Remember me
▼ Content

Is switching to transiting goods by 'sail boat/ship' for non-urgent, non-perishable goods, worthw


Is switching to transiting goods by 'sail boat/ship' for non-urgent, non-perishable goods, worthwhile?25-05-2024 20:58
markjfernandes
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Transiting goods by sail boat/ship, would seem not to have so much of a carbon footprint as compared with 'fossil fuel'-powered boats/ships. It is true that the transits would likely take longer. However, for certain non-perishable and non-urgent goods (such as maybe salt, sugar, and tobacco), if the transited goods were held in enough quantity in storage at the destination so that the longer transits wouldn't really effect the real supply, then perhaps it could very greatly reduce carbon emissions. Seeing as we seem to be daily and nightly making such transits over large areas of the globe, especially in the developed world, perhaps the reduction in emissions could be great?

I recall hearing about a similar idea, how where somewhere in Europe (perhaps Poland), they were returning to using already-built canals for transiting goods, I think for reasons of trying to tackle climate change. Perhaps that idea is similar to this one...
Edited on 25-05-2024 20:59
25-05-2024 21:11
sealover
★★★★☆
(1681)
markjfernandes wrote:
Transiting goods by sail boat/ship, would seem not to have so much of a carbon footprint as compared with 'fossil fuel'-powered boats/ships. It is true that the transits would likely take longer. However, for certain non-perishable and non-urgent goods (such as maybe salt, sugar, and tobacco), if the transited goods were held in enough quantity in storage at the destination so that the longer transits wouldn't really effect the real supply, then perhaps it could very greatly reduce carbon emissions. Seeing as we seem to be daily and nightly making such transits over large areas of the globe, especially in the developed world, perhaps the reduction in emissions could be great?

I recall hearing about a similar idea, how where somewhere in Europe (perhaps Poland), they were returning to using already-built canals for transiting goods, I think for reasons of trying to tackle climate change. Perhaps that idea is similar to this one...



Many cargo ships are already being retrofitted with sails.

They still use the dirty engines, but they don't have to burn as much dirty fuel oil if the wind is doing some of the work.

But where I see the greatest potential, and it is already being done, is a whole new approach to sail boat design.

Rather than depend just on the low altitude wind that the mast of a ship can reach with its sail, higher altitude wind can be captured by higher floating sails.

Hot air balloons, flying drones, all kinds of things that didn't exist for 19th century sail boat designers can now be used to lift sails much higher to catch the stronger breezes.

Maybe sail tugboats, with extensive high flying sails, can tow the cargo ships along the windier corridors of the sea lanes.

With fracking having brought the price of methane down so much, maybe those dirty fuel oil burning engines can be retrofitted to use liquified natural gas instead. About a third less CO2 emitted per BTU produced, and WAY less (sulfur, soot, mercury, arsenic, etc.) emitted, compared to fuel oil.

And with so much available space on the surface of a cargo ship, maybe an array of solar panels can be placed on top to provide electricity to run the ship engines.

Good point about how some cargo loads are less urgent, less perishable, and can be transported more slowly without adverse impact.

Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation.
25-05-2024 21:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2999)
sealover wrote:
Good point about how some cargo loads are less urgent, less perishable, and can be transported more slowly without adverse impact.

Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation.


Spoken like a true idiot who has never run a business and has no concept of profit/loss/payroll/and money in general. Well done. I suspect your most profitable days were living off wage earner's tax dollars.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
25-05-2024 22:12
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
GasGuzzler wrote:
sealover wrote:
Good point about how some cargo loads are less urgent, less perishable, and can be transported more slowly without adverse impact.

Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation.


Spoken like a true idiot who has never run a business and has no concept of profit/loss/payroll/and money in general. Well done. I suspect your most profitable days were living off wage earner's tax dollars.



Written like a true idiot who has never studied science and has no concept of what this thread is about.

Why claim that "Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation"?

Consider what happened with the ill-fated SST.

Even before the first commercial SST flight took off, there had already been a fuel shortage caused by the formation of OPEC in the early 70's.

Comparing gallons of fuel consumed per passenger mile, the SSTs were incredibly wasteful. But they got you there hours sooner.

Many US airlines have gone back to buying propeller driven aircraft because they are so much more fuel efficient than jet engines.

Again, the point was about how much pollution is generated in pursuit of getting people/things there faster.

Maybe there are a handful of people who really need to get to the opposite side of the world in less than 4 hours. They don't need an entire SST.
26-05-2024 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
sealover wrote:
Good point about how some cargo loads are less urgent, less perishable, and can be transported more slowly without adverse impact.

Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation.


Spoken like a true idiot who has never run a business and has no concept of profit/loss/payroll/and money in general. Well done. I suspect your most profitable days were living off wage earner's tax dollars.



Written like a true idiot who has never studied science and has no concept of what this thread is about.

LIF. Grow up.
Im a BM wrote:
Why claim that "Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation"?

What is this 'pollution'? What is it 'polluting'?
Im a BM wrote:
Consider what happened with the ill-fated SST.

The SST was a successful aircraft.
Im a BM wrote:
Even before the first commercial SST flight took off, there had already been a fuel shortage caused by the formation of OPEC in the early 70's.

There was no fuel shortage. Gas lines occurred due to government interference in gasoline markets. Price controls don't work.
Im a BM wrote:
Comparing gallons of fuel consumed per passenger mile, the SSTs were incredibly wasteful. But they got you there hours sooner.

Define 'wasteful'. Wasteful of what?
Im a BM wrote:
Many US airlines have gone back to buying propeller driven aircraft because they are so much more fuel efficient than jet engines.

Blatant lie. The jet engine is the most efficient engine ever built by the hand of man. The diesel-electric locomotive comes in 2nd.
Im a BM wrote:
Again, the point was about how much pollution is generated in pursuit of getting people/things there faster.

What is this so-called 'pollution'?
Im a BM wrote:
Maybe there are a handful of people who really need to get to the opposite side of the world in less than 4 hours. They don't need an entire SST.

Who are YOU to decide what people need? You are not the king. Omniscience fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2024 07:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2999)
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
sealover wrote:
Good point about how some cargo loads are less urgent, less perishable, and can be transported more slowly without adverse impact.

Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation.


Spoken like a true idiot who has never run a business and has no concept of profit/loss/payroll/and money in general. Well done. I suspect your most profitable days were living off wage earner's tax dollars.



Written like a true idiot who has never studied science and has no concept of what this thread is about.

I have studied science and religion. There is no science that shows there is a God. There is no science that predicts global warming without additional energy.
When a Christian believes in God, Christianity is his religion. When you BELIEVE in global warming, climate change is your religion. You are free to believe whatever you like, but when I am forced to pay for your religion, my freedoms have been stolen and it pisses me off. You are promoting theft of money and freedom. Does this give you some kind of orgasm?
Im a BM wrote:
Why claim that "Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation"?

What pollution? Oh that's right. You won't dumb it down and define your terms. If you happen to get caught up in a rare moment of honesty, you'll admit you are calling the life essential carbon dioxide pollution.
Im a BM wrote:
Consider what happened with the ill-fated SST.

Ill fated? It was a huge success for quite some time.
Im a BM wrote:
Even before the first commercial SST flight took off, there had already been a fuel shortage caused by the formation of OPEC in the early 70's.

The formation of OPEC was in 1960, and the shortages were due to crippling tariffs imposed by OPEC. Fast forward fifty some years and we get a president that fills our strategic oil reserves on the cheap, AND makes the USA a net oil exporter for the first time ever. This was a global position of strength. If the current asshat in the White House wasn't bent over the furniture by the climate nuts, we would never have to worry about being Russia's little bitch...but here we are.
Im a BM wrote:
Comparing gallons of fuel consumed per passenger mile, the SSTs were incredibly wasteful.

"Wasteful" is a subjective term, much like climate. Again, you're entitled to your opinion.
Im a BM wrote:
But they got you there hours sooner.

Yes. Thousands were willing to pay more for the quicker service. Because they paid for it, thousands more were employed, which means thousands of families paid for their living necessities and extras with earned money. See how free markets work? Governments can only fuk it up.
Im a BM wrote:
Many US airlines have gone back to buying propeller driven aircraft because they are so much more fuel efficient than jet engines.

They may be cheaper to purchase and maintain, but I highly doubt props are more efficient. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter. It is the choice of the business owners what equipment they use and you should mind your own damn business.
Im a BM wrote:
Again, the point was about how much pollution is generated in pursuit of getting people/things there faster.

Again, this "pollution" remains undefined.
Im a BM wrote:
Maybe there are a handful of people who really need to get to the opposite side of the world in less than 4 hours.

This is only justified for those needing to get the last gamma spec from the clearance rack. When there's a fire sale, you gotta get there.
Im a BM wrote:
They don't need an entire SST.

Don't tell me what I need. Mind your own damn business. How are you so clueless about Marxism?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 26-05-2024 08:08
28-05-2024 04:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
sealover wrote:
Good point about how some cargo loads are less urgent, less perishable, and can be transported more slowly without adverse impact.

Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation.


Spoken like a true idiot who has never run a business and has no concept of profit/loss/payroll/and money in general. Well done. I suspect your most profitable days were living off wage earner's tax dollars.



Written like a true idiot who has never studied science and has no concept of what this thread is about.

I have studied science and religion. There is no science that shows there is a God. There is no science that predicts global warming without additional energy.
When a Christian believes in God, Christianity is his religion. When you BELIEVE in global warming, climate change is your religion. You are free to believe whatever you like, but when I am forced to pay for your religion, my freedoms have been stolen and it pisses me off. You are promoting theft of money and freedom. Does this give you some kind of orgasm?
Im a BM wrote:
Why claim that "Slow is beautiful, when it comes to pollution associated with transportation"?

What pollution? Oh that's right. You won't dumb it down and define your terms. If you happen to get caught up in a rare moment of honesty, you'll admit you are calling the life essential carbon dioxide pollution.
Im a BM wrote:
Consider what happened with the ill-fated SST.

Ill fated? It was a huge success for quite some time.
Im a BM wrote:
Even before the first commercial SST flight took off, there had already been a fuel shortage caused by the formation of OPEC in the early 70's.

The formation of OPEC was in 1960, and the shortages were due to crippling tariffs imposed by OPEC. Fast forward fifty some years and we get a president that fills our strategic oil reserves on the cheap, AND makes the USA a net oil exporter for the first time ever. This was a global position of strength. If the current asshat in the White House wasn't bent over the furniture by the climate nuts, we would never have to worry about being Russia's little bitch...but here we are.
Im a BM wrote:
Comparing gallons of fuel consumed per passenger mile, the SSTs were incredibly wasteful.

"Wasteful" is a subjective term, much like climate. Again, you're entitled to your opinion.
Im a BM wrote:
But they got you there hours sooner.

Yes. Thousands were willing to pay more for the quicker service. Because they paid for it, thousands more were employed, which means thousands of families paid for their living necessities and extras with earned money. See how free markets work? Governments can only fuk it up.
Im a BM wrote:
Many US airlines have gone back to buying propeller driven aircraft because they are so much more fuel efficient than jet engines.

They may be cheaper to purchase and maintain, but I highly doubt props are more efficient. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter. It is the choice of the business owners what equipment they use and you should mind your own damn business.
Im a BM wrote:
Again, the point was about how much pollution is generated in pursuit of getting people/things there faster.

Again, this "pollution" remains undefined.
Im a BM wrote:
Maybe there are a handful of people who really need to get to the opposite side of the world in less than 4 hours.

This is only justified for those needing to get the last gamma spec from the clearance rack. When there's a fire sale, you gotta get there.
Im a BM wrote:
They don't need an entire SST.

Don't tell me what I need. Mind your own damn business. How are you so clueless about Marxism?

Great post.
28-05-2024 05:10
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
.
Edited on 28-05-2024 05:21
28-05-2024 05:11
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Railroads are a cheap way to transport goods. I don't know if they are cheaper than by ship. It depends a lot on the trip needs.
As a real general generality, if there were good enough planning there wouldn't be the need for rapid shipment.
The sst was a big waste. Another generality here - the faster you go and the higher you go, the more inefficient the trip is fuelwise and co2 wise. I'm not sure how that formula works out if you can go very very high.

I don't think jet engines are more fuel efficient than turboprops. It not a simple equation though, considering factors other than fuel. A significant factor is the length of the trip. Also paying the wages of two pilots per hour, and engine and prop overhaul costs.

I guess the better way to say the formula is to say the faster the plane is capable of going and the higher it is capable of going, the less fuel efficient and co2 efficient it is.
Edited on 28-05-2024 05:36
28-05-2024 08:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
Railroads are a cheap way to transport goods. I don't know if they are cheaper than by ship. It depends a lot on the trip needs.
As a real general generality, if there were good enough planning there wouldn't be the need for rapid shipment.

Ships transport over waterways, keepit. Trains transport over land.
keepit wrote:
The sst was a big waste.

No, it wasn't. It paid it's freight rather well, until it was banned by European governments.
keepit wrote:
Another generality here - the faster you go and the higher you go, the more inefficient the trip is fuelwise and co2 wise.

Quite the opposite, actually, but you ignore Carnot's equation.
keepit wrote:
I'm not sure how that formula works out if you can go very very high.

Very well.
keepit wrote:
I don't think jet engines are more fuel efficient than turboprops.

Turboprops ARE jet engines, dummy. Axial jets are more efficient, since they don't waste power stirring up the air with a propeller.
keepit wrote:
It not a simple equation though, considering factors other than fuel.

It is a simple equation. You just ignore it.
keepit wrote:
A significant factor is the length of the trip.

Not a factor in the equation. Strawman fallacy.
keepit wrote:
Also paying the wages of two pilots per hour,

Not a factor in the equation. Strawman fallacy.
keepit wrote:
and engine and prop overhaul costs.

Not a factor in the equation. Strawman fallacy.
keepit wrote:
I guess the better way to say the formula is to say the faster the plane is capable of going and the higher it is capable of going, the less fuel efficient and co2 efficient it is.

Your guess is wrong.

CO2 is not an efficiency.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2024 17:51
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
keepit wrote:
Railroads are a cheap way to transport goods. I don't know if they are cheaper than by ship. It depends a lot on the trip needs.
As a real general generality, if there were good enough planning there wouldn't be the need for rapid shipment.
The sst was a big waste. Another generality here - the faster you go and the higher you go, the more inefficient the trip is fuelwise and co2 wise. I'm not sure how that formula works out if you can go very very high.

I don't think jet engines are more fuel efficient than turboprops. It not a simple equation though, considering factors other than fuel. A significant factor is the length of the trip. Also paying the wages of two pilots per hour, and engine and prop overhaul costs.

I guess the better way to say the formula is to say the faster the plane is capable of going and the higher it is capable of going, the less fuel efficient and co2 efficient it is.



Whether it is a wheeled vehicle on the ground or an aircraft flying, the air resists the movement, and that resistance is not directly proportional with velocity.

GasGuzzler was actually right about something. OPEC was formed in 1960.

I should not have said "The formation of OPEC" but rather, "The weaponization of OPEC" with the oil embargo in response to the Yom Kippur war of 1973.

American car companies suddenly had a big problem. People started buying more fuel efficient cars from Japan and Germany, rather than American gas guzzlers.

Ford put out a TV ad in 1974 touting how fuel efficient American cars CAN be if you know how to drive them. One rule was to pretend you had an egg between your foot and the gas pedal. The other rule, kind of a big one, was to keep the speed BELOW 50 MILES PER HOUR. Doing that, they could get 30 miles per gallon from a big V-8 engine.

Nixon reduced the speed limit from 65 to 55 miles per hour to save fuel.

Wind resistance is not directly proportional to velocity. There is a threshold velocity, about 50 miles per hour, where a slight increase in velocity starts to cause a much bigger increase in wind resistance.

"Slow is beautiful" because if you stay below those threshold velocities, you have much higher fuel efficiency.

At very HIGH speeds, way faster than 50 mph, there are also threshold velocities, above which wind resistance suddenly increases a lot more with increased velocity.

On the other hand, if you get to high enough altitude, there isn't much air around to cause any wind resistance. An aircraft could bounce along off the top of the atmosphere with very little wind resistance.

Indeed, that is the theory behind reviving supersonic transport. To bounce along like a skipping stone off the top of the atmosphere.

Railroads score the highest for fuel efficiency, cargo ton miles per gallon kind of thing.

Trains can't do much about wind resistance, but they CAN cut down on the friction where the wheels contact the tracks. Like with a magnetic field under the train to lift it just enough to reduce the friction.
28-05-2024 19:30
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
you say "Ships transport over water and trains transport over land" in order to make your point (whateve that is).
Let me google that to fact check you.

It's been a long time since i've seen you understand my posts accurately.
I suggest you get ahold of a jet and a turboprop and make a few trips while paying for the gas yourself.
Then come back here and tell me about fuel efficiency.
Edited on 28-05-2024 19:33
28-05-2024 20:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
Whether it is a wheeled vehicle on the ground or an aircraft flying, the air resists the movement, and that resistance is not directly proportional with velocity.

Yes it is. Both profile drag and dynamic drag are proportional to velocity through the medium
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler was actually right about something. OPEC was formed in 1960.

I should not have said "The formation of OPEC" but rather, "The weaponization of OPEC" with the oil embargo in response to the Yom Kippur war of 1973.

Gas shortages were not caused by OPEC. They were caused by price controls imposed by Pres. Carter. Fascism doesn't work.
Im a BM wrote:
American car companies suddenly had a big problem. People started buying more fuel efficient cars from Japan and Germany, rather than American gas guzzlers.

Ford put out a TV ad in 1974 touting how fuel efficient American cars CAN be if you know how to drive them. One rule was to pretend you had an egg between your foot and the gas pedal. The other rule, kind of a big one, was to keep the speed BELOW 50 MILES PER HOUR. Doing that, they could get 30 miles per gallon from a big V-8 engine.

It wasn't the car. It was the carburetor.
Im a BM wrote:
Nixon reduced the speed limit from 65 to 55 miles per hour to save fuel.

It didn't save any fuel.
Im a BM wrote:
Wind resistance is not directly proportional to velocity.

Yes it is.
Im a BM wrote:
There is a threshold velocity, about 50 miles per hour, where a slight increase in velocity starts to cause a much bigger increase in wind resistance.

Below 55, ground resistance is predominant. Above 55 air resistance is dominant. AT 55, the vehicle is in transition, causing instability.
Im a BM wrote:
"Slow is beautiful" because if you stay below those threshold velocities, you have much higher fuel efficiency.

No, you don't.
Im a BM wrote:
At very HIGH speeds, way faster than 50 mph, there are also threshold velocities, above which wind resistance suddenly increases a lot more with increased velocity.

Perhaps you are trying to discuss the speed of sound, where the vehicle compresses the air around it above the speed of sound. AT the speed of sound, there is another transition from profile drag being prominent to dynamic drag being prominent..
Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, if you get to high enough altitude, there isn't much air around to cause any wind resistance. An aircraft could bounce along off the top of the atmosphere with very little wind resistance.

Indeed, that is the theory behind reviving supersonic transport. To bounce along like a skipping stone off the top of the atmosphere.

Aircraft do not fly at the top of the atmosphere.
Im a BM wrote:
Railroads score the highest for fuel efficiency, cargo ton miles per gallon kind of thing.

The diesel-electric locomotive is the 2nd most efficient engine. The jet engine is first.
Im a BM wrote:
Trains can't do much about wind resistance, but they CAN cut down on the friction where the wheels contact the tracks. Like with a magnetic field under the train to lift it just enough to reduce the friction.

You can't get energy from nothing. Maglev requires energy, dummy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2024 20:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
itn,
you say "Ships transport over water and trains transport over land" in order to make your point (whateve that is).
Let me google that to fact check you.

It's been a long time since i've seen you understand my posts accurately.
I suggest you get ahold of a jet and a turboprop and make a few trips while paying for the gas yourself.
Then come back here and tell me about fuel efficiency.

I'm an aircraft mechanic, dummy. I fix this stuff and fly it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2024 20:52
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
i doubt if you have any turbine time or any type ratings.
28-05-2024 20:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: i doubt if you have any turbine time or any type ratings.

This appears to be more of your poor judgement.
28-05-2024 21:01
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Appears to who?
28-05-2024 21:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: Appears to who?

... to whom ?
28-05-2024 21:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: It's been a long time since i've seen you understand my posts accurately.

Start writing coherently. Stop writing stupid things.
28-05-2024 21:48
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
ibd and itn,
If you don't believe me, google the issue.
28-05-2024 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
i doubt if you have any turbine time or any type ratings.

I do.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2024 22:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
ibd and itn,
If you don't believe me, google the issue.

Random chant. No apparent coherency.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2024 23:34
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
i remember you sounding like a rookie talking about instrument flying. How can you be like that and have a type rating?
29-05-2024 00:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
itn,
i remember you sounding like a rookie talking about instrument flying. How can you be like that and have a type rating?

You are hallucinating again, keepit.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-05-2024 01:47
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
Wrong again. Tell me about your type ratings specifically and turbine time specifically.
29-05-2024 03:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Wrong again. Tell me about your type ratings specifically and turbine time specifically.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-06-2024 19:25
markjfernandes
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Perhaps we could try to be a bit more civilised in these debates, and not resort to offensive language?

GasGuzzler wrote:
....
I have studied science and religion. There is no science that shows there is a God. ...


Actually the existence of G-d can very easily be proven using logic, which is in the realm of mathematics, which I think has been called something like the queen of the sciences. The fact that such can be proved, is a statement of the First Vatican Council (19th century), which referenced biblical teaching about two thousand years old. Admittedly, it does appear hard to prove in the same way that G-d is a personal G-d to whom a person can pray, and in whose image human beings are made.

... There is no science that predicts global warming without additional energy. ...


Doesn't the energy come from the sun? That's what another poster has written (I believe).

... When a Christian believes in God, Christianity is his religion. When you BELIEVE in global warming, climate change is your religion. ...


Actually, for Catholic Christians, the Church asks, as part of the religion, that they submit their wills and intellects to the Church's Magisterium, which includes statements about the reality of global warming and climate change. I believe in global warming largely because I'm a Catholic. I'm not a scientific professional; if I had the time to spare (which I don't), I could perhaps spend time studying all the science. But instead I accept it on faith, but that faith is rooted in Christian belief.

... You are free to believe whatever you like, but when I am forced to pay for your religion, my freedoms have been stolen and it pisses me off. You are promoting theft of money and freedom. ...


Equally we might say that we are paying for your quasi religious belief in the supposed non-existence of climate change: you're welcome to your beliefs and to the governmental protection of your related freedoms, but it costs us if you are wrong (which the government believes you are). Why do we have to suffer for your 'religious' disbelief in the consensus of the world's scientific community?


...
Yes. Thousands were willing to pay more for the quicker service. Because they paid for it, thousands more were employed, which means thousands of families paid for their living necessities and extras with earned money. See how free markets work? ...


Free markets have limits. The government is at the service of the common good, and that means intervening with regulations, whilst at the same time still maintaining freedom in economic matters. I'm not an economist. And I can't explain exactly why I'm skeptical about your statement. I think it is probably a modern fallacy that we just need to get everyone into jobs and somehow everything will work itself out. The way I see the developed world, is that there is huge waste, not only in terms of environmental damage, but just waste of resources. We buy goods from all over the world that we don't really need much, and perhaps sometimes they make life more difficult. And it seems all to fall under the mantra of getting everyone into employment, etc.

...
They may be cheaper to purchase and maintain, but I highly doubt props are more efficient. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter. It is the choice of the business owners what equipment they use and you should mind your own damn business.
...


Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners, especially business owners who may want to be more environmental? It's part of our freedoms.
01-06-2024 22:17
James_
★★★★★
(2273)
markjfernandes wrote:

Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners, especially business owners who may want to be more environmental? It's part of our freedoms.



Saying "conservatives" and "knuckle dragging neanderthals" is pretty much saying the same thing. These guys are afraid of innovation and change because who would be in control? Not them.
Adapting to climate change might help the economy to grow the same way computers and the internet did. Just a part of having an advanced economy in an ever changing world.
02-06-2024 01:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
markjfernandes wrote:
Perhaps we could try to be a bit more civilised in these debates, and not resort to offensive language?

Okay.
markjfernandes wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
....
I have studied science and religion. There is no science that shows there is a God. ...


Actually the existence of G-d can very easily be proven using logic,

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You just denied logic. It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods. It is not possible to disprove any god or gods. You cannot use logic here. A fallacy is an error in logic, which you just made.
markjfernandes wrote:
which is in the realm of mathematics,

Logic is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
which I think has been called something like the queen of the sciences.

Logic is not science. Redefinition fallacy. Mathematics is not science. Redefinition fallacy. Logic is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
The fact that such can be proved,

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). It cannot be proved.
markjfernandes wrote:
is a statement of the First Vatican Council (19th century),

The Vatican can't prove it either.
markjfernandes wrote:
which referenced biblical teaching about two thousand years old.

No reference can prove it either.
markjfernandes wrote:
Admittedly, it does appear hard to prove in the same way that G-d is a personal G-d to whom a person can pray, and in whose image human beings are made.

It is not possible.
markjfernandes wrote:
... There is no science that predicts global warming without additional energy. ...


Doesn't the energy come from the sun?

The sun is putting out the SAME energy. Where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from?

You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy from nothing.

markjfernandes wrote:
That's what another poster has written (I believe).

Yes, this method of ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics is rather common.
markjfernandes wrote:
... When a Christian believes in God, Christianity is his religion. When you BELIEVE in global warming, climate change is your religion. ...


Actually, for Catholic Christians, the Church asks, as part of the religion, that they submit their wills and intellects to the Church's Magisterium, which includes statements about the reality of global warming and climate change.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Buzzword fallacy (reality). No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change.

In taking this position (if true), then the Catholic Church has denied Christianity. Jesus Christ never taught the Church of Global Warming nor any of it's scripture.
markjfernandes wrote:
I believe in global warming largely because I'm a Catholic.

So you believe in the Church of Global Warming because you are a Christian???
markjfernandes wrote:
I'm not a scientific professional;

Science is not an 'expert' or 'professional'.
markjfernandes wrote:
if I had the time to spare (which I don't), I could perhaps spend time studying all the science.

Here are the theories of science you should learn:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over time). No gas or vapor is work, so U=0, leaving E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or dissipation of energy available to perform work), and 't' is time. In other words, energy always dissipates. It never gathers or concentrates on it's own. This equation also defines the concept of 'heat' (a flow of thermal energy) and it's direction (from 'hot' to 'cold). In other words, it is not possible for a colder gas to warm a warmer surface. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law: E = C * e * t^4
This equation describes the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy (light), or thermal radiance. 'E' is the power radiated per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is 'emissivity' or how well the surface emits and absorbs light (as opposed to reflecting or refracting it), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

In other words, the hotter something is, the more it radiates, and dissipates that thermal energy by converting it to light, which dissipates at...well...the speed of light (approx 300 million meters per second in open space). This is heat by radiance.

In other words, it is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


markjfernandes wrote:
But instead I accept it on faith, but that faith is rooted in Christian belief.

Faith is indeed rooted in Christian belief. The other word for 'faith' (or the Argument of Faith) is the Circular Argument, which itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove a circular argument True or False creates the fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is not a Christian teaching. No mention of it occurs in any teaching of Christ or God.
markjfernandes wrote:
... You are free to believe whatever you like, but when I am forced to pay for your religion, my freedoms have been stolen and it pisses me off. You are promoting theft of money and freedom. ...

Equally we might say that we are paying for your quasi religious belief in the supposed non-existence of climate change:

Climate cannot change. This is not a 'belief' or religion. It is the meaning of the English word 'climate'. Climate has not value associated with it that can 'change'. Climate has no temperature. It is purely a subjective description and contains no values.

Examples: a desert climate will always be a desert climate (even if you aren't standing in a desert). A marine climate will always be a marine climate.
markjfernandes wrote:
you're welcome to your beliefs and to the governmental protection of your related freedoms, but it costs us if you are wrong (which the government believes you are).

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
Why do we have to suffer for your 'religious' disbelief

You don't. You take on your 'suffering' voluntarily. It's YOUR problem. Burden fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
in the consensus of the world's scientific community?

Science is not a community.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
markjfernandes wrote:
...
Yes. Thousands were willing to pay more for the quicker service. Because they paid for it, thousands more were employed, which means thousands of families paid for their living necessities and extras with earned money. See how free markets work? ...


Free markets have limits.

None.
markjfernandes wrote:
The government is at the service of the common good, and that means intervening with regulations,

Fascism is not capitalism. Fascism is not free markets.
markjfernandes wrote:
whilst at the same time still maintaining freedom in economic matters.

Fascism is not freedom.
markjfernandes wrote:
I'm not an economist.

Obviously.
markjfernandes wrote:
And I can't explain exactly why I'm skeptical about your statement.

Because you are trying to redefine words.
markjfernandes wrote:
I think it is probably a modern fallacy that we just need to get everyone into jobs and somehow everything will work itself out.

Fascism never 'works out'. Neither does this communism you suggest.
markjfernandes wrote:
The way I see the developed world, is that there is huge waste, not only in terms of environmental damage,

What 'environmental damage'?? What is being 'damaged'?
Who are YOU to define what is 'waste'??
markjfernandes wrote:
but just waste of resources.

Who are YOU to define what is 'waste'??
markjfernandes wrote:
We buy goods from all over the world that we don't really need much,

Who are YOU to declare what anybody needs?
markjfernandes wrote:
and perhaps sometimes they make life more difficult. And it seems all to fall under the mantra of getting everyone into employment, etc.

Communism doesn't work.
markjfernandes wrote:
...
They may be cheaper to purchase and maintain, but I highly doubt props are more efficient. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter. It is the choice of the business owners what equipment they use and you should mind your own damn business.
...


Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners,

And business owners are free to ignore you.
markjfernandes wrote:
especially business owners who may want to be more environmental?

Buzzword fallacies. What the heck does this even MEAN?
markjfernandes wrote:
It's part of our freedoms.

Your religion is part of your freedoms. It does NOT, however, give you the right use that excuse to take away the very freedom you just espoused from another.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-06-2024 01:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
James_ wrote:
markjfernandes wrote:

Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners, especially business owners who may want to be more environmental? It's part of our freedoms.



Saying "conservatives" and "knuckle dragging neanderthals" is pretty much saying the same thing. These guys are afraid of innovation and change because who would be in control? Not them.
Adapting to climate change might help the economy to grow the same way computers and the internet did. Just a part of having an advanced economy in an ever changing world.

Mandates and fascism is not 'growth'.
Climate cannot change.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-06-2024 17:52
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2999)
markjfernandes wrote:
Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners, especially business owners who may want to be more environmental? It's part of our freedoms.

Any good business owner is well aware of his options. Government mandates are not freedoms.
James_ wrote:

Saying "conservatives" and "knuckle dragging neanderthals" is pretty much saying the same thing. These guys are afraid of innovation and change because who would be in control? Not them.


No conservative is afraid of innovation and change. We welcome it as long as it is driven by consumer demand and free markets. I will stand against government mandates every time.

James_ wrote:
Adapting to climate change might help the economy to grow

The #1 staple to "adapting to climate change" (whatever that means) is the elimination of hydrocarbon fuel.
The #1 staple to a strong economy is cheap hydrocarbon fuel.

Their will be no growing the economy with any climate policy.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-06-2024 18:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2999)
Into the Night wrote:
markjfernandes wrote:
Perhaps we could try to be a bit more civilised in these debates, and not resort to offensive language?

Okay.
markjfernandes wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
....
I have studied science and religion. There is no science that shows there is a God. ...


Actually the existence of G-d can very easily be proven using logic,

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You just denied logic. It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods. It is not possible to disprove any god or gods. You cannot use logic here. A fallacy is an error in logic, which you just made.
markjfernandes wrote:
which is in the realm of mathematics,

Logic is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
which I think has been called something like the queen of the sciences.

Logic is not science. Redefinition fallacy. Mathematics is not science. Redefinition fallacy. Logic is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
The fact that such can be proved,

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). It cannot be proved.
markjfernandes wrote:
is a statement of the First Vatican Council (19th century),

The Vatican can't prove it either.
markjfernandes wrote:
which referenced biblical teaching about two thousand years old.

No reference can prove it either.
markjfernandes wrote:
Admittedly, it does appear hard to prove in the same way that G-d is a personal G-d to whom a person can pray, and in whose image human beings are made.

It is not possible.
markjfernandes wrote:
... There is no science that predicts global warming without additional energy. ...


Doesn't the energy come from the sun?

The sun is putting out the SAME energy. Where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from?

You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy from nothing.

markjfernandes wrote:
That's what another poster has written (I believe).

Yes, this method of ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics is rather common.
markjfernandes wrote:
... When a Christian believes in God, Christianity is his religion. When you BELIEVE in global warming, climate change is your religion. ...


Actually, for Catholic Christians, the Church asks, as part of the religion, that they submit their wills and intellects to the Church's Magisterium, which includes statements about the reality of global warming and climate change.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Buzzword fallacy (reality). No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change.

In taking this position (if true), then the Catholic Church has denied Christianity. Jesus Christ never taught the Church of Global Warming nor any of it's scripture.
markjfernandes wrote:
I believe in global warming largely because I'm a Catholic.

So you believe in the Church of Global Warming because you are a Christian???
markjfernandes wrote:
I'm not a scientific professional;

Science is not an 'expert' or 'professional'.
markjfernandes wrote:
if I had the time to spare (which I don't), I could perhaps spend time studying all the science.

Here are the theories of science you should learn:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over time). No gas or vapor is work, so U=0, leaving E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or dissipation of energy available to perform work), and 't' is time. In other words, energy always dissipates. It never gathers or concentrates on it's own. This equation also defines the concept of 'heat' (a flow of thermal energy) and it's direction (from 'hot' to 'cold). In other words, it is not possible for a colder gas to warm a warmer surface. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law: E = C * e * t^4
This equation describes the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy (light), or thermal radiance. 'E' is the power radiated per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is 'emissivity' or how well the surface emits and absorbs light (as opposed to reflecting or refracting it), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

In other words, the hotter something is, the more it radiates, and dissipates that thermal energy by converting it to light, which dissipates at...well...the speed of light (approx 300 million meters per second in open space). This is heat by radiance.

In other words, it is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


markjfernandes wrote:
But instead I accept it on faith, but that faith is rooted in Christian belief.

Faith is indeed rooted in Christian belief. The other word for 'faith' (or the Argument of Faith) is the Circular Argument, which itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove a circular argument True or False creates the fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is not a Christian teaching. No mention of it occurs in any teaching of Christ or God.
markjfernandes wrote:
... You are free to believe whatever you like, but when I am forced to pay for your religion, my freedoms have been stolen and it pisses me off. You are promoting theft of money and freedom. ...

Equally we might say that we are paying for your quasi religious belief in the supposed non-existence of climate change:

Climate cannot change. This is not a 'belief' or religion. It is the meaning of the English word 'climate'. Climate has not value associated with it that can 'change'. Climate has no temperature. It is purely a subjective description and contains no values.

Examples: a desert climate will always be a desert climate (even if you aren't standing in a desert). A marine climate will always be a marine climate.
markjfernandes wrote:
you're welcome to your beliefs and to the governmental protection of your related freedoms, but it costs us if you are wrong (which the government believes you are).

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
Why do we have to suffer for your 'religious' disbelief

You don't. You take on your 'suffering' voluntarily. It's YOUR problem. Burden fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
in the consensus of the world's scientific community?

Science is not a community.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
markjfernandes wrote:
...
Yes. Thousands were willing to pay more for the quicker service. Because they paid for it, thousands more were employed, which means thousands of families paid for their living necessities and extras with earned money. See how free markets work? ...


Free markets have limits.

None.
markjfernandes wrote:
The government is at the service of the common good, and that means intervening with regulations,

Fascism is not capitalism. Fascism is not free markets.
markjfernandes wrote:
whilst at the same time still maintaining freedom in economic matters.

Fascism is not freedom.
markjfernandes wrote:
I'm not an economist.

Obviously.
markjfernandes wrote:
And I can't explain exactly why I'm skeptical about your statement.

Because you are trying to redefine words.
markjfernandes wrote:
I think it is probably a modern fallacy that we just need to get everyone into jobs and somehow everything will work itself out.

Fascism never 'works out'. Neither does this communism you suggest.
markjfernandes wrote:
The way I see the developed world, is that there is huge waste, not only in terms of environmental damage,

What 'environmental damage'?? What is being 'damaged'?
Who are YOU to define what is 'waste'??
markjfernandes wrote:
but just waste of resources.

Who are YOU to define what is 'waste'??
markjfernandes wrote:
We buy goods from all over the world that we don't really need much,

Who are YOU to declare what anybody needs?
markjfernandes wrote:
and perhaps sometimes they make life more difficult. And it seems all to fall under the mantra of getting everyone into employment, etc.

Communism doesn't work.
markjfernandes wrote:
...
They may be cheaper to purchase and maintain, but I highly doubt props are more efficient. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter. It is the choice of the business owners what equipment they use and you should mind your own damn business.
...


Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners,

And business owners are free to ignore you.
markjfernandes wrote:
especially business owners who may want to be more environmental?

Buzzword fallacies. What the heck does this even MEAN?
markjfernandes wrote:
It's part of our freedoms.

Your religion is part of your freedoms. It does NOT, however, give you the right use that excuse to take away the very freedom you just espoused from another.


This is a great post. Nice nutshell. Thanks for taking the time. BM will be complaining shortly that you never explain anything.



Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-06-2024 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is a great post. Nice nutshell. Thanks for taking the time. BM will be complaining shortly that you never explain anything.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment! *humble bow*

BM (Sealover, The Sock, or just Robert) is gonna whine and throw more buzzword bullshit, whether I post or not!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 02-06-2024 20:55
02-06-2024 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
GasGuzzler wrote:
markjfernandes wrote:
Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners, especially business owners who may want to be more environmental? It's part of our freedoms.

Any good business owner is well aware of his options. Government mandates are not freedoms.
James_ wrote:

Saying "conservatives" and "knuckle dragging neanderthals" is pretty much saying the same thing. These guys are afraid of innovation and change because who would be in control? Not them.


No conservative is afraid of innovation and change. We welcome it as long as it is driven by consumer demand and free markets. I will stand against government mandates every time.

James_ wrote:
Adapting to climate change might help the economy to grow

The #1 staple to "adapting to climate change" (whatever that means) is the elimination of hydrocarbon fuel.
The #1 staple to a strong economy is cheap hydrocarbon fuel.

Their will be no growing the economy with any climate policy.

This is quite true. Hydrocarbons are a cheap, renewable, and plentiful fuel source.

Contrary to what the Church of Green scripture says, we are NOT running out of oil or natural gas. The low cost of these fuels/available BTU speaks for itself in the marketplace.

The ONLY shortage of any of these fuels are government caused.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-06-2024 22:55
markjfernandes
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
GasGuzzler wrote:
markjfernandes wrote:
Yes, but we can make suggestions to business owners, especially business owners who may want to be more environmental? It's part of our freedoms.

Any good business owner is well aware of his options. Government mandates are not freedoms.
...

You were responding to BM saying "Many US airlines have gone back to buying propeller driven aircraft because they are so much more fuel efficient than jet engines." Where did he (or I) say anything about government mandates. I was referring to the freedom to communicate to others about various 'greener' options (and probably BM meant a similar thing). A good business owner is aware of his options, but they become good by investigating and listening to others: none of us live in a vacuum.

Into the Night wrote:
...
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You just denied logic. It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods. It is not possible to disprove any god or gods. You cannot use logic here. A fallacy is an error in logic, which you just made.

G-d is defined as the First Cause. Since the chain of causation cannot regress infinitely backwards, there must be a First Cause. Thus G-d is proven (using logic).

Time cannot regress infinitely backwards because that would then imply that the universe/cosmos has passed through an infinite number of seconds. But we know this is impossible. We know we will never reach an infinite number of seconds from now. And just as that is not possible, the universe/cosmos can't be infinitely old.

The laws of nature are not eternal because they depend on the existence of nature. Since nature began a finite time ago (as demonstrated), we can say the laws of nature also began at the same time. We can see this more clearly if we change the language we use for the laws of nature: instead of saying the law of gravity, if we instead frame it as the gravitational property of matter, it is more clearly seen that the law of gravity only came/comes into existence with matter.

There are not two First Causes because there must be a kind of meta space where they co-exist in the same reality. The 'meta space' comes from solely one of them. The one from whom the meta spaces originates is the true First Cause--the other is created by the true First Cause.

The above arguments use logic to prove the existence of the First Cause, which is one definition for G-d: the Creator.

Logic is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy.

I said 'in the realm of mathematics'. Logic is a branch of mathematics. It's also part of philosophy. The term 'science' can be used more loosely, such that you can say that philosophy is a 'science'.

Logic is not science. Redefinition fallacy. Mathematics is not science. Redefinition fallacy. Logic is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy.

As just said, the term science has been used in a more loose sense than just referring to the natural sciences. My dictionary defines mathematics as 'science of space, number, and quantity'.

The sun is putting out the SAME energy. Where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from?

I'll give you an example. I have a patch of vegetables in my garden. They get to a certain temperature due to the heating of the sun. I then build a greenhouse around them. They then get to a higher temperature. Now the sun is putting out the same energy. But if there is no increase in the energy from the sun, how can it get hotter? I put forward that that is roughly the greenhouse effect that applies to the planet as a whole. No extra energy from the sun, but it gets hotter.

In taking this position (if true), then the Catholic Church has denied Christianity. Jesus Christ never taught the Church of Global Warming nor any of it's scripture.

Jesus taught two thousand years ago, to the people of his time. The Catholic Church says that you should interpret Sacred Scripture in the cultural context of the relevant time period. The Church of today has inferred from the principles taught by Jesus, which in a sense also includes the teaching from the Old Testament scriptures pre-dating Jesus, that global warming concerns morality. Since morality is in the realm of religion, and because the Magisterium has deemed it worthwhile to teach the Christian faithful in respect to the moral issues concerning global warming, the Magisterium has done such teaching.

So you believe in the Church of Global Warming because you are a Christian???

You've just committed one of your own fallacies in logic. I never said this. I believe in global warming because I'm a Catholic who accepts in conscience the Magisterium's teaching concerning global warming.

Science is not an 'expert' or 'professional'.

Never said this. Do you know English properly?

Here are the theories of science you should learn:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over time). No gas or vapor is work, so U=0, leaving E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or dissipation of energy available to perform work), and 't' is time. In other words, energy always dissipates. It never gathers or concentrates on it's own. This equation also defines the concept of 'heat' (a flow of thermal energy) and it's direction (from 'hot' to 'cold). In other words, it is not possible for a colder gas to warm a warmer surface. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law: E = C * e * t^4
This equation describes the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy (light), or thermal radiance. 'E' is the power radiated per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is 'emissivity' or how well the surface emits and absorbs light (as opposed to reflecting or refracting it), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

In other words, the hotter something is, the more it radiates, and dissipates that thermal energy by converting it to light, which dissipates at...well...the speed of light (approx 300 million meters per second in open space). This is heat by radiance.

In other words, it is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

An astronaut on the moon wears a white spacesuit. The white spacesuit reaches a particular temperature due to the sun's rays. Now the astronaut decides to wear a black spacesuit. Does the black spacesuit reach a different temperature in the same rays of the sun, owing to it being black rather than white? I would have thought that it would, that it would be hotter. Now that is what we are doing to the earth in a sense: we are reflecting away the rays of the sun out to space less, due to the pollution making the earth wear something like a 'black spacesuit'.

You write that "...it is not possible to trap thermal energy." But perhaps those who believe in global warming do not really mean to talk in terms of trapping thermal energy. Maybe people accidentally say that. I think what we mean to say, is that we are trapping more light radiation from the sun (due to GHGs), which then is converted to more thermal energy. Yes, it appears true that we can't trap thermal energy from what you say, but perhaps we are trapping light radiation, which results in greater thermal energy overall in the planet.

I would suggest that you are being disingenuous seeing as there is wide consensus in the scientific community all over the world, over the reality of global warming.

Climate cannot change. This is not a 'belief' or religion. It is the meaning of the English word 'climate'. Climate has not value associated with it that can 'change'. Climate has no temperature. It is purely a subjective description and contains no values.
Examples: a desert climate will always be a desert climate (even if you aren't standing in a desert). A marine climate will always be a marine climate.

Something without a value can change. A subjective description can change. So climate can change.

What is the climate in England? It is so and so today. Fifty years from now it may be different. If it does indeed change, then the climate of England would have changed.

markjfernandes wrote:
you're welcome to your beliefs and to the governmental protection of your related freedoms, but it costs us if you are wrong (which the government believes you are).

Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Please explain how my statement here is "Pascal's Wager fallacy". I don't see it. I'm merely pointing out that if climate-change denial is wrong, then rather than the believers being a burden, it would rather be that the deniers end-up being something of a burden, that is still protected somewhat under essential freedoms.

markjfernandes wrote:
Why do we have to suffer for your 'religious' disbelief

You don't. You take on your 'suffering' voluntarily. It's YOUR problem. Burden fallacy.

No-one is an island. At least GasGuzzler realised this. If the country spends all its resources without recognition of climate change, when scientific consensus is clear about its reality the world over, we then suffer the devestation caused by climate change because of what the deniers have done/contributed. No-one is an island.

markjfernandes wrote:
in the consensus of the world's scientific community?

Science is not a community.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

I'm really wondering whether you know the English language properly. Or maybe you're partly a bot? Did I say science is a community? I did not. The scientific community is the community made of scientists and perhaps also other related workers. Science does use consensus. Science uses consensus in scientific research. The notion of peer-reviewed research is partly based on consensus. A scientific model/explanation may be adopted as the accepted model/explanation when there is consensus in the scientific community over its accuracy.

markjfernandes wrote:
The government is at the service of the common good, and that means intervening with regulations,

Fascism is not capitalism. Fascism is not free markets.

Who said anything about fascism? I've never mentioned fascism. The government regulates the sale of medicines. Is that fascism?

markjfernandes wrote:
whilst at the same time still maintaining freedom in economic matters.

Fascism is not freedom.

The government regulates the sale of medicines. Is that fascism? Do people still not have freedom when buying medicines, even though it is an area regulated by government?

markjfernandes wrote:
I think it is probably a modern fallacy that we just need to get everyone into jobs and somehow everything will work itself out.

Fascism never 'works out'. Neither does this communism you suggest.

Now you're saying I'm talking about communism. How does your mind work?

markjfernandes wrote:
The way I see the developed world, is that there is huge waste, not only in terms of environmental damage,

What 'environmental damage'?? What is being 'damaged'?
Who are YOU to define what is 'waste'??

Pollution is environmental damage. Do you deny the existence of pollution?
I use the dictionary definition of 'waste'. How do you define 'waste'?

markjfernandes wrote:
We buy goods from all over the world that we don't really need much,

Who are YOU to declare what anybody needs?

I declare what I need, and since what is needed for me, is also generally common for many others, I speak in respect of being part of a community and a people, with some insight as to what is needed for living. I do not dictate, I merely comment. In all of your science, I would have thought that you would realise that people, like plants, have certain needs from a scientific perspective.

markjfernandes wrote:
and perhaps sometimes they make life more difficult. And it seems all to fall under the mantra of getting everyone into employment, etc.

Communism doesn't work.

I'm not a communist. I'm a capitalist although not a believer in unbridled capitalism which you seem to follow. To put it bluntly, trying to give everyone a job, sometimes or maybe often, creates inefficiencies which can be seen in greater environmental damage. Employment ought to be subordinated to other ends. Service in society is more important than your pay packet and profits. I believe I'm on the side of the Catholic Church's teaching here.

markjfernandes wrote:
especially business owners who may want to be more environmental?

Buzzword fallacies. What the heck does this even MEAN?

What we are doing is not publishing scientific literature. I can use terms such as 'environmental' if it is obvious what its meaning is in public discourse. You sound like some kind of broken computer, the way how you speak and seemingly think.

markjfernandes wrote:
It's part of our freedoms.

Your religion is part of your freedoms. It does NOT, however, give you the right use that excuse to take away the very freedom you just espoused from another.

That is true, but I didn't say that. You need to be more attentive to what is actually written.




Join the debate Is switching to transiting goods by 'sail boat/ship' for non-urgent, non-perishable goods, worthw:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
LOL did you find the missing 80 million dollar jet yet? Or was it transported to the mother ship018-09-2023 22:57
Jamie Foxx seen sitting on a boat, because he cannot stand since his covid 19 vaccination2815-07-2023 20:46
INTEL TO SHIP QUANTUM CHIP1120-06-2023 19:17
carbon database for household goods and services1822-11-2022 04:36
Tip for the FBI, urgent please read carefully.010-08-2022 21:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact