-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying
- Thread starter anotherneil
- Start date
Niatero
*banned*
I see you like keeping people on their toes. How come I don't get that kind of help from you? I feel neglected.
Audie
Veteran Member
Much restraint has been exercised re mention
of the industrial scale of religious fraud.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Eh... As a self-made Messiah once stated, "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
Well .... I must first thank you for taking the time to speak on behalf of myself - (Scientist and Subject Matter Expert) - and my crew however, you seem to be mistaken .. as many in the crew are saying there is cause for Alarm .. and your wording is poor .. (not stop burning but reduce) .. and I think there is broad consensus that we need to reduce.
The question is not really "should we reduce" but -- how much -- and what is the impact not reducing. .. and on both question you will have answers all over the map.
Myself .. - Climate change is happening -- that much everyone agrees .. even the most ardent denialit will agree - the rate of change suggests a man made CO2 contribution. The impact and timeline and future of this change ?? --- we have seen the earth warmer in previous days .. and surely our species can adapt as the temperature warms .. and yes will be some big bumps on the road.
We are in a closed system -- and like any closed system there is a limit what you can put in .. Man went from 22Billion tons/year to 36 Billion tons per year emitted anually .. over the last 30 years .. CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise --- where is the limit .. I do not know -- best indicator to monitor is melting of the ice caps . .in terms of effect.
ON THE OTHER HAND -- There are two horses running in the race towards the abyss - The second horse is Ocean Pollution - which is actually running much faster than the CO2 horse .. and unlike the CO2 horse .. things are not nearly as grey .. quite measurable - and we don't have to wait until 2120 for Florida to flood .. the effects happening .. as we speak .. "The BLOB" -- is happening .. the Sargassum Epidemic in the Carribean .. other similar effects all over the world ...
"The BLOB" - comes from the dead zones .. which .. over the last 30 years have increased from ~ 100 to over 500 and rising. One is the size of the State of New Jersey. Bacteria feed on the nitrogen (sewage and fertilizer run-off) using up the oxygen in the process .. creating a dead zone where fish, coral, marine life can not live .. but this disgusting Sargassum Seaweed can live .. created a blob 5000 miles last year.
Mass Balance -- The Ocean is not a garbage can .. we can only put so much down the toilet before it overflows .. and that is what is happening .... there has always been a big dead zone in the middle .. all the organics drawn into the middle .. where they are degraded .. like swirling down a toilet on a bigger scale. this has been there for hundreds of years .... and is a good thing. Unfortunately .. it can only gulp down so much .. and we have exceeded the limit .. and so the toilet is puking out this disgusting Sargassum .. jusrt google it for viewing pleasure. .. I am not joking .. No need to wait until florida floods in 100 years .. it is getting attacked by the Blob .. as we speak.
Thare are a gazillion other things similar to the Blob --- happening right now .. Mercury levels in Narn Whales up north experts say are near /at the level of Neurological impairment. right now -- breast milk in innuit women living up north "Eskimos" is to toxic to put on store shelves.. from eating top of the bioaccumulation food chain animals such as Seal ..
Current Environmental Policy is "Not in my back Yard- Dump it in the Ocean" .. instead of the Keystone .. getting "Clean" oil from Canada .. we choose to get it from Third world locations .. transferring our pollution problems to unindustrialized populations - massive Ocean Pollution and increased CO2 .. so dumb and dumber policy.
If we continue industrializing non industrialized populations ~ 1 Billion / 25 years - at the rate of the last 25 years.. and there is no indiccation we are changing direction - I claim catastrophic damage within 25 years. ... and I claim this on the basis of the damage already happening.. and what just more of it will do.. we can see the limits .. .. look at the garbage can filling up .. see that it is already over flowing and can measure the impacts of the nasty spooge .. so prediction of what if there is More .. is not difficult. More is catastrophic.. the Sargassum is already near catastrophic.. as with the Mercury levels and other Persistent Organic Pollutants in other places.
The Climate people don't care .. Greta doesn't talk about it .. and supports "not in my back Yard -- dump it in the Ocean" environmental Policy if for nothing than the Sin of Omission.
Since you claim to be a scientist and subject matter expert, please link a few of your published papers on the topic. Thanks
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Then show that instead of what someone else said they said.
I appreciate your desire for personal contact information but no thanks. Let me know what you are interested in learning and I will direct you to the proper literature
and .. although I have published papers .. a bunch !! .. one needs not have published papers to be 1) a scientist 2) SME
Audie
Veteran Member
Definitely not an English major.
Scientific papers are open to the public and you should have no objection in sharing your papers.I appreciate your desire for personal contact information but no thanks. Let me know what you are interested in learning and I will direct you to the proper literature
And publishing scientific papers in academic journals is sort of the ONLY criteria for being a scientist. If you are a scientist, you would know this. If you are in engineering, working in pvt labs and obtaining patents is one other alternative criteria.
For being a subject matter expert one other alternative criteria is publishing technical monographs or teaching UG or PG level courses in degree granting institutions.
Look friend .. I already told you my objection .. I am not interested in getting to know you personally -- exchanging personal information. What I would be interested in is if you had an argument for us -- something other than appeal to authority fallacy with no subject attachd to it. .. which is laughably bonkers..
What would you like to share with us about the topic ? or on what would you like to be educated .. now that you have an opportunity to be schooled by a real scientist ..
.. and subject matter expert .. Chemistry and Applied Microbiology friend .. -- cleaning up hydrocarbon contaminated soil and ground water by convincing bacteria to eat the contaminants .. "bioremediation" and numerous other alternative technologies to "Dig and Dump" .. so Yes Friend .. I know what a POP is .. and why it is Persistant .. Do You ?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Look friend .. I already told you my objection .. I am not interested in getting to know you personally -- exchanging personal information. What I would be interested in is if you had an argument for us -- something other than appeal to authority fallacy with no subject attachd to it. .. which is laughably bonkers..
What would you like to share with us about the topic ? or on what would you like to be educated .. now that you have an opportunity to be schooled by a real scientist ..
You don't know who you're talking to, do you?
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
No, but it's fun.
You don't know who you're talking to, do you?
I am struggling to figure out how to respond to his reply with a humble mindset and open-minded empathy. I have done ok enough, but I am not one of the leaders in my scientific field or anything (at least not yet).
You don't know who you're talking to, do you?
Yet another way this forum is a good place to learn new things...like forbearance.
Because the activation energy associated with their oxidative decomposition is so high that the reaction rate of these POPs (usually phenylic compounds with halogen or other element side chains) at STP without catalysts is negligible.Look friend .. I already told you my objection .. I am not interested in getting to know you personally -- exchanging personal information. What I would be interested in is if you had an argument for us -- something other than appeal to authority fallacy with no subject attachd to it. .. which is laughably bonkers..
What would you like to share with us about the topic ? or on what would you like to be educated .. now that you have an opportunity to be schooled by a real scientist ..
Is this a quiz of some sort?
My turn then.
How can the resource-ratio theory be used to accelerate bioremediation? Provide an example.
Audie
Veteran Member
Its interesting how many randos claim to be
scientists.
There's some entertainment in seeing them
demonstrate they are phonies.
You don't know who you're talking to, do you?
Correct ..
Yes .. was a pop quiz .. and wrong .. which is humorous given the answer was in the post - and you are trying to pretend expertice in the field.. Wrong Dude LOL
While chemical interactions and energy barriers are part of the issue of these compounds not breaking down -- your answer misses the main way in which these hard to degrade compounds break down in the environment = Biodegradation .. the bacteria .. via enzymes on the EPS --Extra Cellulare Polymeric Substances -- reduces the activation energy and allowing the reaction to happen .. electrons from Carbon substrate to Terminal Electron acceptor generating ATP. Your resource-ratio theory application question is silly .. something you googled and hoped you could transform into some kind of gotcha question .. that you yourself do not understand .. In Bioremediation you want to create Environmental conditions that stimulate the degradation of the target contaminant .... these conditions include includes nutrients .. organic Carbon and terminal electron acceptors .. which effects the type bacteria in the consortia and the rate at which degradation of various compounds is occuring.. For example - if you give too much easy to degrade food you get fat lazy bugs that will selectively eat the easy to degrade food and not go after the target compound. Different ratio's of nutrients and terminal electron acceptor can be changed to make conditions more favorable to degredation of target contaminant.
Now what was your question in relation to the topic .. You know .. Ocean Pollution vs CO2 pollution. What was said that triggered you into this Ad Hom Fallacy Gotcha path .. ability in physical science here not the problem but Philosophy .. logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument.
Do you know what an argument is friend ? -- An argument consists of 2 things .. please list them and explain why your posts have yet to contain a valid argument to the topic.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Or even minor.
You asked why POPs persistent. I gave you the answer. You were unable to accept that the correct answer was provided and went on a tangent to explain how bacteria break POPs down , which I know already and is not the question you asked.Yes .. was a pop quiz .. and wrong .. which is humorous given the answer was in the post - and you are trying to pretend expertice in the field.. Wrong Dude LOL
Your resource-ratio theory application question is silly .. something you googled and hoped you could transform into some kind of gotcha question .. that you yourself do not understand .. In Bioremediation you want to create Environmental conditions that stimulate the degradation of the target contaminant .... these conditions include includes nutrients .. organic Carbon and terminal electron acceptors .. which effects the type bacteria in the consortia and the rate at which degradation of various compounds is occuring.. For example - if you give too much easy to degrade food you get fat lazy bugs that will selectively eat the easy to degrade food and not go after the target compound. Different ratio's of nutrients and terminal electron acceptor can be changed to make conditions more favorable to degredation of target contaminant.
Now what was your question in relation to the topic .. You know .. Ocean Pollution vs CO2 pollution. What was said that triggered you into this Ad Hom Fallacy Gotcha path .. ability in physical science here not the problem but Philosophy .. logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument.
Do you know what an argument is friend ? -- An argument consists of 2 things .. please list them and explain why your posts have yet to contain a valid argument to the topic.
Your answer regarding resource ratio theory is partially accurate but does not provided the whole picture. Resource Ratio theory is a predictive theory that predicts how the biological community structure and it's function will change with rates of supply and the relative ratios of the growth limiting nutrients being provided to the ecosystem. Thus once we identify the set of micro-organism and their metabolic pathways, the theory will give us the optimised ratios and rates of nutrients that can be added to the culture or soil to maximize the desired function ..viz. bacterial breakdown of the Hydrocarbon POPs. There is a lot of work being done on the topic nowadays because the problems of biosystems is the lack of selectivity and repeatability and this is something that resource-ratio based optimization may partially solve. I myself am using it to generate optimised nutrient and nanoparticle additives for algal cultures for waste water recycling.
Your next two paragraphs are irrelevant. I have said nothing about your posts. I merely asked you to provide your credentials since you said you are both a scientist and a subject matter expert. You have refused both. Why should we believe your claim? It is you who are trying to argue from a position of authority. Justify that position please. Till now your posts have shown nothing but the knowledge of a layperson who have read up somewhat on the topic. I have no objection to such. But trying to argue from a position of expert authority is wrong and unethical if you don't back it up.