Remember me
▼ Content

The Daily Sermon



Page 1 of 3123>
The Daily Sermon04-06-2022 05:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
If you didn't catch today's sermon, it covered all the bases. NOAA delivered an ominous message to the congregation on behalf of the Department of Commerce because it's ultimately the Commerce Secretary's job to help us all realize that Climate Change is real and is what we know.

All debate over Climate Change ended decades ago and the settled science has shown light on the growing threat. If you only take one thing away from this sermon, make it the following quote that sums up the problem we all face:

"It's depressing that we've lacked the collective will power to slow the relentless rise in CO2," said Keeling. "Fossil-fuel use may no longer be accelerating, but we are still racing at top speed towards a global catastrophe."

The transcript is being made available for those who were unable to participate in today's service.

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels




Carbon dioxide now more than 50% higher than pre-industrial levels


June 3, 2022

Air samples from NOAA's Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii provide important data for climate scientists around the world. On Thursday, NOAA announced that analysis of data from their global sampling network showed that levels of the potent greenhouse gas methane recorded the largest annual increase ever observed in 2021, while carbon dioxide continued to increase at historically high rates.
The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii is a benchmark site for measuring carbon dioxide, or CO2. NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography make independent measurements from this station on the slopes of Mauna Loa volcano. (NOAA)

Help yourself better understand the impending doom with the
Fear-Mongering Visualization Assistant.


Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA's Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanographyoffsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today.

NOAA's measurements of carbon dioxide at the mountaintop observatory on Hawaii's Big Island averaged 420.99 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 1.8 ppm over 2021. Scientists at Scripps, which maintains an independent record, calculated a monthly average of 420.78 ppm.

"The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to," said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. "We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day. The relentless increase of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa is a stark reminder that we need to take urgent, serious steps to become a more Climate Ready Nation."

CO2 pollution is generated by burning fossil fuels for transportation and electrical generation, by cement manufacturing, deforestation, agriculture and many other practices. Along with other greenhouse gases, CO2 traps heat radiating from the planet's surface that would otherwise escape into space, causing the planet's atmosphere to warm steadily, which unleashes a cascade of weather impacts, including episodes of extreme heat, drought and wildfire activity, as well as heavier precipitation, flooding and tropical storm activity.

Impacts to the world's oceans from greenhouse gas pollution include increasing sea surface temperatures, rising sea levels, and an increased absorption of carbon, which makes sea water more acidic, leads to ocean deoxygenation, and makes it more difficult for some marine organisms to survive.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 pollution, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years.

CO2 levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea levels were between 5 and 25 meters higher than today, high enough to drown many of the world's largest modern cities. Temperatures then averaged 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate that large forests occupied today's Arctic tundra.



This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974.
This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974. (NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. )
Download Image
Mauna Loa ideally located to monitor global pollution

NOAA's observatory, situated high on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano, is the global benchmark location for monitoring atmospheric CO2. At an elevation of 11,141 feet above sea level, the observatory samples air undisturbed by the influence of local pollution or vegetation, and produces measurements that represent the average state of the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere.

Charles David Keeling, a scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, initiated on-site measurements of CO2 at NOAA's weather station on Mauna Loa in 1958. Keeling was the first to recognize that CO2 levels in the Northern Hemisphere fell during the growing season, and rose as plants died back in the fall, and he documented these CO2 fluctuations in a record that came to be known as the Keeling Curveoffsite link. He was also the first to recognize that, despite the seasonal fluctuation, CO2 levels were rising every year.

NOAA began measurements in 1974, and the two research institutions have made complementary, independent observations ever since. Keeling's son, geochemist Ralph Keeling, runs the Scripps program at Mauna Loa.

"It's depressing that we've lacked the collective will power to slow the relentless rise in CO2," said Keeling. "Fossil-fuel use may no longer be accelerating, but we are still racing at top speed towards a global catastrophe."

The Mauna Loa data, together with measurements from sampling stations around the world, are incorporated by NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory into the Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, a foundational research dataset for international climate scientists and a benchmark for policymakers attempting to address the causes and impacts of climate change.

Despite decades of negotiation, the global community has been unable to significantly slow, let alone reverse, annual increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

"Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before — this is not new," said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory. "We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?"

Edited on 04-06-2022 05:26
04-06-2022 07:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
This is all about an attempt to collapse the entire system into the federal safety net for total control. The trick is pulling it off without a revolution.

Can you not see the horrifying effects of climate change every day?

Next step, Biden will declare a national climate emergency, which will yield him a frightening amount of power. Buckle up boys and girls. Things could get bumpy.
08-06-2022 02:12
James_
★★★★☆
(1093)
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is all about an attempt to collapse the entire system into the federal safety net for total control. The trick is pulling it off without a revolution.

Can you not see the horrifying effects of climate change every day?

Next step, Biden will declare a national climate emergency, which will yield him a frightening amount of power. Buckle up boys and girls. Things could get bumpy.


This is why our Putin, our glorious leader invaded Ukraine. Am glad you got it right comrade tovarisch. These Amerikanners are merely our cannon fodder. Let them come after us. After Ukraine, we will take Europe and then the U.S.
08-06-2022 03:41
James_
★★★★☆
(1093)
You should not have challenged our glorious way of life under Putin. He is both the right and the strong leader. Those who are weak shall cry "mama" like those American pigs do. We are not your "gas station". We will win because we are right.
Everyone knows you wanted us to have Киев but those bastards resisted and it is your fault. If you didn't supply arms to make you look good we would've had KieB by now. And yet you blame us Muscovbites for your problems.
Edited on 08-06-2022 03:45
08-06-2022 05:24
James_
★★★★☆
(1093)
You think your American imperialist thinking is not tiresome? How does anyone tolerate America or else!! It is all you say. We own you. And now you know you don't own us. We stand up to your imperialism.
08-06-2022 06:03
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is all about an attempt to collapse the entire system into the federal safety net for total control. The trick is pulling it off without a revolution.

Can you not see the horrifying effects of climate change every day?

Next step, Biden will declare a national climate emergency, which will yield him a frightening amount of power. Buckle up boys and girls. Things could get bumpy.


I don't normally talk to myself, but I made a prediction and got it wrong.

Instead of climate emergency, he threw me a curve ball and invoked the Defense Production Act. According to the Whitehouse, "this will allow the gov to invest in companies making solar panels".

I call bullshit. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this act gives Biden the power to order companies to produce whateverthehell he tells them to.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
08-06-2022 06:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
GasGuzzler wrote:Instead of climate emergency, he threw me a curve ball and invoked the Defense Production Act. According to the Whitehouse, "this will allow the gov to invest in companies making solar panels".

I call bullshit. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this act gives Biden the power to order companies to produce whateverthehell he tells them to.

Rather than claim that you are somehow mistaken, to the contrary, I would like to point out that this is just another facet of our Federal government's attempt to emulate NAZI Germany.

Just as the Democrat Party is emulating Joseph Goebbels (NAZI Minister of Propaganda) and his implementation of the Communist Manifesto mandate #6 "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." ... Biden is emulating Hitler's handover of all private industry to Hermann Göring (look up "Four Year Plan") by handing over private industry to the Secretary of Defense to literally force them to do his will.

Just as Hitler and the NAZIs utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of the brownshirts to rise to power, Biden and the Democrats utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of BLM and ANTIFA to rise to power. The NAZIs instilled fear and panic over the invented and unexplained "threat" of "Jews" and "gypsies" ... just as Biden/Democrats generated fear and panic over COVID and Global Warming. Both NAZIs and Democrats are forever supportive of tyrannical measures eliminating individual liberties and personal wealth for purposes of ceding more power and wealth to the government, not to mention constantly eroding away the 2nd Amendment and summarily executing citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

So yes, Biden is unveiling his own "Four Year Plan". Unlike WWII Germans who were able to flee to the US to escape NAZI Germany, there is no other US to which We the People can escape our own tyranny.

Very astute observation.

.
08-06-2022 06:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Instead of climate emergency, he threw me a curve ball and invoked the Defense Production Act. According to the Whitehouse, "this will allow the gov to invest in companies making solar panels".

I call bullshit. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this act gives Biden the power to order companies to produce whateverthehell he tells them to.

Rather than claim that you are somehow mistaken, to the contrary, I would like to point out that this is just another facet of our Federal government's attempt to emulate NAZI Germany.

Just as the Democrat Party is emulating Joseph Goebbels (NAZI Minister of Propaganda) and his implementation of the Communist Manifesto mandate #6 "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." ... Biden is emulating Hitler's handover of all private industry to Hermann Göring (look up "Four Year Plan") by handing over private industry to the Secretary of Defense to literally force them to do his will.

Just as Hitler and the NAZIs utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of the brownshirts to rise to power, Biden and the Democrats utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of BLM and ANTIFA to rise to power. The NAZIs instilled fear and panic over the invented and unexplained "threat" of "Jews" and "gypsies" ... just as Biden/Democrats generated fear and panic over COVID and Global Warming. Both NAZIs and Democrats are forever supportive of tyrannical measures eliminating individual liberties and personal wealth for purposes of ceding more power and wealth to the government, not to mention constantly eroding away the 2nd Amendment and summarily executing citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

So yes, Biden is unveiling his own "Four Year Plan". Unlike WWII Germans who were able to flee to the US to escape NAZI Germany, there is no other US to which We the People can escape our own tyranny.

Very astute observation.

.


Very astute analysis. Scary shit.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
08-06-2022 08:05
James_
★★★★☆
(1093)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Instead of climate emergency, he threw me a curve ball and invoked the Defense Production Act. According to the Whitehouse, "this will allow the gov to invest in companies making solar panels".

I call bullshit. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this act gives Biden the power to order companies to produce whateverthehell he tells them to.

Rather than claim that you are somehow mistaken, to the contrary, I would like to point out that this is just another facet of our Federal government's attempt to emulate NAZI Germany.

Just as the Democrat Party is emulating Joseph Goebbels (NAZI Minister of Propaganda) and his implementation of the Communist Manifesto mandate #6 "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." ... Biden is emulating Hitler's handover of all private industry to Hermann Göring (look up "Four Year Plan") by handing over private industry to the Secretary of Defense to literally force them to do his will.

Just as Hitler and the NAZIs utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of the brownshirts to rise to power, Biden and the Democrats utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of BLM and ANTIFA to rise to power. The NAZIs instilled fear and panic over the invented and unexplained "threat" of "Jews" and "gypsies" ... just as Biden/Democrats generated fear and panic over COVID and Global Warming. Both NAZIs and Democrats are forever supportive of tyrannical measures eliminating individual liberties and personal wealth for purposes of ceding more power and wealth to the government, not to mention constantly eroding away the 2nd Amendment and summarily executing citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

So yes, Biden is unveiling his own "Four Year Plan". Unlike WWII Germans who were able to flee to the US to escape NAZI Germany, there is no other US to which We the People can escape our own tyranny.

Very astute observation.

.


Very astute analysis. Scary shit.


And that coincides with our beloved Putin rising to power. Isn't it a great time to be alive? The true heirs to the throne are rising.
09-06-2022 01:29
platoonseaflyclimate
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy. However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.
09-06-2022 02:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy. However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.


Why would you combat the rise of plant food? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
09-06-2022 05:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.

All three sources are pretty cheap energy too.

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees

We already do. See the works of Weyerhauser, for example. They are tree farmers.
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.


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
09-06-2022 07:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy.

How will that reduce atmospheric CO2 levels? Have plants somehow stopped eating up CO2 from the atmosphere?

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.

Is that because my trash elevates atmospheric CO2 levels?
12-08-2022 11:57
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.


This is on the basis that:

a) Newly planted vegetation survives 12 months/ takes a 'hold'.
b) There is infrastructure and it is acceptable to maintain them, especially water if households are under direction to limit water use.
c) There isn't a reduction in vegetation whether locally or globally.

Additional plant food is good but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it.

On the assumption CO2 is increasing/ set to increase... Why is that the case?
12-08-2022 12:08
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?


If life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere.... Why is CO2 rising?

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.


I don;t believe the burning of fossils was said.

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.


There was no reference to saying oil etc... wasn't renewable... The words 'switch' and 'more' are key to the position.

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.[/quote]

It is great to hear that you are fully into recycling and being efficient... Good on you. I'm proud.
12-08-2022 20:35
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?


If life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere.... Why is CO2 rising?

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.


I don;t believe the burning of fossils was said.

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.


There was no reference to saying oil etc... wasn't renewable... The words 'switch' and 'more' are key to the position.

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.


It is great to hear that you are fully into recycling and being efficient... Good on you. I'm proud.[/quote]

Could the rise in CO2 be more directly related to defoliation? We clear many thousands of acres, to make solar and wind farms, access roads. Not to mention the highways, parking lots, homes, shopping centers. Of course, we clear a lot of land, for farming. Sure, plants, are just stupid plants. Wild growth, or neat rows, harvested twice a year... Of course, we all must maintain a neatly manicured lawn. Can't have a jungle in the neighborhood. Overgrown yards harbor vermin and pests. Of course, more CO2, encourages faster growth, stronger, healthier plants. The science has been settled a long time. Most commercial greenhouses augment CO2, to get a better product, quicker to market. It's not just a slight improvement either.
13-08-2022 01:27
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2097)
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 13-08-2022 01:54
13-08-2022 02:47
James_
★★★★☆
(1093)
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy. However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.




No one talks about sustainability. Idiots will say the planet has been around for millions of years. They won't consider what allows for the modern way of life. Putin doesn't like the U.S. and the GOP doesn't like the DNC.
3 greenhouse gasses are helping the ozone layer to recover. Myself, I think those gasses occur closer to the tropopause than the lower part of the atmosphere. This means that those 3 gasses could also influence the troposphere, that's the greenhouse we live.
With sustainability, if you have kids or grandkids, they'll probably live in an overpopulated and extremely polluted planet. A lot of people don't care.
13-08-2022 02:51
James_
★★★★☆
(1093)
IBdaMann wrote:
If you didn't catch today's sermon, it covered all the bases.



Are you saying that hydrocarbons have kinetic energy? And that SOx and NOx which are results of using ancient tar pits rife with fossils while also having kinetic energy allow more kinetic energy into our atmosphere in the form of UV radiation?
That is one hell of a run on sentence and extremely poor grammar. But I did get the punctuation right!


NOx includes N2O, NO, N2O3, NO2 and NO3.
Edited on 13-08-2022 02:55
15-08-2022 09:56
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.


I do love the Americans... It was a real eye opener travelling through Texas on a storm chase ... The locals were so unhappy that I was bringing the storms...
How do you argue with that? In their world I arrive and then the tornado comes so therefore, I am the issue.

I hope the greening comes to the Southern parts of your country as you claim...
15-08-2022 10:02
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.


Apparently that is not true ... IntoTheNight says.

Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The next one is a pretty graph.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.


Which one of you is correct?

CO2 is rising... or we can;t establish CO2 is rising?
15-08-2022 14:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
Roj475 wrote: Apparently that is not true ... IntoTheNight says.

Their discussions are documented. Read their posts. Otherwise, you are wasting bandwidth.
15-08-2022 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.


This is on the basis that:

a) Newly planted vegetation survives 12 months/ takes a 'hold'.

Apparently you've never been on a farm...not even a sod farm.
Roj475 wrote:
b) There is infrastructure and it is acceptable to maintain them, especially water if households are under direction to limit water use.

You must live in the SDTC. Ask me how I know.
Roj475 wrote:
c) There isn't a reduction in vegetation whether locally or globally.

Who said there was?
Roj475 wrote:
Additional plant food is good but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it.

There are.
Roj475 wrote:
On the assumption CO2 is increasing/ set to increase... Why is that the case?

Why are you so worried about CO2?


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
15-08-2022 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?


If life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere.... Why is CO2 rising?

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.


I don;t believe the burning of fossils was said.

Then you don't understand English.
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.


There was no reference to saying oil etc... wasn't renewable... The words 'switch' and 'more' are key to the position.

There was. Again, you don't understand English.
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.


It is great to hear that you are fully into recycling and being efficient... Good on you. I'm proud.
[/quote]
Void argument fallacy. Define 'efficient'. Define 'pollution'.


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
15-08-2022 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
James_ wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy. However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.




3 greenhouse gasses are helping the ozone layer to recover.

Recover from what?


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
15-08-2022 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
Roj475 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.


Apparently that is not true ... IntoTheNight says.

Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The next one is a pretty graph.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.


Which one of you is correct?

CO2 is rising... or we can;t establish CO2 is rising?

Swan likes to say all kinds of things that are 'True' that can't be measured.


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
15-08-2022 22:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.


Apparently that is not true ... IntoTheNight says.

Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The next one is a pretty graph.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.


Which one of you is correct?

CO2 is rising... or we can;t establish CO2 is rising?

Swan likes to say all kinds of things that are 'True' that can't be measured.

...or observed...or verified in any way. He's our resident Google Verification Speculation Specialist.

Hey, this seems like the perfect time to ask...

@ Into the Night,
I cannot recall the thread, but you responded to a Swan post a while back and said "a measurement is not a proof". (I think I have that word for word, correct me if I'm wrong)

If I say block A is taller than block B, then I measure Block A four inches taller than block B, I would say my measurement is proof.

Can you explain this a little? Thanks in advance.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 15-08-2022 22:12
15-08-2022 23:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
GasGuzzler wrote:Hey, this seems like the perfect time to ask...

@ Into the Night,
I cannot recall the thread, but you responded to a Swan post a while back and said "a measurement is not a proof". (I think I have that word for word, correct me if I'm wrong)

If I say block A is taller than block B, then I measure Block A four inches taller than block B, I would say my measurement is proof.

Can you explain this a little? Thanks in advance.

The answer to your question is to take away the words "If I say block A is taller than block B" from your question.

With those words you are making a clear, falsifiable argument which, in conjunction the empirical observation, becomes a proof.

If, on the other hand, you present the physical characteristics, i.e. measurements, of block B, you do not have a proof. You don't even have an argument or claim.

.
16-08-2022 00:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Hey, this seems like the perfect time to ask...

@ Into the Night,
I cannot recall the thread, but you responded to a Swan post a while back and said "a measurement is not a proof". (I think I have that word for word, correct me if I'm wrong)

If I say block A is taller than block B, then I measure Block A four inches taller than block B, I would say my measurement is proof.

Can you explain this a little? Thanks in advance.

The answer to your question is to take away the words "If I say block A is taller than block B" from your question.

With those words you are making a clear, falsifiable argument which, in conjunction the empirical observation, becomes a proof.

If, on the other hand, you present the physical characteristics, i.e. measurements, of block B, you do not have a proof. You don't even have an argument or claim.

.


So I went back and found it....

Swan wrote:
CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.


It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2.
Swan wrote:
This has been ,measured and proved very easily


It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2. A measurement is not a proof.


So did I misunderstand and Into the Night meant a single measurement is not a proof for global CO2 concentration?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
16-08-2022 01:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
GasGuzzler wrote:So did I misunderstand and Into the Night meant a single measurement is not a proof for global CO2 concentration?

I presume that to be the case.

I will neither speak for what Into the Night meant nor for what you understood, however I will say that it seems clear to me that Into the Night made two separate statements, both being correct.

1. No technology yet exists to afford humanity a measure of total atmospheric CO2 to within any usable accuracy, and

2. An individual, local measurement of CO2 somewhere is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion (is thetefore not a proof).

Do you have a more specific question?
16-08-2022 02:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:So did I misunderstand and Into the Night meant a single measurement is not a proof for global CO2 concentration?

I presume that to be the case.

I will neither speak for what Into the Night meant nor for what you understood, however I will say that it seems clear to me that Into the Night made two separate statements, both being correct.

1. No technology yet exists to afford humanity a measure of total atmospheric CO2 to within any usable accuracy, and

2. An individual, local measurement of CO2 somewhere is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion (is thetefore not a proof).

Do you have a more specific question?


As long as he agrees with what you have explained, then it appears an error in my interpretation of what he meant, and I would totally agree with his statement. Thanks.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
17-08-2022 17:58
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?


If life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere.... Why is CO2 rising?

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.


Why do other posters on here say CO2 rising is good for plants?

Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.


I don;t believe the burning of fossils was said.

Then you don't understand English.


The post above says fossil fuels, fortunately I do not need to understand English and can rely on google-

"a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms."

Whereas you said fossils don;t burn... Fortunately google can rescue my English again-

"the remains or impression of a prehistoric plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form."

Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.


There was no reference to saying oil etc... wasn't renewable... The words 'switch' and 'more' are key to the position.

There was. Again, you don't understand English.


The wording was 'more renewable energy'

Using google and adverb example-

"2.
to a greater extent.
"I like chicken more than turkey""


Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.


It is great to hear that you are fully into recycling and being efficient... Good on you. I'm proud.

Void argument fallacy. Define 'efficient'. Define 'pollution'.[/quote]

That depends on how little waste is generated, I would need that clarifying first.
17-08-2022 18:11
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.


This is on the basis that:

a) Newly planted vegetation survives 12 months/ takes a 'hold'.

Apparently you've never been on a farm...not even a sod farm.


Should a new plant not be watered/ fed appropriately once placed in a different environment to where it originally was growing?

Into the Night wrote:Roj475 wrote:
b) There is infrastructure and it is acceptable to maintain them, especially water if households are under direction to limit water use.

You must live in the SDTC. Ask me how I know.



I am not too far away from there (?) but only the last 7 years (Europe trips aside).

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
c) There isn't a reduction in vegetation whether locally or globally.

Who said there was?


I did.

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
Additional plant food is good but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it.

There are.
Roj475 wrote:
On the assumption CO2 is increasing/ set to increase... Why is that the case?

Why are you so worried about CO2?


I don't understand how something can be increasing if it cannot be measured and if it indeed exists.
17-08-2022 18:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.


This is on the basis that:

a) Newly planted vegetation survives 12 months/ takes a 'hold'.

Apparently you've never been on a farm...not even a sod farm.


Should a new plant not be watered/ fed appropriately once placed in a different environment to where it originally was growing?

Into the Night wrote:Roj475 wrote:
b) There is infrastructure and it is acceptable to maintain them, especially water if households are under direction to limit water use.

You must live in the SDTC. Ask me how I know.



I am not too far away from there (?) but only the last 7 years (Europe trips aside).

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
c) There isn't a reduction in vegetation whether locally or globally.

Who said there was?


I did.

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
Additional plant food is good but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it.

There are.
Roj475 wrote:
On the assumption CO2 is increasing/ set to increase... Why is that the case?

Why are you so worried about CO2?


I don't understand how something can be increasing if it cannot be measured and if it indeed exists.

We don't know if CO2 is increasing globally. What we do know is that it appears to be increasing at an active volcano site at Mauna Loa.

In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.
17-08-2022 18:44
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.


I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

On the assumption CO2 was increasing globally, then it would be safe to assume that something was decreasing globally...

I guess it comes down to a person's own perspective... I don't see an extra 5c/ gallon for fuel an issue... Even 10c is loose change but people get overly excited about such a small amount.
17-08-2022 18:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.


I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.

Roj475 wrote:
Whereas you said fossils don;t burn... Fortunately google can rescue my English again-

"the remains or impression of a prehistoric plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form."

Edited on 17-08-2022 18:54
17-08-2022 19:08
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.


I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.

[quote]

You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel
17-08-2022 19:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.


I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.



You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel


Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 17-08-2022 19:12
17-08-2022 19:50
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2097)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.


I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.



You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel


Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?


LOL what percentage of your info did not come from the net?

Dorky


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
17-08-2022 21:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
Swan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.


I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.



You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel


Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?


LOL what percentage of your info did not come from the net?

Dorky

Says the resident Google Verification Speculation Specialist. Sorry, I totally overlooked you would be offended by my Google bashing.

Stick to pulling weeds in the garden kid. Have you hugged your eggplant today?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 17-08-2022 21:27
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate The Daily Sermon:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age4516-03-2018 23:15
Science daily.com - hydrogen sulphide1308-10-2017 20:44
▲ 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