Civilization As We Know It Is Unsustainable., The wrecking of our life support system. Options

[Omega892R09]

Rather OT but one for you lunk seeing as we have touched on this:



Argh! Yes I know, those who appreciate the real 'Man in Black' such as I then this will answer:



My first Cash LP was 'Ride this Train' (now have on CD) and I picked up some brilliant Sun LPs, unavailable in UK, when in New York many moons (40 years) ago.

[lunk]

Ah a Weird AL in geology.
and the original.
Awesome.

There must be some maximum limits to mountains heights, and seabeds depths, to keep the roundness of our planet. Also, there seem to be man-made structures very deep underwater.
So it is very likely that land masses may drastically rise and fall. at times.
But this idea of drifting continents is an illusion of growth. The continents were all together on a smaller globe. But this is very slow geologically. The oceans are like stretch marks between the continents. This would mean that the pacific ring of fire is widening, causing a bunching of the edges, making mountains and volcanoes.

i'm a little more concerned about rocks out in space, at the moment. There seem to be a lot more of them lately...
and i don't think they are human caused.

[Tamborine man]

No! I do not indicate that there are two suns, read my statements again and think!

You said:
"Know about refraction do you? Hint, that is why we can still see the sun after it has dipped below the horizon."

Obviously you're here talking about the "material Sun" dipping below the horizon, while a 'refraction' of
the same "material Sun" is still fully visible above the horizon.

I asked you to fix your eyes on the fully visible so-called 'refraction' Sun while flying west to see if you could
ever catch up to the "material Sun", the one you claimed had dipped below the horizon.

My contention of course is, that you will never be able to do this for the simple reason, that the Sun you see
on the horizon is at all times the same "material Sun" you continually have kept in your sight.
Therefore there's no 'hocus-pocus' going on, as you're trying to imply with the silly remark quoted above!

However, you are totaly missing several concepts.

Firstly. The carbon that we are adding to the carbon cycle over a couple of hundred years is that which was locked away over millions of years, at various times in Earth's history. We are putting it back into the atmosphere and oceans faster than it can be converted into sedimentary rock.

The CO2 that is the product of fossil fuel burning does react with certain wavelengths of light (quantum mechanics - see Archer links in posts up-thread) and this raises the temperature of the Earth. This is demonstrated by the fact that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling (satellite measurements once the errors of Christy and Spencer had been weeded out). Of course a warmer world increases the dynamics of the hydrological cycle and more water vapour has an effect on the lapse rate - causing further warming. Only when the GHGs return to lower levels, which takes centuries of rock weathering from the more acidic rain (carbonic acid) to carry the sediment out into the oceans probably at some point millions of years ahead to be subsumed at some Wadati-Benioff zone.

That will have to do for now - fingers bleeding.

I can only repeat what i've already tried to tell you:

CO2 gases resulting from fuel burning can be termed nothing else but "waste products",
and which will undergo the same process as any other organic waste product from any
other kind of 'food' chain.

A good test would be for you to collect and contain some of these waste gases, and see
if it would be possible to re-use the carbon dioxide to again produce f. ex. dry ice or again
to utilize it in the production of soda water or the like, etc. etc..
I personally wouldn't think so, but you are very welcome to try, of course!

Organic waste products in the form of "food", are naturally processed and consumed every
day across the globe, but this has to happen before the 'food products' become susceptible
to attack from decay-producing bacteria. After that, the 'food' will suffer same fate as what
will happen to the carbon dioxide.

Another way by which one can re-utilize a waste product is by grafting. A branch or a twig
cut off from a plant or tree can be re-grafted, but only if this happens within the first 20
minutes or so from the time of cut off. New growth or new shoots will then later on be able
to take place on the re-grafted branch, twig or stem.
After the time of 20 minutes, it will become impossible to perform this process, as by then
the "Life-energy" before present in the branch would have left for good.
This same "Life-energy" would also have left the carbon dioxide, rendering also this 'death'
and useless. (Except as potential fuel or firewood, of course)!

Omega, you're obviously totally bedazzled by the language of the so-called 'scientists', but
never forget that this is the same people who told you the Earth is flat, and that the emperor's
clothes was spun from the finest of silk thereby making the cloth invisible to the fools!

Nobody has ever gone astray be using critical thinking, and, omega, neither will you!

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 6 2011, 11:08 PM

[talayo]

Omega:

When it comes to AGW you are truly out to lunch.

I do not need to be pointed to books about smoking criminal behavior by the principals of tobacco companies. To start with, everyone new they were committing perjury in some of their representations to Congress. Secondly, they consistently refused to make their studies public.

Guess what, the great defenders of the salvation of earth are the ones refusing to make their normalization of station temperatures algorithms public, even though some of the work has been publically funded.

The funding that may have come from the bad oil companies is insignificant compared to the research money directed towards the Global Warming alarmists.

If you believe that we can measure global temperatures at a .3 of a degree, as is being claimed, I have a bridge for sale for you.

Until recently in meaningful geological times, field stations could not monitor any finer than about ½ of a degree.

I have spent the last three years reviewing the technical papers that I can comprehend. Starting with former Vice President Al Gore down the line, the ethics of some key members of the AGW group are at par with the financial luminaries that brought about chaos and destruction to the financial systems.

[Tamborine man]

Talking about food!

Listen please, to this dear Lady:

http://blog.ted.com/2009/10/05/how_food_shapes/


Cheers

[Omega892R09]

I asked you to fix your eyes on the fully visible so-called 'refraction' Sun while flying west to see if you could
ever catch up to the "material Sun", the one you claimed had dipped below the horizon.

Well you can, if you fly fast enough, keep up with and even overtake the sun. That is why Peter Twiss called his book 'Faster Than the Sun'.

The speeds at which you would have to travel to catch up with or overhaul the sun will depend on your latitude.

My statements regarding refraction of the sun were to do with an observer standing in one spot and watching the sun set. You change the argument. Perhaps you perpetrated a bait and switch on yourself?

I can only repeat what i've already tried to tell you:

CO2 gases resulting from fuel burning can be termed nothing else but "waste products",
and which will undergo the same process as any other organic waste product from any
other kind of 'food' chain.

A good test would be for you to collect and contain some of these waste gases, and see
if it would be possible to re-use the carbon dioxide to again produce f. ex. dry ice or again
to utilize it in the production of soda water or the like, etc. etc..
I personally wouldn't think so, but you are very welcome to try, of course!

Repetition of nonsense does not improve its veracity.

Organic waste products in the form of "food", are naturally processed and consumed every
day across the globe, but this has to happen before the 'food products' become susceptible
to attack from decay-producing bacteria. After that, the 'food' will suffer same fate as what
will happen to the carbon dioxide.

But CO2 is being pushed into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can sequester it and so it bui9lds up year on year as I pointed out like the compound interest on a loan. You are not correctly differentiating processes.

But then food waste is another growing problem and this in itself will produce increased bacterial activity, exacerbated by temperature rise, some of the waste products being other GHGs.

Another way by which one can re-utilize a waste product is by grafting.

That is quite a different concept, the plant part that is grafted contains the essential components for producing regrowth and thus cannot be considered a waste product. Have you ever pondered why some cut stems when such are placed in ground develop roots and then shoots whilst others just strand there until they rot. I have examples of both in my garden. I place some deadwood in the ground deliberately to encourage invertebrates and the birds that feed on them - good for my photography. I am into close up work of small organisms and have my own macro techniques.

Which of course you acknowledge yourself here:

A branch or a twig
cut off from a plant or tree can be re-grafted, but only if this happens within the first 20
minutes or so from the time of cut off. New growth or new shoots will then later on be able
to take place on the re-grafted branch, twig or stem.

After the time of 20 minutes, it will become impossible to perform this process, as by then
the "Life-energy" before present in the branch would have left for good.
This same "Life-energy" would also have left the carbon dioxide,

But with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere we are not talking about life processes but how the CO2 molecule reacts to stimulation by certain wavelengths of light.

Please study some of the citations in other posts up-thread.

Omega, you're obviously totally bedazzled by the language of the so-called 'scientists', but
never forget that this is the same people who told you the Earth is flat, and that the emperor's
clothes was spun from the finest of silk thereby making the cloth invisible to the fools!

The irony, it burns! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Nobody has ever gone astray be using critical thinking, and, omega, neither will you!

Ah! Critical thinking, you are quite the master are you not! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Omega:

When it comes to AGW you are truly out to lunch.

I do not need to be pointed to books about smoking criminal behavior by the principals of tobacco companies. To start with, everyone new they were committing perjury in some of their representations to Congress.

So why did it take so long for their perfidy to be exposed and dealt with?

The same goes for other environmental hazards exposed in due course and anthropogenic global warming, make no mistake about it, is the granddaddy of all environmental hazards we face.

If you simply trace my responses on the various threads here where this cropped up then you will discover
why it is not me out to lunch.

You claim to have reviewed technical papers and I would suggest that your choices of material have been limited. Perhaps you would care to name these sources so that I can judge. Without you taking the steps indicated it is pointless wasting time debating with you further.

[Omega892R09]

Ah a Weird AL in geology.
and the original.
Awesome.

There must be some maximum limits to mountains heights, and seabeds depths,

Controlled by gravity and weathering.

Weird AL - ? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Also, there seem to be man-made structures very deep underwater.

By man made do you mean ancient in history or recent construction for various purposes?

Evidence for would be nice.

So it is very likely that land masses may drastically rise and fall. at times.

If a time lapse movie of the continental accretion and movements of same over geological time were available it would show land masses bobbing about on the bubbling mantle like corks in a pan of boiling water. It would be fascinating that is for sure.

But this idea of drifting continents is an illusion of growth. The continents were all together on a smaller globe. But this is very slow geologically.

We have been over this time and again and all you can offer are a few cherries and ignore the overwhelming amount of geological and paleogeological evidence to the contrary. Examine what we know of evolution and the importance of index fossils that tell the tale of past continental aggregations with the associated orogenies followed by subsidence and weathering and then splitting up, e.g. Pangea and Gondwana breaking up to form the continents as we now know them.

The oceans are like stretch marks between the continents. This would mean that the pacific ring of fire is widening, causing a bunching of the edges, making mountains and volcanoes.

You have evaded all my points made in previous posts (ignoring contrary evidence) and further discussion should continue in THE appropriate thread.

In the meantime search out a tool GeoMapApp. I was preparing stuff with that to post in THAT other thread then was taken sick again.

We should all be concerned about rocks in space but that is another topic.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 7 2011, 08:58 AM

[Omega892R09]

You have evaded all my points made in previous posts (ignoring contrary evidence) and further discussion should continue in THE appropriate thread.

OTOH Maybe some geological considerations are not too far off:

Current Arkansas earthquakes weak sauce compared to potential fracking-caused 'Big One'

But of course earthquake swarms are only one problem with fracking as the NY Times (which seems to suddenly be getting the picture after a period of very lackadaisical reporting) makes clear:

Drilling Down

[elreb]

When it comes to AGW you are truly out to lunch.

As I sit astride my tall Dragon and speak bold talk,

I proclaim “Ditto”.

Sanders and I both know that main stream and government provided education…manipulates their research results and reports.

Lunk and I both know that Pangea and Gondwana…never existed…at least on this planet.

Tamborine Man is one of the best “Critical” thinkers I know.

Talayo…welcome to the team…living in the real world…

A true Master forms context and framework by providing substance from "his own" knowledge and skills…

PSS: Compare the two videos…”Fat Head” and Super-Size Me” and you will discover that global warming is caused by fat people eating at McDonalds and emit excess amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.

[Omega892R09]

Another one for you lunk:

[Omega892R09]

As I sit astride my tall Dragon and speak bold talk,I proclaim
"Ditto".Sanders and I both know that main stream and government provided
education…manipulates their research results and reports. Lunk and I
both know that Pangea and Gondwana…never existed…at least on this
planet.Tamborine Man is one of the best "Critical" thinkers I
know.Talayo…welcome to the team…living in the real
world…

Not much critical thinking on display there.

Not everything is a conspiracy you know but it seems that you have succumbed to the conspiracy to dumb down the population.

Tell me something. Have you indeed worked out every idea in your mental construct from first principles and self proven knowledge?

A true Master forms context and framework by providing
substance from "his own" knowledge and skills…

And just where do you think I am coming from?

Sheeesh!

[elreb]

(IMG:http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dre1685l.jpg) But Doc…you don’t understand…I’m a turkey…

[elreb]

Let’s see:

Sanders = Dragon Blood = 50,000 hits
Tamborine man = Life after Death = 15,000 hits
Lunk = Plate Tectonics = 15,000 hits
Elreb = History = 14,000 hits
Lunk = Inside Black Sparkly Universe = 8000 hits


Omega = Civilization = 1300 hits
Omega = Schneider = closed RIP

If I were “RIP”…I would manage my conduct and earn a little more respect…

[Omega892R09]

Let's see:

Sanders = Dragon Blood = 50,000 hits
Tamborine man = Life after Death = 15,000 hits
Lunk = Plate Tectonics = 15,000 hits
Elreb = History = 14,000 hits
Lunk = Inside Black Sparkly Universe = 8000 hits


Omega = Civilization = 1300 hits
Omega = Schneider = closed RIP

If I were "RIP"…I would manage my conduct and earn a little more respect…

Talking past people, a sign of arrogance, and adding other insults is not good conduct.

Avoiding direct discussion is a sign of cowardice.

Further, hits on topics provides no feedback on the validity of any arguments within. After all shit tends to attract flies.

Besides WRT Schneider RIP - note who closed that thread. Your bias is obvious and thus you demand no further respect from me.

Generally I prefer not to clog up this forum by starting threads on topics not germane to the main focus of research.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 8 2011, 07:49 AM

[Tamborine man]

My statements regarding refraction of the sun were to do with an observer standing in one spot and watching the sun set. You change the argument. Perhaps you perpetrated a bait and switch on yourself?

I had you standing on a spot gazing at the Sun before i asked you to go up in the plane.
Looks like i should have repeated this to you 3 - 4 times it seems!

Repetition of nonsense does not improve its veracity.

To call something you can't understand nor comprehend for "nonsense", is a rather bad move mate. Especially since you offer no explanation as to why!
Would have preferred you telling me you love to sing in falsetto, but struggle vainly to hit the right notes, which again is cause to a nasty bad relationship
with your neighbours.
At least this would have told me that perhaps you're human!

But CO2 is being pushed into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can sequester it ....

False. And i have given you the reason already.

But with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere we are not talking about life processes but how the CO2 molecule reacts to stimulation by certain wavelengths of light.

Yes we are, or rather i am. And also that inactive or depolarized CO2 cannot be stimulated by any wavelength of light.

[tumetuestumefais...]

...the ethics of some key members of the AGW group are at par with the financial luminaries that brought about chaos and destruction to the financial systems.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)
In short, we call it enronmentalism. Just in the AGW bussiness they don't falsify books to push the stock bubble, but do the same with the temperature data outputs to push the carbon exchange (they own) bubble (which fortunately already bursted at least in US).
But nevertheless Omega is right that this civilization is unsustainable. But paradoxicly because there's not enough fossil fuels anymore and nobody except China wants much go nuclear, because the the fossil resources barons want to make their last hit and still have enough to pay whole administrations to let them do it no matter what's at stake.

[Omega892R09]

I had you standing on a spot gazing at the Sun before i asked you to go up in the plane.
Looks like i should have repeated this to you 3 - 4 times it seems!

This is getting silly.

Here are the pertinent remarks starting with lunk's statement which drew my response about the sun because it demonstrated that even though the atmosphere may thin as one ascends it can still refract light. Indeed because the atmospheric density increases as hight is lost then the light is refracted more so the curve of the path of the incoming light dips more towards the surface.

Lunk: Of course there is very little pressure in the upper atmosphere and the refractive indexes of all these gasses should be about the same closer to the vacuum, where the speed of light is the fastest.

To which I replied:

O892: Quite, quite wrong. The sun is already known to have dipped below the horizon before it disappears from sight. It also gets squashed inappearance as it approaches the horizon due to light from the lower part being refracted more through the thicker atmosphere nearer the ground. As the content of GHGs increases this effect also increases. Its due to physics.

Then after you had chimed in I made this statement:

Omega092: Know about refraction do you? Hint, that is why we
can still see the sun after it has dipped below the horizon.

Which conveys the meaning that we still can see an image of the sun after the physical object that we call the sun has dipped below the horizon, and so you see:

When sunset draws near, fix your gaze on the Sun; go up in a plane, fly west, and while you keep the Sun in sight,

see if you can spot, or catch up with, the other sun that according to you supposedly has dipped below the horizon!

I am not saying, and never did, that there are two suns which is what you are implying.

And elreb thinks that you are good at critical thinking. That puts a null in both your boxes.

To call something you can't understand nor comprehend for "nonsense", is a rather bad move mate. Especially since you offer no explanation as to why!
Would have preferred you telling me you love to sing in falsetto, but struggle vainly to hit the right notes, which again is cause to a nasty bad relationship
with your neighbours.

Now you have descended into pure pathos and comedy. Monty Python is alive and well.

Yes we are, or rather i am. And also that inactive or depolarized CO2 cannot be stimulated by any wavelength of light.

What do you mean by depolarized CO2?

As for reaction of the CO2 molecule to light then see this:

Lecture 3 - Blackbody Radiation & Quantum Mechanics

but it may be a good idea to start at Lecture 1 if you don't get it.

[Omega892R09]

...Just in the AGW bussiness they don't falsify books to push the stock bubble, but do the same with the temperature data outputs to push the carbon exchange (they own) bubble (which fortunately already bursted at least in US).

Only in Wonderland.

Please provide evidence for your statements WRT temperature data.

But nevertheless Omega is right that this civilization is unsustainable. But paradoxicly because there's not enough fossil fuels anymore and nobody except China wants much go nuclear, because the the fossil resources barons want to make their last hit and still have enough to pay whole administrations to let them do it no matter what's at stake.

Well what a shame that the GOP and their paymasters have been trying to whitewash that fact and undermine efforts in sustainable energy just because these bozzos are opening their purse strings:

Video: Scott Brown begs David Koch for money

and not this comment:

caerbannog says:

March 8, 2011 at 10:10 am

Anyone on the ball knows full well that the donation to MIT was almost certainly an "appreciated stock" donation which generates an incredible tax writeoff. I wouldn't be surprised if the donation, after figuring in the tax benefits, didn't cost the David Koch a penny. Koch's tax-advantaged donation amounted to nothing more than indirect federal funding for MIT — except that Koch, not the federal government, gets to take the credit for it.

Well here is the rub, whilst D'Aleo and Watts have been jumping up and down trying to cast doubt on temperature measurement the cryosphere has been, and remains, in melt down. Temperature only tells us about sensible heat. Calculate how much heat is absorbed to warm up ice to the melting point and then change its state to water. Your physics should be good enough for that.

Nature doesn't give a flying fig for what Watts wants, or says, neither does it bother about what the GOP lead house believes or not. You only have to open your eyes to events unfolding to know this.

Here is an example:

Arctic ice loss moves phytoplankton peak up to 50 days early, could "lead to crashes of the food web"

Not just about Polar Bears - although their plight is a sad comment on our attitudes.

As results of warming becomes ever more obvious then the disunderstanders are getting ever more desperate:

Anthony Watts urges WattsUpWithThat readers to disrupt Forbes blog: "shout them down in the comments section"

Yes, discredited former TV weatherman Anthony Watts can't stomach even a couple of scientists posting reasonable comments about an error-riddled piece from Heartland on a blog already over-run by the pro-pollution crowd. He must marshall his readership to "shout them down in the comments section."

Watts has, perhaps more than any other leading anti-science blogger, viciously smeared scientists — and tried to get his followers to game online voting and pile onto other people's comments sections (see Scientific American "horrified" by "the co-opting of the poll" by users of "the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That").

In a new post, he reprints another piece smearing climate scientists by Joe D'Aleo. By way of history, Watts and D'Aleo coauthored a "report" accusing top U.S. scientists of various kinds of misfeasance and malfeasance in the global temperature record. It was utterly debunked last March (see Wattergate: Tamino debunks "just plain wrong" Anthony Watts). As Tamino wrote, "your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical."

Watts never retracted the attacks. Instead, last Memorial Day, Watts directly questioned the patriotism of both Tamino and Rabett (see "Peak readership for anti-science blogs?") leading Tamino to write, "This just might be the most loathsome thing Watts has yet done with his blog."

Watts often feigns a demeanor of reasonableness, as when he had the chutzpah to write in June:

Overall there's too much pointless bluster and sniping in climate science. I wish there was a volume control. Kids, can we just all "get along"?

Seriously, a volume control — but only for others, as it turns out.

Later in August he demanded others "dial back the rhetoric."

To use a Yankee expression Watts is a piece of work!

[Tamborine man]

This is getting silly.

Here are the pertinent remarks starting with lunk's statement which drew my response about the sun because it demonstrated that even though the atmosphere may thin as one ascends it can still refract light. Indeed because the atmospheric density increases as hight is lost then the light is refracted more so the curve of the path of the incoming light dips more towards the surface.

Yes, you're getting extremely silly, Omega.

At no time did i mention anything about 'altitude' of the plane
i suggested you go up in!
thus it could have been at any height of your choosing.
Reason being that it wouldn't matter one iota, as there exist no
refraction of the material Sun over the horizon, while the material
Sun is dipping below.

(Which conveys the meaning that we still can see an image of the sun after the physical object that we call the sun has dipped below the horizon, and so you see:)
Your words!

I am not saying, and never did, that there are two suns which is what you are implying.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. Again stop your bloody lying.
On the contrary, in post no. 63 i make it perfectly clear you're talking about a refraction image.

You even confirm this yourself by acknowledgement in post no. 66!

Omega, if you find it so difficult to be honest, don't you think you'll be more comfortable over
at, and amongst the jreffer's?


Sorry, but this is my final post on the matter.

Cheers