Remove this ad

Lead

Dec 24 13 10:19 PM

Tags : :

The warming is directly connected to the amount of carbon emissions and the proportion of Oxygen in the atmosphere. My plan is to use solar power to crack sea water into oxygen and Hydrogen. The hydrogen for fueling cars and other transportation and the oxygen for the environment. The salt you can us as salt of the earth.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Dec 25 13 4:05 PM

SigmundIvarsson wrote:
The warming is directly connected to the amount of carbon emissions and the proportion of Oxygen in the atmosphere. My plan is to use solar power to crack sea water into oxygen and Hydrogen. The hydrogen for fueling cars and other transportation and the oxygen for the environment. The salt you can us as salt of the earth.

Can you provide any verifiable evidence that there is, indeed, "warming" that would benefit from your "plan?"

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Dec 26 13 10:56 AM

SigmundIvarsson - Aren't you confusing the idea a bit. We don't need more CO2, we need less. Simply pouring 02 back in the atmosphere won't solve that issue.

I think eventually we are going to have to end up going to H2 plus 02 for making power, once we wipe out our reserves of oil. But I am not sure how one can slow Global warming by creating more CO2.

Molly say:
So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.

       

Click HERE for Woody's
Come for the Discourse, stay for the Discord.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Dec 26 13 3:36 PM

Padre Mellyrn wrote:
We don't need more CO2, we need less. 
We can always use more.  Plants need it to provide us oxygen.  Let's give it to them.
Padre Mellyrn wrote:
But I am not sure how one can slow Global warming by creating more CO2.
What ever gave you the idea that Global Warming is true?  Thus far, the only ones who actually believe that particular religion are the gullible panic-ridden doom-sayers.  Is there any rational reason a reasonable person should fall for that scam?

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Dec 26 13 4:44 PM

What ever gave you the idea that Global Warming is true?  Thus far, the only ones who actually believe that particular religion are the gullible panic-ridden doom-sayers.  Is there any rational reason a reasonable person should fall for that scam?

Bit a of tin foil hat there aren't we?

Oh well, if the number of scientist who have successfully plotted the changes and show they have a viable model doesn't convince you,  then I am afraid your just using "belief", and there is no room for belief here.

Whether one wishes to admit that our actions as humans have caused this, there is room for doubt, but the actually happening is not. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

Molly say:
So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.

       

Click HERE for Woody's
Come for the Discourse, stay for the Discord.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Dec 26 13 5:22 PM

Padre Mellyrn wrote:
Oh well, if the number of scientist who have successfully plotted the changes and show they have a viable model doesn't convince you,  then I am afraid your just using "belief", and there is no room for belief here.

Whether one wishes to admit that our actions as humans have caused this, there is room for doubt, but the actually happening is not. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

 
That humans have caused much pollution is not in doubt, that the pollution is causing Global Warming is in debate, that Global warming is happening whatever the cause is also not in doubt.  The only real question is, what will be the result of Global Warming?  Some fear-mongers are claiming a disaster to gain some political mileage, but an examination of past ages of the earth with a warmer climate reveal a warm, wet climate with plant and animal life in abundance.   Rather than a wasteland it is more likely that Global Warming will lead to a 'Garden of Eden' like world, provided that man can let it develop naturally, and not screw it up.  

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Dec 27 13 4:18 AM

Padre Mellyrn wrote:
Oh well, if the number of scientist who have successfully plotted the changes and show they have a viable model doesn't convince you, then I am afraid your just using "belief", and there is no room for belief here.
This is an excellent example of the standard Global Warming shifting the burden of proof, whereby the religiously devout simply assume that Global Warming dogma is true and then without providing any science they demand that non-believers prove that their unfalsifiable faith is not true.  It's equivalent to the retort "Prove to me there is no Christian god."  The number of scientists who have developed falsifiable Global Warming models is exactly zero.  Legion is the number, however, of gullible individuals who will readily believe that Global Warming is supported by science, without so much as demanding to see any of this supposed science.  Of course, as with all religiously devout, they demand absolute scientific proof from any dissenting view.

Global Warming is a particularly nasty religion because it is based entirely on the rhetorical error of shifting the burden of proof.  In traditional religions, the dogma admits to its faith-based nature.  Global Warming dogma, however, claims to be science (and environmentalism as well), and has its congregation erroneously believing that the dogma has been scientifically scrutinized.  In fact, they believe their religion is actually "settled science."  They therefore believe that they don't need to provide any support for their assertions; that their dogma is necessarily true and that Global Warming is "real." Global Warming is both a religion and a scam.  

Padre Mellyrn wrote:
Whether one wishes to admit that our actions as humans have caused this, there is room for doubt, but the actually happening is not. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.
...and you won't be presenting any facts today, am I right?  You won't be supporting your dogmatic assertions today, am I right?  You won't be presenting any science today, am I right?  In fact, all we can expect you to offer is more shifting of the burden of proof, i.e. the assumption on your part that Global Warming dogma is true and that non-believers (heathens, infidels, deniers) must show that it is not true.  Sorry.  You are mistaken.  The ball is in your court to support your assertions.  Until you provide some science, your assertions are not presumed to be true. 

bardoXV wrote:
That humans have caused much pollution is not in doubt,
Unfortunately the Global Warming congregation has extensively warped the meaning of the word "pollution" away from actually meaning pollution to meaning life-sustaining substances.  Actually, the Global Warming congregation has rendered the term completely meaningless in their stretch to get CO2 listed as "pollution" so that it would carry the negative connotation.  Their dishonest rationalization is that CO2 is a poison if in sufficient quantity.  There you have it.  Everything is a poison, including oxygen and water.   More importantly, the top three essentials for life on earth are now considered "pollution" by the Global Warming zombies.    This is but one of the reasons that Global Warming dogma is the single largest threat to environmentalism.

bardoXV wrote: 
that Global warming is happening whatever the cause is also not in doubt.
Religiously speaking, the Global Warming congregation does not doubt its own dogma.  Scientifically, however, Global Warming isn't even defined.  "Climate" isn't defined.  Nothing about Global Warming dogma is falsifiable and that is why nothing about Global Warming resides in the body of science.  Those who bought into the religion under the promise that they were being handed science should demand their money back.

bardoXV wrote:
The only real question is, what will be the result of Global Warming?
Isn't there a "Revelations" equivalent in the Global Warming dogma somewhere that answers that question?  Scientifically, the earth is heading into an ice age so there is little doubt among astronomers about our impending cooler climes.  As for Global Warming prophecies, your best bet is to ask the IPCC or contact Al Gore's office.

bardoXV wrote: 
Rather than a wasteland it is more likely that Global Warming will lead to a 'Garden of Eden' like world, provided that man can let it develop naturally, and not screw it up.
That's an interesting theory.  Do you have a falsifiable model that explains why a "Garden of Eden" is "probable?"

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Dec 27 13 8:50 AM

The only real question is, what will be the result of Global Warming? Some fear-mongers are claiming a disaster to gain some political mileage, but an examination of past ages of the earth with a warmer climate reveal a warm, wet climate with plant and animal life in abundance. Rather than a wasteland it is more likely that Global Warming will lead to a 'Garden of Eden' like world, provided that man can let it develop naturally, and not screw it up.

Yes, that's the multitrillion dollar question. You are correct about past warm episodes being more vegetation-friendly. I think that in this geologic age, with so much land area in subarctic regions, a warmer earth may actually be able to support more people, even with loss of seacoast to rising oceans. The problem is that we don't know which areas will be wetter, which drier; or what land will be suitable for which crops n how long. Agriculture thrives on dependability, which is why any change is potentially catastrophic if it's fast enough. And recent warming has been fast, and looks as if it will become faster. Ideally, we'd be able to move enough people from low-lying areas to newly arable land (my favorite example is moving Bangladeshis to Siberia) to work it productively and prevent major loss of life from cyclones in ever more floodable land. But we'll be guessing to some extent. And there will have to be enough international cooperation to effect the requisite investments (think seawalls, irrigation, railways around the Himalayas for all those Bangladeshis, etc.) and population transfers. Of course, water will be a huge issue in a lot of places.

The oceans are also having their pH levels lowered (usually called "ocean acidification") because of the higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations (as that CO2 is slowly absorbed into the oceans). This is potentially as destructive as the warming. Fish can move away from the equator if they want a particular temperature range, but they can't escape the lower oceanic pH because it is happening everywhere. Already some coral reefs are in serious trouble. Yes, ocean life has adapted to big changes before and will again, but it takes thousands of years, during which time fisheries may be devastated. As with warming, it's not so much the particular number as the fact that it's changing so rapidly on n evolutionary and historical scale. Prior episodes of rapid temperature change (e.g. the Little Ice Age) were very stressful for human societies and were associated with famines.

Humanity is not changing its habits much at all, so we'll continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at extremely high rates, driving warming and ocean acidification. We have to adapt. It's worthwhile to develop and move to energy sources that don't produce CO2, but there simply isn't anything out there that can replace the burning of fossil fuel and maintain standards of living. Few are volunteering to live low-carbon lifestyles, even among the most environmentally aware. New discoveries of reserves may be dwindling, but technological advances keep making more and more of what is down there extractable. Look at fracking for gas: we knew about those shale gas deposits, but government research came up with ways of getting the gas out economically. The US oil fields are as productive as ever, using new techniques to extract oil that is profitable at today's higher prices. And there are massive reserves of shale oil and tar sands, which are an environmental horror show but can last for several generations, by which time there will be yet more technology to turn even less likely sources into moneymaking fossil fuel mines. We're just not going to stop this experiment with the Earth's climate and ecology. Even without the CO2, habitat destruction has wiped out so many species in such a short time that the current geological age can be called the Anthropocene. It's the sixth great extinction event, and we've just gotten started.

I'm not sure why some people have taken to hysterical denials of what's been happening. It's not as though Al Gore has taken over the world. Heck, we still drive our SUVs to the airport and fly across the world; we buy enormous amounts of crap made in China in energy inefficient ways and shipped across oceans. The only nation I can recall passing a carbon tax is Australia, and they're repealing it after a year or two. If AGW is a conspiracy to grab power and change people's habits, it's a near-total failure.

Now, a long-term change in solar irradiance can alter the picture tremendously. There may be technological fixes for the warming and the acidification problems. We may get a handle on population growth. And we can learn to adapt. I'm still optimistic about humanity's future. (I have to be--I have kids.) But we have to have our eyes open. Listen to the scientists. We don't have to do everything they recommend, but why fly blind?

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Dec 27 13 9:34 AM

...and you won't be presenting any facts today, am I right? You won't be supporting your dogmatic assertions today, am I right? You won't be presenting any science today, am I right? In fact, all we can expect you to offer is more shifting of the burden of proof, i.e. the assumption on your part that Global Warming dogma is true and that non-believers (heathens, infidels, deniers) must show that it is not true. Sorry. You are mistaken. The ball is in your court to support your assertions. Until you provide some science, your assertions are not presumed to be true.
Um, has anyone explained to you that 'I don't believe' is not scientific data - this is not Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny - and since your all your supposed rebuttals are couched in non-scientific "belief" I suspicion that you have no 'facts' to present either. If you think I am going to just 'present' a list of points that your simply going to "deny" with nothing more than "I don't believe" think again. I don't bother to argue with "true believers" because your the type to stand there and burn to death, to try and prove the point that your not on fire.

E.G.
Their dishonest rationalization is that CO2 is a poison if in sufficient quantity."
Really?  more "I don't believe" present in false fashion; please show where a reputable scientific community says this.

Tell you what Start here: when you can refute this, - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - then maybe you might have an actual point, rather than "your belief" that nothing is happening. Otherwise, there is no point in arguing that your on fire, since your not going to 'believe' anything.

Molly say:
So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.

       

Click HERE for Woody's
Come for the Discourse, stay for the Discord.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Dec 27 13 9:43 AM

Actually there is scientific evidence that a mini ice age might be our next problem. The earth has a natural balance system that is like a natural air conditioning system. The ice caps melt and cool down the planet but at the same time the sea currents change and the situation is reversed where ice starts forming again in the poles. A perfect planet. The sea currents are changing already.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Dec 27 13 10:01 AM

Now, a long-term change in solar irradiance can alter the picture tremendously. There may be technological fixes for the warming and the acidification problems. We may get a handle on population growth. And we can learn to adapt. I'm still optimistic about humanity's future. (I have to be--I have kids.) But we have to have our eyes open. Listen to the scientists. We don't have to do everything they recommend, but why fly blind?
Ah at least someone who is willing to look around and understand.

Agriculture thrives on dependability, which is why any change is potentially catastrophic if it's fast enough. And recent warming has been fast, and looks as if it will become faster.

Yes, this is more of significant danger to us than the actual 'flooding' per se. We can build walls, and reclaim lands from the bottom of lakes and marshes (though the destruction of the marshes is in itself looking a bit foolish, sort of like taking the 'Filter' of the water supply so to speak). but the food sources will be the weak link. Simply moving them from one place to another will not guarantee they will thrive or survive in sufficient numbers to keep the human race fed, not even at the present level of population, let alone an increase of significant magnitude. Already we are seeing more and more crops failing or producing lower levels than needed due to shifts in weather.

What is one concern that seems to be ignored by the population in general is that the severity of the storms and weather patterns is increasing. This will be hard to ignore in the upcoming future as most 'cities' are built with a particular 'understanding' in mind. E.G. The buildings in S.F., (where I used to work in the I.T. dept of a company there) were built with the understanding that "San Fransisco" rarely if ever, gets above 78 degrees even in the summertime. This lead to some deaths of residents during the latter part of the 90's when we had repeated high temps of 103 plus. The buildings where unable to sufficiently remove internal heat to allow either humans or computer networks to work without passing out or shutting down.

But it seems the troll legions out there in the Media "Believe that if they deny it', "it" will turn it's back on us and leave us alone, as if the Weather were simply an anthropomorphic personification that has a will of it's own. I like to use the personification of Mother Nature now and then, simply because it is fun to say "Mother Nature is a real Bitch", right after a good weather squall.

As you say, we can work around it, we have obviously done so since we were scurrying around on fours under the feet of the "Big Fearsome Lizards", and we didn't even have matches then. smiley: happy But if we keep denying the wolf at the door, sooner or later he is going to huff, and puff, and blow the house down, even though it seems to be made of bricks.smiley: eek

It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams H2G2  

Come to Woody's Diner for Classic Hot Discussions.
Ask for the Secrent Ingredient Soup

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Dec 27 13 10:31 AM

Padre Mellyrn wrote:

What is one concern that seems to be ignored by the population in general is that the severity of the storms and weather patterns is increasing. This will be hard to ignore in the upcoming future as most 'cities' are built with a particular 'understanding' in mind. E.G. The buildings in S.F., (where I used to work in the I.T. dept of a company there) were built with the understanding that "San Fransisco" rarely if ever, gets above 78 degrees even in the summertime. This lead to some deaths of residents during the latter part of the 90's when we had repeated high temps of 103 plus. The buildings where unable to sufficiently remove internal heat to allow either humans or computer networks to work without passing out or shutting down.


 

 
If I may address this one point which really concerns 'building codes' and I can attest that in at least one area the codes are set to accommodate the worst weather nationwide.   Years ago I worked in the roofing industry and the codes for that industry were based on the codes and conditions in Dade County Florida which apparently has the worst consistent weather effecting roofing.  I live in central Pa. and we have very few Hurricanes here, but in constructing a deck on my house I had to include 'Hurricane Straps' from the frame to the posts to meet codes.  There was a Hurricane Sandy that went right through my area yet we have had stronger winds from ordinary rain/wind storms.   I would guess that most building codes are set for the worst possible weather conditions and new construction should meet these codes but older buildings are rarely brought up to date unless there are major renovations.  

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Dec 27 13 1:28 PM

charvakan wrote:
Agriculture thrives on dependability, which is why any change is potentially catastrophic if it's fast enough. 
Agriculture thrives on proper soil fertility, proper amounts of rain and proper sunshine, regardless of how quickly the rain clouds change to reveal sunshine.  Do you think any of this through before you write?  (I already know the answer to this btw)

charvakan wrote:
And recent warming has been fast, and looks as if it will become faster. 
aad1677f03d86b78653b5da9a82ded95a8e4e78c

charvakan wrote:
Of course, water will be a huge issue in a lot of places.
Eventually it will, in the form of snow and ice.   But heat around the world is accelerating you say?   I take it you didn't catch those verifiable record cold temperatures of November that affected many parts of the planet, blowing down from the record cold in the Arctic.  The probable reason was that you were busy posting on TLI how Global Warming is accelerating.  

charvakan wrote:
the current geological age can be called the Anthropocene. It's the sixth great extinction event, and we've just gotten started.
Fundamentalist Christians cite doom and gloom from Revelations.  At least they're honest and admit they have no science.   You think your prophecies are science and you can only wonder how someone can be a denier of the divine truth as revealed by the IPCC High Command.   I don't envy you.

charvakan wrote:
I'm not sure why some people have taken to hysterical denials of what's been happening. 
You are the one trying to instill panic and hysteria over that which is not happening.  That would make you the hysterical one.  Those who have not fallen for the Global Warming scam are happily not panicking, nor do they plan to.   Someone once mentioned to me that there are heavy drugs that can calm the hysterical Global Warming doom-sayers, but I pointed out that it is probably the heavy drugs that are causing their delusions in the first place.  In any event, I hear there are twelve-step programs that will help you come clean.  There's probably a chapter in your area.

charvakan wrote:
Now, a long-term change in solar irradiance can alter the picture tremendously. 
Well, of course.  The sun is the earth's only heat source.  There is no other force of nature that heats the earth.   I know it's sacrilege to say this but you might want to consider that the god of Global Warming doesn't actually exist, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.   There's only the sun.

charvakan wrote:
 But we have to have our eyes open. Listen to the scientists. We don't have to do everything they recommend, but why fly blind?
Flying blind is what you do when you call Global Warming political activists "scientists."  Of course they are going to present religious dogma as science.  Global Warming is the leftist version of Intelligent Design.  Have you found your falsifiable Global Warming model yet? (I didn't think so).  You know you have no science.  One can only presume that you enjoy flying blind.  

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Dec 27 13 7:07 PM

The reality of this topic will become clearly understood by everyone soon bloody enough!
Things that we ignore now will be the burden of someone else, and since my world's stability will remain reasonably in tact for the years i personally have remaining, i have made a personal decision to discontinue my involvement in perpetrating and instead continue on a bi-weekly basis to have my brother carry the blue plastic bin to the curb.smiley: tongue

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Dec 28 13 8:56 PM

Padre Mellyrn wrote:
and since your all your supposed rebuttals are couched in non-scientific "belief" I suspicion that you have no 'facts' to present either.
I cannot rebut science that has not been presented.  The ball is still in your court to provide a falsifiable Global Warming model.  First provide a model and I will rebut wherever your model is false.  Until you provide a falsifiable Global Warming model, you have no science (ergo, you have nothing but religious assertions).

Padre Mellyrn wrote:
Tell you what Start here: when you can refute this, - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - then maybe you might have an actual point, rather than "your belief" that nothing is happening. Otherwise, there is no point in arguing that your on fire, since your not going to 'believe' anything.
...and we're back to the shifting of the burden of proof.  You think that mentioning the clergy of your religion, e.g. IPCC, is a valid substitute for providing science.  It is not.  Thus far you have offered no scientific support for your assertion, the ball is still in your court and your assertions about Global Warming are still not accepted as True by the scientific community.  If you believe the IPCC has some science to support your position then feel free to get it from them.  The burden of proof is on you.

Tiglibud wrote:
The reality of this topic will become clearly understood by everyone soon bloody enough!
Wait a minute.  Let me try that.  

* The reality of tomorrow's weather will become obvious soon enough!  
* The reality of Tuesday's news broadcast will become widely known soon enough!
* The reality of a future situation someplace will become clearly understood soon enough!

Brilliant, no?  There was a guy named Nostradamus who made the same kind of prophecies as you, except he was a little more specific.  smiley: eek  Is there any chance you will go out on a limb and detail what this "reality" entails and to give us a timeframe as to when we should expect it...and maybe why we should expect it?


Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Dec 31 13 8:16 PM

There have been many reversals of climate. the last one in the middle ages where there was a mini ice age. The el nino is a precursor to those changes. Just like a room with air conditioning you flip a swith and things change. The world has had many periods with much higher co2 levels before and it was beneficial to the plant life and therefore the animal life too. As for the temperature fluctuation it has more to do with the cycles of the sun spots. This is a conversation board not a lecture room. Go find for yourself if these things be not so and then come back with an opinion. You have a scientific mind which also a religion where you idol is data.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Jan 5 14 8:12 AM

bardoXV wrote:
An 'Ice Age' is defined as 'Permanent Ice at the poles'.   The Earth has not warmed up enough to be out of the current 'Ice Age'.
Immaterial.  Our solar system has the power to plunge the earth into a new ice even if humans have not declared the previous ice age to be "over."

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Jan 6 14 7:20 PM

charvakan wrote:
Every aspect of mind rests on the functioning of our brains and bodies. No other factor or entity seems sufficient to support mind at all.
Every aspect of earth's surface heat comes from the sun.  No other factor or entity is sufficient to provide any substantive additional amount..
charvakan wrote:
 I know you've had personal experiences that you interpret as contradicting that assessment, but no research has come up with alternatives to living brains as the locus of mind. 
I know you've had personal experiences of real people telling you religious dogma that you interpret as CO2 generating its own substantial amounts of heat, but there's no science indicating alternatives to the sun as substantive terrestrial heat sources.
charvakan wrote:
We'll never agree on this in such a forum; each of us has too much invested in this vital aspect of our worldviews. 
I think you are the one heavily invested in religion.  It renders you unconvincing when you claim that your dogmas are based on science.
charvakan wrote:
Just keep in mind that I am eminently persuadable should objective evidence be found for a contrary view. I'd be grateful if you'd point me to it if and when that happens.
aad1677f03d86b78653b5da9a82ded95a8e4e78c

[I don't believe you when you say you have me on ignore smiley: happy]

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Jan 7 14 6:30 AM

Yes we are really at the mercy of the sun but at least as humans we can adapt.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help