buy you a bunch of flight/video time.
Video on the phone is going to be subject to interference, so you would want to record on the quad. this would get you HD quality, but also adds weight, which means more battery draw, which means less flight time.
-B

Somewhat related to PPM, I also quite liked Ian Phillipps' entry in the 1988 IOCCC:

http://www.ioccc.org/years.html#1988_phillipps

Huffman is my fav example, with PPM my second. PPM being the king these days.

Thank you NetRunner,

I agree completely with your statement,

"As for the denier label, that's easily settled. Do you agree that man-made CO2 emissions are causing significant changes to the planet's climate?"

It matters because:

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

P.S. The IEA is a conservative, pro free-market organization...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

Also, every rebuttal you make to me starts with "You don't understand the points I'm making."
Oh how wrong you are, I read the single paper you cite, I know about Mann's graphs, your argument is a collection of luke-warm contrarian spin. It's disgusting that you can't recognize that or won't admit it. (Or you're a professional troll, in which case Kudos, job well done).

(*#$&

I am getting a little annoyed at the science behind aquariums.

I know water quality via Ph and Parts per million in dissolved solids.

I put that aquarium salt in the water less than the instructions tell me, and my water shoots up to 850 ppm, which I know is "hard water" . so using this product I can only assume I have made my water hard.

I'll be joining another web based forum for aquariums, as this is blowing my fucking mind out.

It says to use it, but then it does that to my water.... I obviously do not understand tank dynamics fully.

Like hell I am going to be buying distilled water every couple days.

Edit- The PH down I use which is my old Phosphoric Acid, brings the PH down but also adds phosphates, phosphates are bad, Mmmm'Kay ?

My problems came from that I bet. the water hardness I am still figuring out. Very good to know though, I might have to invest in some Hydrochloric/ acid.

With over 10 million users of colloidal silver in the USA Along, coupled with the fact that colloidal silver has been used and documented in Medicinal Books as early as 1914 you have to concluded that this is one of Big Pharmas attack on Alternative Health Products.

If colloidal silver where a real danger, we would see blue people every where, at least 1 out of 10 because of the statistics of users.

We would be hearing daily of how people "died" of colloidal silver.....But we dont.

This is a well thought out plan by Big Pharma to stamp out the rising use of colloidal silver to stop viruses and bacteria.

The Good News is that there is NOW a chemical Free Version of Colloidal Silver, aka Colloidal Silver Atoms, made with ZERO chemicals before, during and after the production process.

Packed with 3000 PPM, and the worlds smallest particle size.

>> ^rgroom1:

I have to say, the samples that he collected and sent in looked to be from a "tarball" and a lot of surface foam. This may be making the problem look much worse than it is. I would rather have the sample be under the foam in the water.
I'm not downplaying the problem, just pointing out bad science.


so instead of 150x the lethal ppm its say a factor of 10x less... only 15x the lethal ppm
get me my swimming trunks

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
What you can do is take two tubes fill one with normal air and fill the other with CO2 enriched air, from co2 in soda or something. Make sure the temperatures in both tubes are equal. Close the tubes and shine two identical lights in both tubes. Put an accurate thermometer in both and look at the temperatures. The tube with CO2 will warm more.
As an analyst I would describe this as an extremely flawed experiment. Here is a better one...
You will need at least four different air containers. Container one should have 245ppm of C02 (which represents C02 around 1840). Container two should contain 387ppm of C02 - representing today's current C02 percentage. Container three should contain pure C02. Container four should contain zero C02. All four containers should be completely sealed so no air can enter or escape. They should also be prepared in locations that cannot introduce excess pollutants. IE don't prepare it in a workshop, or a lab, or near an air vent, or some other source that could introduce foreign material. Ideally the containers would be prepared in a vaccuum chamber, and the requisite gasses would be introduced in pure form (nitrogen, oxygen, c02, et al). Each container would have a temperature sensor proven to be accurate to one one-hundredth of a degree affixed in identical locations within the container (ideally, centrally located both vertically & horizontally). Each container would then be placed in a completely seperate dark chamber with one single light source (purchased from the same lot & randomly matched by chamber). Of course you'd select a light source as close to sunlight as possible. They make bulbs like that. Then you record temperatures in all four containers continually for a sufficient longitudinal period. Give it a week perhaps, and take temperature readings every hour.
Such a study would determine the ratio of difference between 245ppm and 387ppm of C02 within a specified volume of air. ANOVA testing could determine whether the difference was in any way significant. I suspect the difference between the 245 and 387 containers would be statistically negligible. C02 can contribute to increased temperatures, to be sure. But the difference between 245 and 387 ppm in a system as large and dynamic as our atmosphere is unlikely to be of any significance.


OMG, I was just making an example of a simple tabletop experiment demonstrating the basic physics of the different emissivities of different gasses.

What you can do is take two tubes fill one with normal air and fill the other with CO2 enriched air, from co2 in soda or something. Make sure the temperatures in both tubes are equal. Close the tubes and shine two identical lights in both tubes. Put an accurate thermometer in both and look at the temperatures. The tube with CO2 will warm more.

As an analyst I would describe this as an extremely flawed experiment. Here is a better one...

You will need at least four different air containers. Container one should have 245ppm of C02 (which represents C02 around 1840). Container two should contain 387ppm of C02 - representing today's current C02 percentage. Container three should contain pure C02. Container four should contain zero C02. All four containers should be completely sealed so no air can enter or escape. They should also be prepared in locations that cannot introduce excess pollutants. IE don't prepare it in a workshop, or a lab, or near an air vent, or some other source that could introduce foreign material. Ideally the containers would be prepared in a vaccuum chamber, and the requisite gasses would be introduced in pure form (nitrogen, oxygen, c02, et al). Each container would have a temperature sensor proven to be accurate to one one-hundredth of a degree affixed in identical locations within the container (ideally, centrally located both vertically & horizontally). Each container would then be placed in a completely seperate dark chamber with one single light source (purchased from the same lot & randomly matched by chamber). Of course you'd select a light source as close to sunlight as possible. They make bulbs like that. Then you record temperatures in all four containers continually for a sufficient longitudinal period. Give it a week perhaps, and take temperature readings every hour.

Such a study would determine the ratio of difference between 245ppm and 387ppm of C02 within a specified volume of air. ANOVA testing could determine whether the difference was in any way significant. I suspect the difference between the 245 and 387 containers would be statistically negligible. C02 can contribute to increased temperatures, to be sure. But the difference between 245 and 387 ppm in a system as large and dynamic as our atmosphere is unlikely to be of any significance.

WP is not only a preeminent sociologist, a brilliant political scientist, but also a climate expert.

Nope - just a statistician who has seen the data, viewed the methodologies, and concluded that if the entirety of the AWG movement's 'evidence' was manifested as water then it wouldn't be able to moisten the inside of a thimble.

Conspiracy

Who said it was a conspiracy? More like standard operating proceedure. Governments have been troweling out millions to scientists for a long time. It is only in the last 15 years or so that they started troweling it out for purposes of justifying 'global warming'. Left wing politicians want taxes to generate revenue to pay for social programs, as well as to 'engineer' society. This carbon credit scheme will be the biggest money sponge of all time. So government hands out the money like candy to any outfit that proposes they can find even the loosest, most distant connections imaginable between human C02 & 'warming'.

The message is crystal clear. Need a big fat grant for your research center? Have a few guys propose a 'global warming' study, and there you go. These outfits try as best they CAN to apply real science, but the fact remains that all of their conclusions rest on specious mathematical models that are absolute garbage (and that's being kind).

The only way taxes will drop C02 level is as a byproduct of punishing prosperity. The money will not go towards 'green' technology that will change the world as we know it. It will just go into government and get spent on the same stuff as always. They are relying on the stifling nature of onerous taxation to force human beings to scale back economic activity.

Pure insanity. Have they even considered what this is going to do economically? Slow down the economy, and you reduce GDP. Reduce GDP, and you reduce revenue. Reduce revenue & government must be REDUCED. But they aren't planning for that. They are thinking they are going to do this cap & trade scheme, and STILL have a steadily increasing GDP. I look at their plans, and can reach no other conclusion than that our leaders have gone completely insane.

I've already run the numbers, and the ONLY possible way to get the planet to return to 230 PPM atmospheric C02 is to reduce Earth's population by about 5 billion people. Anything short of that is window dressing.