What creates greenhouse gases? Number one factor: industrial production. Number two is power generation, much of whose product is used in .. industrial production. This production is about turning everything that's natural and living into dead commodities. The aim? Capital accumulation.
The greenhouse effect can be replicated via lab expe…
What creates greenhouse gases? Number one factor: industrial production. Number two is power generation, much of whose product is used in .. industrial production. This production is about turning everything that's natural and living into dead commodities. The aim? Capital accumulation.
The greenhouse effect can be replicated via lab experiments. Unlike virology, climate science (which goes back much further in history) features experiments which can be replicated as well as falsified, featuring independent variables. As i mention above, Svante Arrhenius was doing such research in the 1890s, LONG before computers, let alone computer models, and got some damn accurate estimates. CO2 produced due to fossil fuels usage has a signature, can be distinguished from natural CO2. CO2 produced from fossil fuels carries a unique signature that differentiates it from CO2 produced from other sources, a specific ratio of carbon isotopes called delta C thirteen that is only found in the atmosphere when coal, oil, or gas is burned.
"we may not be on a "finite" planet" Oh really? The earth is infinite? LOL. Do you believe in flat earth?
I wasn't aware of the signature of fossil-based CO2. I'll have to look into that, thanks. If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?
Ask yourself, Is love finite? It is perhaps infinite under optimal conditions.
Wiser beings than any of us on SS have long understood that this is what makes the Earth very special.
As I stated, I'm largely in agreement with your previous statements but I do wonder about focusing on CO2. If we're not aware of geo-engineering, then CO2 becomes an easier subject to focus on if but for the reason that we demand to focus on one problem to solve.
"If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?"
You didn't read what i wrote very carefully. What i was talking about was the *current buildup* in greenhouse gasses. Of course there are natural factors., including volcanoes. during the Cretaceous, fatemperatures were roughly 5°C–10°C higher than today, and sea levels were 50–100 meters higher. That period ended 66 million years ago, long before humans came onto the scene. The earth back then was not fit to be a human habitat. Or do you think humans and dinosaurs co-inhabited the planet? Also, note the rate of increase of temps going into that period was FAR slower than the current rate of warming. No time for species to adapt.
Geo-engineering? Do you really think the world's weather/climate system can be engineered? I have an engineering degree. Engineering is about creating PREDICTABLE results. Building a car whose steering works right only 99% of the time is totally unacceptable, such a car would be instantly banned. Can you do that with the weather/climate system, when its variables are not even fully known, thousands of variables if not more, interacting with each other in ways which are not fully understood? Even major processes such as the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere are not fully understood. How can one get a PREDICTABLE outcome from such an OPEN system, vs a CLOSED one like a car? People love to throw the "engineering" word around without understanding the situation in even a remote way.
I'm fine with a different word than engineering. It's a thumbnail phrase meant to produce a quick understanding of a complex phenomenon.
Call it interference, call in manipulation, call it what you like. Bickering about the definition of the word engineering is unnecessary.
But my initial point about causation being very difficult, if not impossible to attain in such a complex system, still holds. One can point out correlation all day, but to pronounce with such conviction that a "cause" has been found is unwise, imo.
Like i said, the effect can be recreated in a lab. The difference between current warming and previous natural episodes is striking, just like the current rise in CO2 levels and levels of other greenhouse gases. Interference, manipulation.... do not have predictable results. Just more chaos.
Well, we are in the midst of chaos, so that fits. Predictability, on a large, general scale is not the issue. A pattern of disruption and anomaly is evident. Three Chinese satellites with potential directed energy were passing over Maui at each of the times the recent fires commenced.
Avg. payload launches far exceed what would be necessary to spark combustion within clouds of aluminum nanoparticles.
If that fire demonstrates anything (other than ineptitude) it's precision in the application of this technology.
But the narrative to follow is "climate change/global warming". It comes into the vacuum of ignorance of climate manipulation via largely unknown technologies.
Manipulation requires PREDICTABLE results. With an open system which involves a huge amount of chaos due to the large number of variables, many of which are not even known, and the interaction of all these variables, known and unknown, which when it comes down to it include EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING, on land, in the air, and in the oceans, predictable results are impossible.
I'm challenging you to show us how manipulation is possible under such conditions. WARNING: i have studied climate science, the basic science which anchors it, i.e. thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, gas dynamics, and taught the second year calculus upon which it is basd, for over two decades. Come on, DO IT!!
EDIT to add: "Being recreated in a lab is almost meaningless"
Nope! It's apparent you can't tell the difference between weather (short range) and climate (long range). A crude example (crude in more ways than one): if you flush a bowl filled with organic waste matter, it's quite hard to tell what each individual ... piece will do in a second, 2 seconds,..... It's quite easy to tell what will happen to them in five minutes (assuming no overloading and everything functions properly). Even more after two flushes. Predicting that the earth will warm up by a certain amount with a doubling of CO2 concentration is easy. Svante Arrhenius did so in the 1890s, without any computers . Predicting what will happen tomorrow, or even what happens to specific regions after the doubling, is quite hard, downright impossible to do with 100% accuracy.
What creates greenhouse gases? Number one factor: industrial production. Number two is power generation, much of whose product is used in .. industrial production. This production is about turning everything that's natural and living into dead commodities. The aim? Capital accumulation.
The greenhouse effect can be replicated via lab experiments. Unlike virology, climate science (which goes back much further in history) features experiments which can be replicated as well as falsified, featuring independent variables. As i mention above, Svante Arrhenius was doing such research in the 1890s, LONG before computers, let alone computer models, and got some damn accurate estimates. CO2 produced due to fossil fuels usage has a signature, can be distinguished from natural CO2. CO2 produced from fossil fuels carries a unique signature that differentiates it from CO2 produced from other sources, a specific ratio of carbon isotopes called delta C thirteen that is only found in the atmosphere when coal, oil, or gas is burned.
"we may not be on a "finite" planet" Oh really? The earth is infinite? LOL. Do you believe in flat earth?
I wasn't aware of the signature of fossil-based CO2. I'll have to look into that, thanks. If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?
Ask yourself, Is love finite? It is perhaps infinite under optimal conditions.
Wiser beings than any of us on SS have long understood that this is what makes the Earth very special.
As I stated, I'm largely in agreement with your previous statements but I do wonder about focusing on CO2. If we're not aware of geo-engineering, then CO2 becomes an easier subject to focus on if but for the reason that we demand to focus on one problem to solve.
"If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?"
You didn't read what i wrote very carefully. What i was talking about was the *current buildup* in greenhouse gasses. Of course there are natural factors., including volcanoes. during the Cretaceous, fatemperatures were roughly 5°C–10°C higher than today, and sea levels were 50–100 meters higher. That period ended 66 million years ago, long before humans came onto the scene. The earth back then was not fit to be a human habitat. Or do you think humans and dinosaurs co-inhabited the planet? Also, note the rate of increase of temps going into that period was FAR slower than the current rate of warming. No time for species to adapt.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhw-I--rI_WYzv9i783dHXUeuLOqMKavFaEiGF8gZMiljzg-RrWGadkOmEBlU8k69qLGJZ7b3ny1s-O7fkmTEIwTOSWfHFdVKpXP_GyCFLL1uLAoaNSDOTSZ9nfabbaI2MkOmh7gb0wRHkdxQmy0t25_NoZ29KgVQvG0QlFal0xhr2tK2EI79ZYM3P1Dg=w635-h460
Geo-engineering? Do you really think the world's weather/climate system can be engineered? I have an engineering degree. Engineering is about creating PREDICTABLE results. Building a car whose steering works right only 99% of the time is totally unacceptable, such a car would be instantly banned. Can you do that with the weather/climate system, when its variables are not even fully known, thousands of variables if not more, interacting with each other in ways which are not fully understood? Even major processes such as the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere are not fully understood. How can one get a PREDICTABLE outcome from such an OPEN system, vs a CLOSED one like a car? People love to throw the "engineering" word around without understanding the situation in even a remote way.
I'm fine with a different word than engineering. It's a thumbnail phrase meant to produce a quick understanding of a complex phenomenon.
Call it interference, call in manipulation, call it what you like. Bickering about the definition of the word engineering is unnecessary.
But my initial point about causation being very difficult, if not impossible to attain in such a complex system, still holds. One can point out correlation all day, but to pronounce with such conviction that a "cause" has been found is unwise, imo.
Like i said, the effect can be recreated in a lab. The difference between current warming and previous natural episodes is striking, just like the current rise in CO2 levels and levels of other greenhouse gases. Interference, manipulation.... do not have predictable results. Just more chaos.
Being recreated in a lab is almost meaningless.
Well, we are in the midst of chaos, so that fits. Predictability, on a large, general scale is not the issue. A pattern of disruption and anomaly is evident. Three Chinese satellites with potential directed energy were passing over Maui at each of the times the recent fires commenced.
Avg. payload launches far exceed what would be necessary to spark combustion within clouds of aluminum nanoparticles.
If that fire demonstrates anything (other than ineptitude) it's precision in the application of this technology.
But the narrative to follow is "climate change/global warming". It comes into the vacuum of ignorance of climate manipulation via largely unknown technologies.
Manipulation requires PREDICTABLE results. With an open system which involves a huge amount of chaos due to the large number of variables, many of which are not even known, and the interaction of all these variables, known and unknown, which when it comes down to it include EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING, on land, in the air, and in the oceans, predictable results are impossible.
I'm challenging you to show us how manipulation is possible under such conditions. WARNING: i have studied climate science, the basic science which anchors it, i.e. thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, gas dynamics, and taught the second year calculus upon which it is basd, for over two decades. Come on, DO IT!!
EDIT to add: "Being recreated in a lab is almost meaningless"
Nope! It's apparent you can't tell the difference between weather (short range) and climate (long range). A crude example (crude in more ways than one): if you flush a bowl filled with organic waste matter, it's quite hard to tell what each individual ... piece will do in a second, 2 seconds,..... It's quite easy to tell what will happen to them in five minutes (assuming no overloading and everything functions properly). Even more after two flushes. Predicting that the earth will warm up by a certain amount with a doubling of CO2 concentration is easy. Svante Arrhenius did so in the 1890s, without any computers . Predicting what will happen tomorrow, or even what happens to specific regions after the doubling, is quite hard, downright impossible to do with 100% accuracy.