Madness? Genius?

Oceans sink MUCH CO2 at cold depths. Warmer oceans less. Put very simply, think of popping a cap from well chilled beer bottle. Then from one out of a hot car. That's CO2 you're releasing. Lol

Relevant question, what mechanism is "boiling" CO2 from our Oceans? I'm personally willing to accept human activity as root cause here. At least contributing.

Solution? Level modern civilization back to prehuman? What if we then find that some external influence was to blame? Sure would like a less convoluted explanation for why Pluto has melted...? Despite being further from Sol than 30years ago? What if we might've leveraged our technology as a life boat to survive what ever is going on? What if our life boat was NOT causing the flood? What if drilling holes in our life boat is not letting the water OUT? Lol.

Questions that really should be honestly discussed before committing mass suicide? Or at least before handing global dominion to CCP?
The scientists have pretty well agreed on the causation of / human connection to climate change. 15,000 or whatever number of people wouldn't probably be high on the same Kool-Aid for 20+ years. Heck, some of my best friends are scientists.
 
Lol... Bull Halsey cudda used and then used some better weather info a couple infamous times. Meteorology was certainly in its infancy then. As was carrier strategy.

Back in my NASA days we defined an "expert" as someone from more than 50 miles away. Lol. "know it all know nothings" aside, MY life long concern has preoccupied O2 consumption. Our fossil fired machines consume a LOT of O2. Most of which must get replenished by plants via photosynthesis. A process pretty clearly lagging to keep up. Per global O2 ppm.

Yet, I don't see where plant life's response to our CO2-O2 exchange has proven adequately considered. What accommodations have plant life employed in response to elevated CO2? More plant growth? What time scale will they need to reverse those accommodations? Is it possible that halting CO2 discharge TOO abruptly might exceed plant life capacity to adapt? That overkill on our part might result in mass plant kill? CO2 is FOOD to plants...?? Has its role there been adequately considered? Idk.
World o' coincidences, read this later on today. Plants will have have plenty of time to adapt to subsiding carbon dioxide. From the Bill Gates book.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20221226_1734226.jpg
    IMG_20221226_1734226.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 3

idssteve

Active member
World o' coincidences, read this later on today. Plants will have have plenty of time to adapt to subsiding carbon dioxide. From the Bill Gates book.
That's certainly a valid opinion. I'm not refuting Bill's opinion. Before accepting his opinion as "science", this engineer feels compelled to see the concluding thermodynamic principles named. Raw data as collected. Equations as derived and calculated... Simple 7th grade "science" lab report? Before calling it "science", at least. ?

As I've maintained my whole life, I'm personally okay with "reasonable doubt" guiding public policy. So long as the doubts are openly, freely, debated. And expected results of decisions are clearly understood?

I'm an engineer. A professional scientist. My opinions incur no greater value than any other fellow human. The value my profession "sells" rests, in fact, in conclusions supported with raw data, calculated results, detailed methodology, formula derivation, etc etc.. I would NOT submit to a paying client a conclusions page (or book?), absent even basic 7th grade science report structure. At least stapled to a raw data sheet?

My objections here are NOT with differing opinions. I simply object to invoking the word "science" to describe a conclusions page that my 7th grade science teacher wouldn't accept. With a straight face, anyway. Lol

Aside from naming conventions, we are ALL sharing this same globe. ALL opinions are valid. ALL worthy of discussion. ALL worthy to at least view ALL raw data? ?? ALL worthy of HONEST "opinions" indicating projected results?

Bill's often described greenhouse effect postulates that CO2 traps reflected infrared radiation that otherwise emits into space. Trapping heat at Earth's surface. I accept that as likely.. Yet, very frequently, solar collectors are proposed as mitigation for that effect. ?? Solar collectors, by definition, collect and trap energy that would also have emitted into space. ??

Every last drop of energy produced and used, that those solar collectors collect, ends up as HEAT at Earth's surface? Does it not? Everything from light bulbs to EV motors?

Even hydro powering your phone this moment ultimately ends up as heat energy. Released at Earth's surface?

The wife and I debated this issue for years before building our off grid home. Lol. All we can do is our human best...


EDIT: opinions expressed in the preceding rant are NOT intended as any sort of "final say". They're intended to inspire challenge. There's plenty there to challenge. An educational opportunity? Discussion is how good decisions evolve...
 
Last edited:

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
I take the opposite attitude, and that’s what makes this forum. Terrific. I feel we are at the top of the food chain. We have been placed there for a reason to administer and care for things. I would like to see us go all in on nuclear solar wind, natural gas, oil, and coal. Allow the technologies to mature in their own way, and allow problems to be solved. But when you force an issue. What do you come up with facts that just don’t quite work out. You will always have issues. Science is not supposed to be settled ever. It’s supposed to evolve. Let’s get back to the real world.
 

Ph1llip

Active member
The scientists have pretty well agreed on the causation of / human connection to climate change. 15,000 or whatever number of people wouldn't probably be high on the same Kool-Aid for 20+ years. Heck, some of my best friends are scientists.
A more cynical view would be that people agree with whatever keeps the grant money flowing.

Scientists agreeing on Global Warming is like Wall Street agreeing the current US financial construct is sound.

Or the CCP saying they know what's best for the rest of China.

Do your own research, learn as much as you can, and have a healthy sense of skepticism about everything. These same scientists would have said cigarettes weren't harmful 50 years ago.
 

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
A more cynical view would be that people agree with whatever keeps the grant money flowing.

Scientists agreeing on Global Warming is like Wall Street agreeing the current US financial construct is sound.

Or the CCP saying they know what's best for the rest of China.

Do your own research, learn as much as you can, and have a healthy sense of skepticism about everything. These same scientists would have said cigarettes weren't harmful 50 years ago.
Are you trying to say that all of this money is corrupting? I’m shocked I tell you shocked!
 

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
The scientists have pretty well agreed on the causation of / human connection to climate change. 15,000 or whatever number of people wouldn't probably be high on the same Kool-Aid for 20+ years. Heck, some of my best friends are scientists.
When did science become ruled by group thought. Why is science not just based on science my next question is, if you take the money out of this, I will bet you all the scientists go away. Next issue none of the Math they use works why? They will tell you they have to change the numbers to get the outcome they want, this is not science. This is a game for them and I don’t wanna play.
 
When did science become ruled by group thought. Why is science not just based on science my next question is, if you take the money out of this, I will bet you all the scientists go away. Next issue none of the Math they use works why? They will tell you they have to change the numbers to get the outcome they want, this is not science. This is a game for them and I don’t wanna play.
Science got taken over by group thought.
 
Top