The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 6/15/2019 at 9:55 AM, wrs said:

The totality of the energy received and transmitted by the earth is at issue here and the problem for the  climate religionists is that they cannot properly quantify even the human component of that.  In fact the human component is actually really that which is already here just rearranged after a few reactions occur.  Said reactions occur regularly without human involvement as well and produce a tremendous amount more of the same reactants but climate religionists cannot figure that out. 

Scientists don't know how the earth works or why it works, there is no theory of life on the earth that is quantifiable and verifiable.  There is also no theory of energy transmission to and from the earth between the sun and the other planets.

Climate religionists blithely assume that all new CO2 is human generated and all human generated CO2 fails to be reintegrated by the earth's own natural system that we are part of.  The earth properly deals with two orders of magnitude more of these reactants that it produces at the same time, funny that.  Why is human generated CO2 treated any differently than what the earth generates on it's own?  It's not, if you are describing a scientific system.  The retort is that the system was in balance before we started adding CO2 and that the earth can't handle our puny additions. 

Now how stupid is that?  Here is a complicated system that works without the scientists being able to explain it and yet climate religionists know that it was in balance before humans started emitting CO2 and now it's out of balance as a result.  Sure, show us the measurements and relate them directly to human behavior, thus far the climate religionsists have failed to do that in any way that is definitive or conclusive.  Models of stuff you can't explain to begin with don't count as science, only speculation and conjecture.  Hence I dub them climate religionists.

There are tons of climate change deniers that use religious logic around the idea that God made the earth immune to human detriment.

We used to believe the ocean could provide unlimited fish and that any pollution dumped would be infinity diluted.  We now know the oceans are screwed but yet we are simultaneously treating our atmosphere in the same way we did the ocean. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

With some refinement it could 'prove' or disprove whatever bias it is applied to.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

15 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

There are tons of climate change deniers that use religious logic around the idea that God made the earth immune to human detriment.

We used to believe the ocean could provide unlimited fish and that any pollution dumped would be infinity diluted.  We now know the oceans are screwed but yet we are simultaneously treating are atmosphere in the same way we did the ocean. 

Name one, just one, 'climate change denier' who is on record as supporting "the idea that God made the earth immune to human detriment."

You claim that there are tons, so this should be an easy one for you.

Do you think that perhaps overfishing to provide food for an exploding population could have possibly contributed to decrease of fish in the seas?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

24 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

With some refinement it could 'prove' or disprove whatever bias it is applied to.

No it can't prove anything, but if the model predictions match new observations for an extended time the model is useful.  Early models of the atom were "wrong" but they are useful and are even still taught (Bohr, Lewis, etc.).

I have some "faith" in peer collaboration and review because in science you actually get prestige by finding legitimate flaws in others' works.

We keep overfishing; originally we thought the ocean was unlimited, now we know better and keep doing it, in many cases just for taste preferences rather than a true lack of alternative food. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

33 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Name one, just one, 'climate change denier' who is on record as supporting "the idea that God made the earth immune to human detriment."

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2563253?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

i think this counts as questioning the idea

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

First, you have used the entire Hebrew Bible as your supporting document. There is absolutely no way that you can prove that the authors were, or were not, 'climate change deniers'. Keep in mind that the entire Hebrew Bible was written long before climate change was an issue (unless perhaps you were Noah...).

You said that there were 'tons' of 'climate change deniers' who claimed that "God made the Earth immune to human detriment." Couldn't you at least find one who was still alive and perhaps published something indicating that bias? And no, some religious whack job won't cut it either, it should be someone with a background in the issue.

If it is your position that humans do not have dominion over nature, then why are we even trying to mandate a temperature increase limit (see Paris Accord)? If you admit that we have no dominion or control over Mother Nature, then you accept that she is going to whatever she wants to do.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

No it can't prove anything, but if the model predictions match new observations for an extended time the model is useful.  Early models of the atom were "wrong" but they are useful and are even still taught (Bohr, Lewis, etc.).

I have some "faith" in peer collaboration and review because in science you actually get prestige by finding legitimate flaws in others' works.

We keep overfishing; originally we thought the ocean was unlimited, now we know better and keep doing it, in many cases just for taste preferences rather than a true lack of alternative food. 

But the models you mention cannot explain the historical data! How do you model the future if it cannot accurately account for the past.

Overfishing for taste alone is like growing food (corn) and mandating its processing into ethanol, to blend with gasoline...to make it 'greener' - while less efficient! If you include the fuel used to plant and harvest, the fertilizer and pestcide production, etc....it isn't even 'greener'.

[wrs + 893]

From the articles I have read the models from even fifteen years ago failed to account for the current conditions and most certainly the ones from 20 years ago are even further off.  Models are not predictions, they are mainly exercises in curve fitting.  There are some physical processes that we know do follow laws and we can write equations using said laws.  Models built on those types of equations work well on smaller scale implementations but a global climate model is not based on laws of climate process or even real known physical processes.  For that reason, it's not surprising that the models have failed to predict anything correctly.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20610-computer-models-vs-climate-reality

[specinho + 467]

On 6/19/2019 at 3:02 AM, WHY said:

Woof guys that is one long series of posts to read through. I feel proud that I did it!

But how big is this problem? Is it really world ending? And when we talk about our survival, what is it indeed that we are trying to preserve? Right now the worry is climate change but just wait… the 21^st century water wars are still ahead of us and don’t get me started on the rise of AI and genome manipulation.

Congratulations for reading through..... 

Just read a book “Society of the Mind” by Eric L. Harry, HarperPaperbacks 1996.  One of the highlights relevant to your "haven't gotten you started" comment on AI mentioned that there are generally three phases how we are progressing ahead. Phase one - growing of knowledge among the people. Phase two - growing of supercomputers; robots; conquering the galaxy and may be emigrating to the outerspace or die on earth. Phase three - robots fighting against robots and possibly taking care of all the problems and risks caused by mankind e.g. pollution; corruption; overpopulation (robots are sterile); and .... etc.......

Common sense dictates....... the world shall starts over again with a few humans left over from the robotic extermination against Homo sapiens with much improved environmental conditions...... So........ in a nutshell........ how big is the problem?? Not big........  We go over one big round to extinction and will do it again when the earth is starting over............... regardless if the conflicts are resolved or unresolved at the end of centuries. no? 

On 6/19/2019 at 5:41 AM, WaytoPeace said:

a tax on carbon emissions?  

You might have missed out a point.......... we are into a trendy trend of sustaibable development. This concept teaches us "there ought to be a continuity in what we earn or how we live so that the generations after us will not be affected by what we do or not do................... So...... we are foreward thinkers...... after charging on the fuel that feared to be on labeled shelf life we shall charge on the resultants of fuel consumption too......... for consistency of charge..........

10 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Overfishing for taste alone is like growing food (corn) and mandating its processing into ethanol, to blend with gasoline...to make it 'greener' - while less efficient! If you include the fuel used to plant and harvest, the fertilizer and pestcide production, etc....it isn't even 'greener'.

Regarding this....... pardon me to quote something:

 

  On 3/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

With Ethanol And Biomass No Longer Viewed As 'Green,' Will Other Renewables Soon Follow?

Ha. I'll leave it at that.

Quote

sp

Once upon a time............. there were two very close words e.g prostrate and prostate; castration vs circumcision........... people sometimes mistakenly pronounce one for another.......... so might be green and clean ............or no??

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

14 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

First, you have used the entire Hebrew Bible as your supporting document. There is absolutely no way that you can prove that the authors were, or were not, 'climate change deniers'. Keep in mind that the entire Hebrew Bible was written long before climate change was an issue (unless perhaps you were Noah...).

You said that there were 'tons' of 'climate change deniers' who claimed that "God made the Earth immune to human detriment." Couldn't you at least find one who was still alive and perhaps published something indicating that bias? And no, some religious whack job won't cut it either, it should be someone with a background in the issue.

If it is your position that humans do not have dominion over nature, then why are we even trying to mandate a temperature increase limit (see Paris Accord)? If you admit that we have no dominion or control over Mother Nature, then you accept that she is going to whatever she wants to do.

I was the first thing I found on a google search.   It was mostly hyperbole; but I'm still sure there are people that believe God gave us the earth to consume.

If I can't quote a religious whack job you made the task impossible. LOL

I say that we severely control / ruin nature and can do something about it.  We already have multiple times: Ozone hole, we phased out ODS; acid rain we installed catalytic converters; bird egg failure we banned DDT; etc.

A nice example is the changes in Yellowstone that occurred as a result of us killing off the wolves and then their subsequent reintroduction.  Ecosystem wide changes - even the rivers are changing for the better (more wolves means more small trees, more trees means more beavers, and as every Canadian knows beavers save the planet by creating wetlands and retaining freshwater).

[WHY + 12]

6 hours ago, specinho said:

Congratulations for reading through..... 

Just read a book “Society of the Mind” by Eric L. Harry, HarperPaperbacks 1996.  One of the highlights relevant to your "haven't gotten you started" comment on AI mentioned that there are generally three phases how we are progressing ahead. Phase one - growing of knowledge among the people. Phase two - growing of supercomputers; robots; conquering the galaxy and may be emigrating to the outerspace or die on earth. Phase three - robots fighting against robots and possibly taking care of all the problems and risks caused by mankind e.g. pollution; corruption; overpopulation (robots are sterile); and .... etc.......

Common sense dictates....... the world shall starts over again with a few humans left over from the robotic extermination against Homo sapiens with much improved environmental conditions...... So........ in a nutshell........ how big is the problem?? Not big........  We go over one big round to extinction and will do it again when the earth is starting over............... regardless if the conflicts are resolved or unresolved at the end of centuries. no? 

t.

Excellent!! Or possibly the AI's have no morality that relates to biological beings and they decide to use the earth and convert all its energy for purposes that we cannot fathom. Either way as you say ... not big.

[DallasTEC + 4]

On 6/19/2019 at 8:39 PM, WCS said:

Here is another article for Red to trivialize 

From EPA .gov

Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol July 2014

HFC22 was / is being used as a refrigerant since banning CFCs but what they found out was that HFC22 acts as a GHG and a byproduct of HFC22 is HFC 23 which happens to be 14800 times more damaging to earths climate than CO2. So with all these rules and regulations in place they are still seeing an increase in HFC23 in the atmosphere.

Now to reduce the use of HFC22 some have decided to use liquid CO2 as a refrigerant for some applications . Just can’t seem to get away from that CO2

See Third paragraph from bottom........really helps the oil production!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_Oil_Field " Marathon injected more CO₂ into the central, eastern, and northern parts of the field; all of these activities improved production.^[ "

[Okie + 83]

1 hour ago, DallasTEC said:

Marathon injected more CO₂ into the central, eastern, and northern parts of the field; all of these activities improved production.

The injection of CO2 is a well-known tertiary oil recovery method.  I worked on the Denbury "Green Pipeline" that brought CO2 to oil fields near Galveston, Texas.

[specinho + 467]

15 hours ago, WHY said:

Excellent!! Or possibly the AI's have no morality that relates to biological beings and they decide to use the earth and convert all its energy for purposes that we cannot fathom. Either way as you say ... not big.

Don't panic........... AI follows moral guidelines of the creator. Shall the original genes are good and there is no malicious virus infection.......... they might not step out from the box............

In addition.......... Most AIs are battery powered.......... shall there be danger......... we need to know where they normally get their charge from and cut them off?

[Jeffrey B. Pickett + 1]

The Power of Water: Fuel, Agriculture and Desalination.

Global Blue Oceans International, LLC

Edited May 27, 2020 by Jeffrey B. Pickett
update

[DallasTEC + 4]

Oil Industry comes clean on EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery with CO2 - Must Watch Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHX9pmQ6m_s "Bill Gates-Backed Carbon Capture Plant Does The Work Of 40 Million Trees"

over 40,000 views, fresh on youtube Sat June 22 Morning, then find out how to turn CO2 into gasoline, USNavy does jet fuel at sea for $8 a gal, but doesn't need fuel re-supply ships then either https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kVT77n67UY Making Gasoline from Carbon dioxide

only 34 views Sat Morning....oh the power of TV.....LOL