mistermack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Gender_Identity_Development_Service Quote : " Subsequent to the Bell report it was revealed that 35 psychologists had resigned since 2016, including six psychologists who claimed there was "over-diagnosis" of gender dysphoria and a push for early medical intervention,[14] because "psychologists fear being branded transphobic."[15]" And : " In November 2018, the parents of patients complained in a letter to the Trust board about the alacrity at which diagnoses were rendered, leaving them unable to intervene in these "life-altering decisions".[11] This led to the commissioning of an internal report by Dr David Bell, which concluded in February 2019 that the service was "not fit for purpose", as children were being prescribed experimental drugs "after a few sessions and without proper investigation of their cases[...] under pressure from transgender rights groups". This is not exactly rare stuff. I don't keep everything I read to provide links to, but this is fairly typical stuff. And it's not just the UK : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11921113/More-half-parents-trans-kids-say-pressured-transitioning-child.html " America's strong-arming gender clinics REVEALED: Most parents of trans kids say they were 'pressured' into transitioning their child — even when it left them worse off"

No, I made no claims about numbers. So I don't need to provide links about claims I didn't make. You posted that cartoon and constantly quoted it as evidence of a number. If you are pushing a number, you need to explain what it means, and how it was derived. Otherwise, it's baseless.

To be honest, I think there are aspects that time won't wash away. Even the wording of the title is a problem. Trans kids. There are some kids who know exactly that their nominal sex is wrong, but most wouldn't have a clue. And I wouldn't trust the sex-change industry to keep out of it till they are old enough to know what they are doing. Taking the scalpel to kids should be the very last resort, reserved for the most clear-cut cases only. How can anybody know if a kid isn't being pushed into something, by an over zealous counsellor or relative?

So are we talking about a womens game, alongside an open game, or a mens game as well? I guess it will just evolve and we'll know what works when it arrives.

No link then. I have no reason to trust that estimate, or your interpretation of it, as it happens. Without proper figures, and a clear description of exactly what they mean, the diagram you posted is meaningless. From what I remember, the word sedimentation is ambiguous. If they are talking about the permanent sedimentation, then I wouldn't be surprised by a low figure. But that's not the whole story. When the tiny shells fall as 'snow' to the bottom, most of them get re-dissolved over a few hundred years. They don't generally get included when they quote a sedimentation figure. But from the point of view of the current carbon problem, a few hundred years sequestration is a highly desireable outcome. So if you want to make a claim about sedimentation rates, you need to find a reliable clear source, with context. Your diagram tells us nothing.

The question is though, should the womens game be abolished ?

How can anonymous posts be classed as personal information?

So are men allowed to play in womens teams ?

So that's a no then.

What, like farming, where your food comes from? Ok so far. 🙂

Somebody once had the crazy idea of drilling for oil in 4,000 feet of water !! And the oil was another 35,000 feet down !!! They should get him some treatment, poor soul. . . . I'm glad you like my tat. 🙂

It would help if you posted a link to verify your claim, rather than a diagram. And the point of this suggestion right from the start, is that it can be justified on two counts, and could very well be self financing. Generating a whole new industry is not something to be scoffed at, and producing high quality food in large quantities is surely worth investigating. Even if it never fixed a gram of carbon, it could still make a difference to the planet. Having Chinese, Norwegian and Korean factory ships hoovering up Krill in the Antarctic should tell you something about the state of fishing on the planet. Producing a whole new set of fisheries around the world would feed millions, and take the pressure off wild stocks.

Maybe you could do some research on what organisms fix most carbon, and seed the blooms with the most desirable ones. Some of that stuff reproduces very quickly so seeding thinly might have a big effect. Or you could possibly have vast floating mussel and oyster farms, giving high value product and lots of solid shells.

You seem to be having it both ways. The gas is dissolving in water but the water is losing holding capacity. I would point out that yes, with higher CO2 levels in the air, the oceans will take more into solution. But only up to a point, when equilibrium is reached. Of course, if the atmosphere concentration keeps on rising, then the amount in solution will keep on rising. That's rather the point of the exercise. Take some of it permanently out of solution. It would mitigate rising acidity, and in the present situation, the carbon has nowhere else to go anyway. A little bit more natural weathering of rock, but other than that, the extra carbon we are producing now is going to be still there in 100, 200, 300 years.

I just can't follow your reasoning there. In the proposed system, there is already a huge pressure difference between inlet and outlet, just by virtue of the inlet being at the bottom of an ocean. What you are asking the pump to do is overcome the friction in the tube, not the weight of water in the tube. For example, at depth 3,000 metres, the pressure is approximately 302 bar. At the surface, it's about 1 bar. So in the tube with no pumping, there is a pressure difference from bottom to top of about 300 bar. It doesn't shoot water out of the top end, because it's perfectly balanced by the weight of the column of water. So when you start your pump, you're not working against the weight of the water, that's in balance. You're working against the friction in the tube. Does that help?

I don't get what you mean there. Could you elaborate a bit?

I would imagine that a lot of the differences between Earth and Mars are down to the relative sizes. The smaller size of Mars would mean that it cooled quicker, from a less hot starting point. The Earth, hotter, for a longer period, would mean that the heavier elements would have more oportunity to sink to the centre. It's thought that the Earth was hit too, by another body, forming the Moon. That would have added to the heat. So Mars came together in a cooler event, and cooled quicker, allowing lighter elements to linger in the core. (all of that is my own speculation/opinion, I'm happy to be corrected)

Well, I wasn't picturing anything of the sort. My own first thought would be for something like a ships propeller.

I don't think we are on the same wavelength here. I don't think it would be necessary to pump up heavy sediment. I'm pretty sure that the places that have natural upwellings don't have upwellings of heavy sediment. I'm picturing pumping up cloudy water, the sort of stuff that rises like a cloud when you disturb it, and takes hours or days to settle back down. I'm pretty sure that that's all you would get in natural upwellings. That sort of cloudy water would be hugely more productive than the crystal clear ocean water that exists at the surface of these ocean deserts. The waters around Britain are pretty productive, but they still have reasonable visibility for diving. The sort of cloudy water that I'm talking about wouldn't resemble concrete in the slightest. In fact, heavy sediment would be undesirable, as it would sink faster. It might even be possible to use the ocean current in some places instead of a pump. You could lower a huge funnel onto the ocean floor, and attach your pipe to the thin end. Point the mouth of the funnel into the current, (it's up to 2 or 3 knots in places), and let the ocean do the work. Another technique might be to use natural upwellings instead of a pipe. Just have a robotic stirrer, working in the ocean current, upstream of a natural obstacle, and massively increase the nutrient levels of the natural upwellings. That way you might hugely increase the quality and extent of an existing fishery without the need for a pump at all, as well as increasing CO2 uptake.

This is a nicely written article from the University of New Hampshire about a research team, studying "ocean deserts". Their estimate is that 40% of the planet's surface is ocean desert which is a lot. That's out of 71% total ocean coverage. https://www.unh.edu/unhtoday/2022/07/nourishing-ocean-deserts#:~:text=Ocean deserts typically exist in,more biologically productive coastal regions. A quote from it "nutrients in the open sea tend to sink to the bottom and get trapped there because the ocean doesn’t mix vertically very well, thus leading to the term “ocean deserts,” Letscher explains." As far as pumping up solid matter goes, I wouldn't have thought that that would be desirable, but that sort of thing would have to come with experience and study. My own initial inclination would be to have one propeller stirring up the bottom, and another sucking up the cloudy water that results. You could easily postion the second one so that it's not getting much in the way of solids. The energy input would be just overcoming the friction in the pipe, and the more you scale it up, the less that would be, per gallon pumped, because of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. You could easily design the pipe material to be neutrally bouyant, or slightly bouyant, whichever worked best. From what I've read, there are only two natural ways that carbon gets sequestered long-term. The other way is through natural weathering of rocks. You could theoretically design a program of accelerated weathering, by grinding up rock, and spreading it on land surfaces, but it would be hugely expensive, and could cause immense damage to waterways and natural habitats. And the other suggested means of carbon storage sound very expensive. With a system like this, there is at least the prospect of it becoming self-financing through fishing, and in any case, the extra fish production would be a good thing, taking pressure off the depleting wild fish stocks that we have at the moment, and providing food for the extra billions of humans that are likely to inhabit the planet in this century.

" The ocean acts as a “carbon sink” and absorbs about 31% of the CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere according to a study published by NOAA and international partners in Science. " https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/quantifying-ocean-carbon-sink#:~:text=The ocean acts as a,and international partners in Science. And the important quality of absorbtion by shelled animals in the ocean is that the carbon is out of circulation for a very long time. Growing forests etc on land just achieves a very temporary dip, as the carbon is constantly being re-emitted. These are known as volatile carbon sinks, and are pretty worthless long-term. And on the question of fuel, this is not being discussed in a vacuum. There are real suggestions and plans for mechanically removing CO2 from the atmosphere as an industrial process, and storing it. I haven't gone into the detail of that, but I'm pretty sure that it would be far more costly than pumping sediment. The only processes I've come across that would genuinely store carbon long term are very energy hungry. At first sight the energy input needed to pump sediment would be mainly in overcoming friction in the pipes. The water itself is effectively weightless. Maybe someone can correct me on that.

That's not my link. I just pasted the wiki sentence from cod wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars And I quoted cod wars and wiki. Anyone can check wiki. Your suggestion that fishing catches are influenced by the distance from port is comically off the mark. Norway, Korea, China, and Chile are the biggest krill fishing nations in the Antarctic. http://www.antarcticfund.org/fisheries#:~:text=Norway%2C Korea%2C China%2C and,sectors) where krill fishing occurs. Check the mileage from Norway and China to the Antarctic.

Those are relevant questions, but if you look at natural upwellings around the globe, then those things can happen, but are not game changers. The natural upwelling are just the same thing via a different method. If you look at the Hawaii example, you have deep ocean all around, with forced upwellings around the underwater land mass. The fishing around Hawaii is pretty good, or so I've heard. With this sort of pumping, you can obviously control how much you pump, and measure the surface concentrations, so there should be no need for blooms at a harmful level. You would learn as you go along, like everything else.

Except that scientific studies show that most of the ocean is classed as desert. They don't just rely on catches. And 200 miles is nothing to a modern fishing vessel. See the Cod Wars. (wiki) " Fishing boats from Britain have been sailing to waters near Iceland in search of their catch since the 14th century." The EEZ is probably 200 miles BECAUSE that's usually as far as the worthwhile fishing zone extends.

I once dreamed that I'd killed someone, and hid the body in a nearby hedge. When I woke up, I must have stayed in a half-asleep state, because I spent the whole morning deeply depressed, totally convinced that the body would soon be discovered, and I would spend the rest of my life in prison. I started debating with myself whether I should move the body, and the risks involved, and I was frustrated that I couldn't exactly remember the details of where I left it. I was confused, wondering how it could be that I couldn't remember, and I sat down and it dawned on me out of the fog that my brain was obviously in, that it had been a dream. The relief that flooded over me was unbelievable, it was like I'd turned my life around in an instant. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that has had a dream carry on into waking like that. For me, it was just the once in a lifetime, but for some, it's probably much more severe and frequent. You can dream literally anything, and some of the most convincing UFO stories might well be dreams that people had, that somehow got confused with waking reality. I was able to work out what happened, but sometimes for some people, that might not be possible.