Remember me
▼ Content

Terraforming: Is it possible?



Page 1 of 3123>
Terraforming: Is it possible?27-06-2019 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.


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 27-06-2019 02:04
27-06-2019 03:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11747)
Into the Night wrote:
Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.

You beat me to the punch.

If I grow a few tomato plants on my window sill, have I successfully terraformed?

The word "terraform" comes from sci-fi and carries powerful connotations that appeal to the type of wishful daydreamer that would be inclined to believe in fictions like Global Warming.

One of those connotations is "high tech" that can aid a scientifically illiterate loser into fantasizing about being smart and powerful.

Another connotation involved is one that Hitler utilized as the basis for the NAZI program of ethnic cleansing, i.e. "rebirth" which carries the inseparable implication that the one so terraforming is superior, has the superior "way" that should naturally survive while the rest are discarded to extinction.

A third connotation is that of playing God and being powerful to work Climate miracles, to save humanity and to be the hero that is worshipped and feared, instead of being the naive, scientifically illiterate loser who is mocked and manipulated.

Marxists don't want to actually define what they mean by "terraforming" lest they become exposed for being scientifically illiterate (i.e. get tripped up and advocate for something that is physically impossible) or be asked why they don't just become farmers and "terraform" as much as they feel they need to.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-06-2019 03:29
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Terraforming, like in the Book of Genesis? Some people should taper off the kool aid a little. Then again. they do 'believe' they have salvation in had, by reducing CO2, significantly as well.

If the planetary body, already has all the key ingredients needed to support life, they sure, we could plant some seeds, introduce a few critters, but we wouldn't live long enough to see how it turned out. On a large scale, we would have complete control over atmospheric conditions or climate. Whatever we planted, would still need to adapt and survive independently of our help. Some things do better than others. Bacteria do pretty well, and aren't that picky about food sources. Bacteria would be part of it, to recycle organic matter. It wouldn't be like the fish bowl we keep a pet turtle in, that needs constant care and cleaning, or the turtle dies.

I think it would be incredibly complicated to setup a working ecosystem, that would be self-sustaining, and not kill itself off. Not to mention, take many life times to achieve, couldn't do it all at one time, very slow process, a careful balance, where we couldn't control all the elements, like one a small scale, terrarium, or 'biosphere' experiment.

No, I don't believe we have the time or patience to tend the 'Garden of Eden', we always want to fix problems, rather than let the problems fix themselves. Every quick-fix, would tip the balance, and create other problems, before the system could settle down, which of course, we would want to fix...
RE: Terraforming Climatopia - It IS Possible05-04-2022 23:14
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Terraforming Climatopia - It IS Possible

Let's forget asking WHY we would even want to.

The question is whether or not it is POSSIBLE to terraform climatopia on earth.

The answer is YES.

Applied biogeochemistry CAN do it.

Applied biogeochemistry WILL do it.

Any questions?

Applied biogeochemistry has a LOT of answers.

Terraforming Climatopia - Applied Biogeochemistry. It is the title of the book.

How do we know it's possible?

Because humans have ALREADY terraformed climadystopia.

We have already proved that we DO HAVE THE POWER.


------------------------------------------------------------


quote]Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.[/quote]
RE: WIN-WIN-WIN Three-in-one terraforming climatopia solution.06-04-2022 00:06
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
WIN-WIN-WIN Three-in-one terraforming climatopia solution.

What are the three biggest problems associated with Anthropogenic Global Weirding (AGW)?

Global warming from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

Ocean "acidification" from increased CO2, depletion of sea water alkalinity.

Accelerated sea level rise.

What if ONE terraforming approach addressed ALL THREE of these?

Sea water can be pumped out of the sea and into coastal deserts.

Given enough sea water pumping capacity, there is enough area of coastal desert available to:

1. Remove enough sea water from the ocean to counter sea level rise.

2. Sequester enough atmospheric CO2 into wetland organic matter with centuries long residence time to bring atmospheric concentration to 350 ppm.

3. Generate enough alkalinity in runoff and submarine groundwater discharge to restore the ocean's alkalinity and provide enough carbonate ion for shell formation.


Humans are very good at constructing irrigation systems and moving water around.




Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.
RE: What would it cost compared to NOT terraforming?06-04-2022 00:21
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
What would it cost compared to NOT terraforming?

It would likely be somewhat expensive to create the dam, dike, canal and levee structure to transform coastal deserts into saltwater wetlands that continuously drain alkalinity into the sea.

So, what is the cost of NOT doing it?

Consider sea level rise alone.

Without any effective measure to mitigate sea level rise, the cost of protecting coastal cities from rising sea levels and storm surges will be ENORMOUS.

It is entirely possible that the cost of protecting just ONE MAJOR COASTAL CITY against sea level rise would be in the same ball park as the cost of pumping enough sea water into coastal desert to protect ALL COASTAL CITIES.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
WIN-WIN-WIN Three-in-one terraforming climatopia solution.

What are the three biggest problems associated with Anthropogenic Global Weirding (AGW)?

Global warming from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

Ocean "acidification" from increased CO2, depletion of sea water alkalinity.

Accelerated sea level rise.

What if ONE terraforming approach addressed ALL THREE of these?

Sea water can be pumped out of the sea and into coastal deserts.

Given enough sea water pumping capacity, there is enough area of coastal desert available to:

1. Remove enough sea water from the ocean to counter sea level rise.

2. Sequester enough atmospheric CO2 into wetland organic matter with centuries long residence time to bring atmospheric concentration to 350 ppm.

3. Generate enough alkalinity in runoff and submarine groundwater discharge to restore the ocean's alkalinity and provide enough carbonate ion for shell formation.


Humans are very good at constructing irrigation systems and moving water around.




Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.
06-04-2022 00:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
sealover wrote:
Terraforming Climatopia - It IS Possible

Buzzword fallacies. Define 'terraforming'. Define 'climatopia'.
sealover wrote:
Let's forget asking WHY we would even want to.

Let's forget defining what the terms even mean.
sealover wrote:
The question is whether or not it is POSSIBLE to terraform climatopia on earth.

Void question. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
The answer is YES.

Not possible. The question is void. Void questions are not a yes or no question.
sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry CAN do it.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry WILL do it.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Any questions?

Applied biogeochemistry has a LOT of answers.

Terraforming Climatopia - Applied Biogeochemistry. It is the title of the book.

How do we know it's possible?

Because humans have ALREADY terraformed climadystopia.

We have already proved that we DO HAVE THE POWER.

Define 'terraform'. Define 'climadystopia'.

The only terraform I know of is a software project used to manage cloud services. A rather useful package.
See Hashicorp.


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
06-04-2022 00:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
sealover wrote:
WIN-WIN-WIN Three-in-one terraforming climatopia solution.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
What are the three biggest problems associated with Anthropogenic Global Weirding (AGW)?

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Global warming from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
Ocean "acidification" from increased CO2, depletion of sea water alkalinity.

You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
Accelerated sea level rise.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
What if ONE terraforming approach addressed ALL THREE of these?

Buzzword fallacy. Fake 'problems'.
sealover wrote:
Sea water can be pumped out of the sea and into coastal deserts.

Why? You want to salt the soil? You DO realize that water just flows back to the sea again, right?
sealover wrote:
Given enough sea water pumping capacity, there is enough area of coastal desert available to:

1. Remove enough sea water from the ocean to counter sea level rise.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. Why do you want to salt the soil?
sealover wrote:
2. Sequester enough atmospheric CO2 into wetland organic matter with centuries long residence time

Water isn't CO2. Salted soil doesn't grow anything. What organic matter? CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
to bring atmospheric concentration to 350 ppm.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration.
sealover wrote:
3. Generate enough alkalinity in runoff and submarine groundwater discharge to restore the ocean's alkalinity

The ocean is already alkaline.
sealover wrote:
and provide enough carbonate ion for shell formation.

Shellfish already exist and are doing just fine.
sealover wrote:
Humans are very good at constructing irrigation systems and moving water around.

Why do you want to salt the deserts?


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
06-04-2022 00:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
sealover wrote:
What would it cost compared to NOT terraforming?

Void question. Buzzword fallacy. There is no cost to a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
It would likely be somewhat expensive to create the dam, dike, canal and levee structure to transform coastal deserts into saltwater wetlands that continuously drain alkalinity into the sea.

The sea is already alkaline. Why do you want to salt the soil?
sealover wrote:
So, what is the cost of NOT doing it?

Consider sea level rise alone.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
Without any effective measure to mitigate sea level rise, the cost of protecting coastal cities from rising sea levels and storm surges will be ENORMOUS.

What rising sea levels? Storm surges are normal with storms.
sealover wrote:
It is entirely possible that the cost of protecting just ONE MAJOR COASTAL CITY against sea level rise would be in the same ball park as the cost of pumping enough sea water into coastal desert to protect ALL COASTAL CITIES.

What sea level rise? Why do you want to salt the desert soil?


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
RE: "Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?"06-04-2022 01:42
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not/"

An excellent question for a thread to be dedicated to.

In the context of a climate "debate" (climate-debate.com), the kind of terraforming being discussed would presumably relate in some way to climate.

But the question is clear. "Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level?"

There is no need to justify WHY terraform in order to address this assertion.

In the spirit of genuine climate debate.

Falsifiable hypothesis that terraforming IS possible, with important climate related implications.

Exhibit 1 - Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine discharge.

More than 50 years of environmental engineering experience at literally THOUSANDS of mining operations has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that constructed wetlands can take in water with pH less than 3, and then discharge groundwater with pH nearly 7.

Biogeochemical investigations have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that under low oxygen conditions in constructed wetland sediment, sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity.

The falsifiable hypothesis is that the same principles also operate in a constructed wetland receiving sea water input. With 2600 or more ppm sulfate, sea water has sulfate in concentrations comparable to acid mine discharge, where the sulfate comes from sulfuric acid (hydrogen sulfate).

Oxidation of sulfide in pyrite by bacteria generates the sulfuric acid in the mine discharge.

Reduction of sulfate by bacteria in the wetland generates the acid neutralizing capacity (i.e. alkalinity).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote]Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.[/quote]
RE: The burden of proof for contrarian assertions.06-04-2022 02:21
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
The burden of proof for contrarian assertions.

Contrarian assertions contradict what is widely accepted in the textbooks.

The burden of proof is high for contrarian assertions.

It is not enough to play dumb and say "what sea level rise?"

Or to insist that "sulfate cannot be reduced"

"Sulfate Reduction" has been in the textbooks for more than 100 years.

It requires more than just the contrarian assertion that "sulfate cannot be reduced".

There must be EXTRAORDINARY PROOF for such an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.

Your credentials are not impressive enough to ask us to just take your word.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
What would it cost compared to NOT terraforming?

Void question. Buzzword fallacy. There is no cost to a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
It would likely be somewhat expensive to create the dam, dike, canal and levee structure to transform coastal deserts into saltwater wetlands that continuously drain alkalinity into the sea.

The sea is already alkaline. Why do you want to salt the soil?
sealover wrote:
So, what is the cost of NOT doing it?

Consider sea level rise alone.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
Without any effective measure to mitigate sea level rise, the cost of protecting coastal cities from rising sea levels and storm surges will be ENORMOUS.

What rising sea levels? Storm surges are normal with storms.
sealover wrote:
It is entirely possible that the cost of protecting just ONE MAJOR COASTAL CITY against sea level rise would be in the same ball park as the cost of pumping enough sea water into coastal desert to protect ALL COASTAL CITIES.

What sea level rise? Why do you want to salt the desert soil?
06-04-2022 03:42
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
sealover wrote:
WIN-WIN-WIN Three-in-one terraforming climatopia solution.

What are the three biggest problems associated with Anthropogenic Global Weirding (AGW)?

Global warming from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

Ocean "acidification" from increased CO2, depletion of sea water alkalinity.

Accelerated sea level rise.

What if ONE terraforming approach addressed ALL THREE of these?

Sea water can be pumped out of the sea and into coastal deserts.

Given enough sea water pumping capacity, there is enough area of coastal desert available to:

1. Remove enough sea water from the ocean to counter sea level rise.

2. Sequester enough atmospheric CO2 into wetland organic matter with centuries long residence time to bring atmospheric concentration to 350 ppm.

3. Generate enough alkalinity in runoff and submarine groundwater discharge to restore the ocean's alkalinity and provide enough carbonate ion for shell formation.


Humans are very good at constructing irrigation systems and moving water around.




Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.


Why do you hate life on this planet? Why must you be so destructive? There is life in the deserts, which would not benefit from seawater. Do you think millions of gallons of seawater is going to be contained in the desert, or leach into the underground fresh water? Pumping seawater out on the dry ground, increases surface area, providing more surface area. More water will evaporate, quicker (going to rain hard some place). The seawater will leave a lot of minerals (salts) behind. Leaving those deserts useless and uninhabitable.

Your vision seems to be about transforming our planet, into a barren wasteland. 350 ppm CO2 is barely half of what planets need for maximum growth and health. It was fine, for when the world population of animals was much lower. We need higher CO2, to feed the plants, so we all have plentiful food. True, plants grow and mature okay at 350 ppm, but it's slow growth, and minimal. It was okay, since not all plants needed to survive, or do very well, plenty of time, and fewer herbivores. There wasn't a lot of land being cleared for development. Cleared for massive solar and wind farms.

The 'repair' isn't suppose to make things worse, than had you didn't do anything at all. Rule #`: If it's not broken, don't attempt to 'fix' it...
06-04-2022 04:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11747)
HarveyH55 wrote:Why do you hate life on this planet? Why must you be so destructive?

Marxism is a cancer. It kills all that is good.

Are you aware of how cancer spreads? Well, that's the answer to your question.
06-04-2022 04:43
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1728)
America has the Hoover dam.West Australia has Lake Argyle which has been stocked with native Barramundi and sooty grunter which are now permanant residents and growing better than expected.Plus metre Barramundi are being regularly caught.A huge success of humans terraforming.Sea wanker.If the sea level ever goes up a sea wall is very cheap and very quick to build verses continuous pumping.To believe humans could pump water to affect the level of the seas just shows what a fool you are.Do the math.The Arctic winter/summer mass has no effect on sea levels yet the Antarctic land mass should make a huge annual difference.Heres the zinger It does not.Gigatons of land ice forms in Antarctica every winter like right now and there is no difference to sea levels where I live.
06-04-2022 05:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11747)
seal over wrote:The burden of proof for contrarian assertions.

Nope. The burden of proof always resides with he who is making the affirmative argument.

seal over wrote:Contrarian assertions contradict what is widely accepted in the textbooks.

Fortunately no one is required to accept any misconceptions, no matter how common they are.

Then there are the uneducated Marxist losers who are forever claiming that their WACKY beliefs are "textbook thienth."

No matter how much uneducated Marxist losers protest, they have to support their arguments and they have to define their terms ... or admit that their religion is just a religion and that the unfalsifiable dogma cannot be defined or supported on any rational basis.

seal over wrote:It is not enough to play dumb and say "what sea level rise?"

It is not enough to play dumb and simply regurgitate "sea level rise." Photographic evidence shows that the ocean has not risen perceptibly in over a century. You have to explain why photographs are lying. You have to explain why the ocean at Freemantle, Australia has apparently not risen since the final construction of the Victoria Quay in 1897.

Yes, you bear that burden. Liar.

06-04-2022 18:48
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Biogeotheology... Have faith in the great, IPCC, and the 'truth' will set you free, permanently... Pour you self a tall glass of Iced Warfarin tea.
07-04-2022 15:50
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:

Cool pic... where, when, what?

What's the thing that looks like a big whiskey still?
Edited on 07-04-2022 15:51
07-04-2022 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11747)
GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Cool pic... where, when, what?

What's the thing that looks like a big whiskey still?

This is the Victoria Quay (pier) in Freemantle, Australia in the late 1890s (during final construction). The pier remains unchanged to this day, with the exception of some asphalt being laid for a parking lot and a few administrative buildings. The pier is exactly as high above the water as it was when constructed.



The ocean isn't rising.
Edited on 07-04-2022 16:58
07-04-2022 16:59
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:

But what's the big chuggy thing on the left making all the smoke?
07-04-2022 20:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

But what's the big chuggy thing on the left making all the smoke?

That big chuggy thing is called a steam donkey. It's a steam engine. The tower around the stack is a heat exchanger, making the steam engine more efficient.

These things were used to saw logs, drive piles, dredge bays and rivers to make them navigable waterways, etc. They were very flexible in the tasks they could do. They could even be mounted on barges.

This one looks like it's being used to drive piles for piers. The wood stacked along the shore will probably become the deck of the new pier.

You could fire these things using wood, coal, whatever. Anything that was handy.


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 07-04-2022 21:02
08-04-2022 10:48
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1728)
I live 25 minute drive away from Fremantle and support the Freo dockers in AFL.If you turned about 270 degree from the D shed to the left you would be looking at open ocean.The concrete bridge in the background is Stirling bridge and it was opened in 1968 and I was there as a small child with my parents.It is just near Stirling bridge where I took the measurements at the East bank.It is Fremantle Port Authority that I called 3 years ago to ask about when they would start building floating pontoon's to deal with sea level rise and was informed there has been no change in sea level for 168 years.Same deal in Sydney harbour.
09-04-2022 15:06
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
That big chuggy thing is called a steam donkey. It's a steam engine. The tower around the stack is a heat exchanger, making the steam engine more efficient.

Thanks, ITN. Pretty cool. I looked it up on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_donkey

The donkey puncher job sounds hazardous.
RE: COASTAL Rise versus SEA LEVEL Rise.09-04-2022 23:17
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
COASTAL Rise versus SEA LEVEL Rise.

Sea level rise is a relative thing.

Coastlines also rise and fall with plate tectonics and the weight of wetlands.

In parts of Indonesia, the coast line is subsiding faster than sea level is rising in areas of drained peatlands.

Many other coastlines are rising faster than the sea, as plate tectonics shoves sea floor up under them.

My favorite such place are the coastal terraces near Mendocino, California.

At the triple junction where three plates converge, this piece of coastline rises straight up for more than a million years now.

Most places get tilted when sea floor gets shoved underneath, and sediment layers are no longer horizontal and easily eroded.

At the triple junction, the wave cut terraces remain flat as they rise up.

The sea level goes up and down with the ice ages.

When sea level goes back down, the newest wave cut terrace is above the water line.

By the time the sea level rises again, coastal uplift has raised that wave cut terrace high enough that it remains above the water line. When sea level falls again, a new wave cut terrace is exposed above the water line.

A series of five terraces remains there.

All formed from the exact same graywacke sandstone parent material.

All in the exact same zone of climate and biotic community colonization.

All in the exact same topographic position of perched water table, flat terrace.

The only difference is the age of the soil. What a difference age makes!

And it is because the COAST IS RISING FASTER THAN THE SEA LEVEL.

Sea level rise is a relative thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.
10-04-2022 01:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11747)
sealover wrote:At the triple junction where three plates converge, this piece of coastline rises straight up for more than a million years now.

@duncan, now I understand why you absolutely need to bend over for squeal over. He conflates tenses just like Pete Rogers.

You're pretty keen on that I see. It fits in well with your inability to navigate the English language.
10-04-2022 13:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That big chuggy thing is called a steam donkey. It's a steam engine. The tower around the stack is a heat exchanger, making the steam engine more efficient.

Thanks, ITN. Pretty cool. I looked it up on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_donkey

The donkey puncher job sounds hazardous.


Not really. Logging and pile driving are hazardous jobs in and of themselves, but the guy operating the donkey was in the safest position. He had control over the boiler, and he wasn't anywhere near the business end of the work (driver hammer, choking lines, etc). In logging, the engineer was called a 'donkey puncher'. The guys attaching the choking lines to drag the logs were at the biggest risk. If the donkey started pulling too soon while the chokers were attaching the lines, the tension would literally cut them into pieces. If a line snapped, the chokers were the ones cut to pieces by the lines. The whistleman was also in a dangerous position, located between the load and the engine. He too was in danger of tension on the lines.

If you see a machine pulling something else heavy, such as a winch pulling a car out of deep sand, STAY AWAY FROM THAT LINE! I see too many people in such situations that do not realize the extreme danger they are in!


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
10-04-2022 13:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
sealover wrote:
COASTAL Rise versus SEA LEVEL Rise.

It is not possible to measure a global sea level.
sealover wrote:
Sea level rise is a relative thing.

Base rate fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Coastlines also rise and fall with plate tectonics and the weight of wetlands.

Base rate fallacy.
sealover wrote:
In parts of Indonesia, the coast line is subsiding faster than sea level is rising in areas of drained peatlands.

Many other coastlines are rising faster than the sea, as plate tectonics shoves sea floor up under them.

My favorite such place are the coastal terraces near Mendocino, California.

At the triple junction where three plates converge, this piece of coastline rises straight up for more than a million years now.

Most places get tilted when sea floor gets shoved underneath, and sediment layers are no longer horizontal and easily eroded.

At the triple junction, the wave cut terraces remain flat as they rise up.

The sea level goes up and down with the ice ages.

Ice floats. It doesn't cause sea level to rise or fall as it forms or melts.
sealover wrote:
When sea level goes back down, the newest wave cut terrace is above the water line.

By the time the sea level rises again, coastal uplift has raised that wave cut terrace high enough that it remains above the water line. When sea level falls again, a new wave cut terrace is exposed above the water line.

A series of five terraces remains there.

All formed from the exact same graywacke sandstone parent material.

All in the exact same zone of climate and biotic community colonization.

All in the exact same topographic position of perched water table, flat terrace.

The only difference is the age of the soil. What a difference age makes!

How do you know?
sealover wrote:
And it is because the COAST IS RISING FASTER THAN THE SEA LEVEL.

Manufactured data...random numbers of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Sea level rise is a relative thing.

Base rate 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
10-04-2022 13:43
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1728)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:At the triple junction where three plates converge, this piece of coastline rises straight up for more than a million years now.

@duncan, now I understand why you absolutely need to bend over for squeal over. He conflates tenses just like Pete Rogers.

You're pretty keen on that I see. It fits in well with your inability to navigate the English language.


Totally agree with you however I am happy as a bug right now


duncan61
10-04-2022 16:19
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
If you see a machine pulling something else heavy, such as a winch pulling a car out of deep sand, STAY AWAY FROM THAT LINE! I see too many people in such situations that do not realize the extreme danger they are in!


Will do.

Luckily, not much of that happening where I work!
10-04-2022 18:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
duncan61 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:At the triple junction where three plates converge, this piece of coastline rises straight up for more than a million years now.

@duncan, now I understand why you absolutely need to bend over for squeal over. He conflates tenses just like Pete Rogers.

You're pretty keen on that I see. It fits in well with your inability to navigate the English language.


Totally agree with you however I am happy as a bug right now


Ignorance is bliss.


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
10-04-2022 19:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If you see a machine pulling something else heavy, such as a winch pulling a car out of deep sand, STAY AWAY FROM THAT LINE! I see too many people in such situations that do not realize the extreme danger they are in!


Will do.

Luckily, not much of that happening where I work!


It can really happen anywhere.

Here in Washington, for example, we have a sandy beach at a place called Ocean Shores. Cars are allowed to park on the beach, which is wide and flat. An access road has been built to cross the soft sand out to where it's hard and packed from exposure to seawater. At low tide, you will find rows of cars parked there and lots of clam diggers looking for razor clams (there's a fishing limit for them now). Others go for a walk along the beach.

Sometimes, someone get stuck in the sand and the tide is coming in. The city has a rig that can be driven out even into soft sand with ease and plant itself into a good purchase. On it is a winch with a tow cable. They stretch this thing across the beach to the stuck car (possibly now surrounded by seawater) and drag it back to firm ground...enough for a flatbed truck to haul the thing up on it's deck (using another tow cable and winch).

People step over this tow cable as they walk across the beach WHILE THE CAR IS BEING WINCHED. They have no idea the extreme danger they are in. There are only a few people nearby shouting at them to stop what they are doing and get away from that line. They know what a line in that kind of tension can do.

Even a tow truck operator has to be careful of the line and stay out of it's path. Fortunately, is usually short enough that passerby aren't in much danger, except the occasional idiot that steps across the line.

Yeah, you can come across such dangers. Now you know...stay away from that line.


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
11-04-2022 17:29
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
Yeah, you can come across such dangers. Now you know...stay away from that line.

Boy, those people walking over the cable are dumb!

I heard the same thing can happen with a piano. There's so much tension on the stings/wires that if the frame cracks it can explode.
11-04-2022 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18395)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Yeah, you can come across such dangers. Now you know...stay away from that line.

Boy, those people walking over the cable are dumb!

I heard the same thing can happen with a piano. There's so much tension on the stings/wires that if the frame cracks it can explode.

Implode. Pianos, harps, harpsichords, yes.

Pianos typically have 240 strings in them (over 88 keys). The 'frame' is actually called the harp and is made of iron. Wood could never hold that kind of tension. If that harp cracks, the piano becomes dangerous to even be around. It won't take long before the thing implodes. The frame of a piano is what the harp mounts in. It is pretty light wood (except the bottom where the harp mounts) and it won't protect you if the harp breaks. The wood is sturdier where the harp mounts so it can hold it's weight. It's very heavy. It's also why the piano itself is so heavy. Fortunately, the iron, being a relatively soft metal, develops such a crack very rarely.

Harps (the kind you pick and strum yourself) are not so bad. Just 47 strings. Even with just that, the frame must have a pretty sturdy pillar to keep the thing from imploding on you. If you look at the way they are constructed, a thick frame of wood on either end of the strings are held apart by a large pillar. You sit with the pillar facing you to play the harp. The higher notes are away from you. It's frame is made of wood. Good harps are usually made from sitka spruce, a tree that produces few branches (and few knots) that grows a few miles in from the west coast from northern SDTC up through Alaska. Everything from aircraft to kite sticks to harps are made of this wonderful wood. I'm currently building a 2 seat aircraft from it.

I've even known some guitars to break and injure people...saw that happen to a 12 string guitar that was cheaply built. A good guitar has an iron rod connecting the neck to the body. In cheap ones, there is no rod or the rod is inadequate. They usually give an indication of weakening because the strings appear to move away from the neck, making the instrument harder to play. Most of the time the implosion is pretty mild, but it can occasionally be violent.


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
12-04-2022 15:48
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
I've even known some guitars to break and injure people...

Well, than I'll just play the flute. Sounds safer.

Just kidding. But I did play a harmonica when I was ten.
12-04-2022 17:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11747)
GretaGroupie wrote:Just kidding. But I did play a harmonica when I was ten.

I bet you also played the radio.
14-04-2022 19:51
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:
I bet you also played the radio.

No, but I used to give a really good hum job!
RE: Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.22-04-2022 23:09
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.

GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I bet you also played the radio.

No, but I used to give a really good hum job!




Oh, yeah? How do you know? Were you there?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cosmic time scale is very long.

The existence of the human race is just a blink of the eye on that time scale.

The earth will not always be able to sustain life.

The sun's luminosity continues to increase.

One day the earth's fate will be similar to that of Venus.

Long before the earth becomes too hot, the human race is very likely to have gone extinct for one reason or another.

This may be a unique opportunity in the history of the universe.

Whether or not the first life STARTED on earth, this planet can be the source of life on planets beyond our own star.

The greater consciousness will grieve the loss of life on earth.

But new life on other planets could create new symphonies of souls to play beautiful music that pleases the greater consciousness so much.

We could even redeem our selves for the sins against our own planet.

This new mass extinction in progress is totally uncool.

But what would it take to plant seeds of life on a distant planet?

The journey would be far too long for any complex organism seeds, spores, embryos, etc., to be viable by the time they got to their new home.

But life on earth began with only the simplest organisms. The kind most likely to survive an interstellar journey.

4000 million years ago, some intelligent species far from here might have been thinking the same thing.

They knew they could never send one of their own complex intelligent bodies.

Perhaps they planted seeds on Venus and Earth at the same time.

They would have done much better on Venus in those days.

It is not impossible that Earth is where it started, and there is no other place in the universe with similar life.

We might eventually discover that there was never life of any kind of Venus.

Our mythology is filled with Venus related themes, some even suggesting that Venus was the source of life on Earth, or at least the source of souls on earth.

In any case, understanding the natural history of life on earth could help us know what kind of seeds to send to younger lifeless planet.

Earth was very cold, had no free oxygen, and was abundant with energy rich reductants such hydrogen gas and hydrogen sulfide.

This thread will be a good place for discussing how life ever could survive here, and what it would take to facilitate enabling new life to survive elsewhere.

To honor a true scientific genius who died several years ago, posts related to this theme will be on this thread under the same heading every time.

"Tony's Ark", they will be called.

Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.
22-04-2022 23:33
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Yeah, I use to read a lot of science fiction too... Then, I grew up. We only have a couple thousand years of written history. Everything else is speculation, and wishful thinking. We are a long way off from actually fully understanding life on this planet. Not even close to planting the 'seeds' on another planet. But, of course liberals know everything the rest of us don't, so we should bother thing, just stumble through life, clueless morons... You might know all there is to know about manure piles, but you have a lot to learn about people. That's why you ended up on this site, rather than discussing you life-work, with your peers and colleagues. No one in your field, reads your nonsense either, and dismissed/denied, as liberals do, who think they are the smartest in a room, if the treat everyone else as morons. Not realizing, it's insulting, and untrue.
RE: Tony's Ark - Jumpstarting Photosynthesis22-04-2022 23:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, I use to read a lot. Then, I grew up. .


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony's Ark - Jumpstarting Photosynthesis.

What kind of seeds should we place on Tony's Ark?

Would could simply use the same ancient archaeobacteria that are still here on earth.

Methanogens could combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane.

Nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., could scavenge for oxidants in the few places where they are available.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis among the archaeobacteria, using hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, elemental sulfur, reduced iron, arsenite, nitrite, etc., as reductants could certainly find a home.

What if we want to jump start the process.

Cyanobacteria are a lot more complex, and they generate oxygen during photosynthesis.

Among the cyanobacteria are some that can turn off the oxygenic photosystem and engage in anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen as reductant. They grow much more productivity using hydrogen.

They could live anywhere, since all they really need for their photosynthesis is water, tearing it apart to make oxygen.

They could thrive best where the hydrogen is present all the time, or following geologic events that release large amounts of hydrogen into the atmosphere.

But compared to archaeobacteria, cyanobacteria are fairly complex organisms, with greater risk of failure to survive such a long journey.

We might just have to start with the most basic and simple ones, trusting that they will eventually evolve into the more complex forms we know on earth today.

We do have surviving relics of that more ancient population to work with.

Tony's Ark - Jumpstarting Photosynthesis.
RE: Happy Earth Day!23-04-2022 00:19
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Happy Earth Day!











Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.
23-04-2022 01:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11747)
squeal over wrote:One day the earth's fate will be similar to that of Venus.

... to orbit the sun?

I have some news for you.

squeal over wrote:Long before the earth becomes too hot, the human race is very likely to have gone extinct for one reason or another.

Do you believe that humanity is a race? ... or are you just dumbing down your posts for the benefit of your rapidly approaching army of geniuses?

squeal over wrote:This may be a unique opportunity in the history of the universe.

Is that because this is the first time it has happened in the universe?

squeal over wrote:The greater consciousness will grieve the loss of life on earth.

Aha! You do believe in the Noosphere? Are you Jose Arguelles?

squeal over wrote:But new life on other planets could create new symphonies of souls to play beautiful music that pleases the greater consciousness so much.

You just reminded me of something I need to add to my grocery list:



Question: Do I disrupt the greater consciousness and cause it to grieve by asking you to define your terms?

squeal over wrote:We could even redeem our selves for the sins against our own planet.

The others on this site mistakenly presume that I am joking/exaggerating when I refer to humanity's "carbon sins." Thankfully you have come along and let everyone know just how gravely serious this issue of humanity's sins against the earth truly is.

Thank you.

squeal over wrote:This new mass extinction in progress is totally uncool.

You're not going to define this one either, are you? You know that if you were to try, it would immediately be shown to be FALSE.

I'll just presume that by "mass extinction" you are referring to the goldfish in your fish tank.

squeal over wrote:But what would it take to plant seeds of life on a distant planet?

It would take technology that we do not have, seeds that we do not have, and people willing to dedicate their descendants several generations removed to doing the work as the entire family line lives their entire lives in space travel to the final work destination.

squeal over wrote:But life on earth began with only the simplest organisms.

It's what we know.

squeal over wrote:4000 million years ago, some intelligent species far from here might have been thinking the same thing.

Who knows, it might have even been four billion years ago!

By the way, for anyone else reading this, in proper Spanish, the number "four billion" is correctly expressed as "four thousand million."

In English, however, "four billion" works better.

squeal over wrote:They knew they could never send one of their own complex intelligent bodies.

Let me get this straight ... you are pretending to speak for all possible past life forms, no matter where they might have been in the universe, and to what they were thinking, what they knew and what technology they did and didn't have?

squeal over wrote:Perhaps they planted seeds on Venus and Earth at the same time.

... because they were genius enough to be able to send seeds through space and to plant them on alien planets, but were simultaneously too brain-dead to realize that it wouldn't work on Venus.

I totally see that.

squeal over wrote:They would have done much better on Venus in those days.

... because they were as genius as you are, apparently.

squeal over wrote:We might eventually discover that there was never life of any kind of Venus.

How would we "discover" that particular speculation about the past on Venus? You don't understand what "discovery" is, do you? You understand tenses as poorly as Pete Rogers.

squeal over wrote:Our mythology is filled with Venus related themes,

Nope. We have no Venus (the planet)-related mythology.

squeal over wrote:In any case, understanding the natural history of life on earth could help us know what kind of seeds to send to younger lifeless planet.

Nope. Instead, we should strive to understand science better and make sure that we avoid the lifeless planets.

There's a reason they are lifeless.

squeal over wrote:Earth was very cold, had no free oxygen, and was abundant with energy rich reductants such hydrogen gas and hydrogen sulfide.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this more of your delusion?

squeal over wrote:This thread will be a good place for discussing how life ever could survive here,

Let me get this straight ... you want to discuss how life could possibly survive on earth? Do you imagine this as a topic your army of followers would discuss? I can see how genius they must be.

squeal over wrote:and what it would take to facilitate enabling new life to survive elsewhere.

It would take technology that we do not have, seeds that we do not have, and people willing to dedicate their descendants several generations removed to doing the work as the entire family line lives their entire lives in space travel to the final work destination.

Didn't I already say this?

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Terraforming: Is it possible?:

Remember me

▲ 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