55 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I notice and understand your sarcasm. I just believe this topic is very important, and I want to steer the conversation back to the real problems.

Co2 is not a problem, it's fertiliser for plants.

Co2 is not even a good greenhouse gas, 100% extra Co2 only gets 1% temperature increase.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

The way I understand it, "arithmetic" is an approach to technology, not a technology by itself.

I think your understanding is incorrect.

WDSmart - This is the definion of technology from the online dictionary, and the one I mean when I use the word "technology":

"machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge:" This would not include what I believe is referred to by the word "arithmetic." I believe "arithmetic" is an approach to creating technology, among other things, but not thetechnology itself.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

And, yes, I say again, "All technologies pollute," I mean that, but am talking specifically about "energy technologies,” such as nuclear reactors, solar panels, windmills, tidal turbines, etc.

If you meant all energy technologies pollute, you should have said that.

WDSmart - I said "all technologies pollute," and that would include energy technologies. I said this because my book focuses on energy technlogies.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

They all cost more energy to create, operate, and dispose of than they ever produce.

You may believe this, but everything in your statement above is false.

WDSmart - My reasoning and details behind this statement are a large part of my book. There, I specifically focus on solar panels, because mot people believe they are "clean (green) and renewable" technologies. They are neither, nor is any other technology.

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think your understanding is incorrect.

If you meant all energy technologies pollute, you should have said that.

You may believe this, but everything in your statement above is false.

My understanding is that "arithmetic" refers to an approach or a process, not a technology. "Technology" is defined in my online dictionary as "machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge." (The underlining is of my doing.)

I did mean all technologies pollute. Energy technologies are included in that. I emphasize them because those technologies are the focus of my book.

I do believe this, and I gave many reasons and details in my book. I don’t believe anyone could prove"any of my statements in the book are false,

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Co2 is not a problem, it's fertiliser for plants.

Co2 is not even a good greenhouse gas, 100% extra Co2 only gets 1% temperature increase.

I do not emphasize CO2. My emphasis is on energy (energy unusable by humans), which usually takes the form of heat.

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

That's because they're worthless!

At least they are supported by fact, which your opinions are remarkably short on.

If the best you can do is attack me and not my arguments, I can only conclude it's a waste of my time responding to your posts.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

In my most recent book, I say as far as our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere, we're already "over the cliff." We can only slow it down, but cannot stop or reverse it. 😢

9 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I do not emphasize CO2. My emphasis is on energy (energy unusable by humans), which usually takes the form of heat.

Earth's oceans have warmed by about 0.9 C since the Industrial Revolution. About two-thirds of the increase has occurred in the last 40 years.

That might sound infinitesimal. In fact, it represents a staggering amount of heat energy.

The Tsar Bomba was the most powerful nuclear device detonated by the Soviets. Its energy output, measured in joules, was estimated to be 3300 times that of the bomb which laid waste to Hiroshima.

To raise the temperature of the oceans by another 1 degree C, estimates vary between 30,000 and 50,000 Tsar Bombas.

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

WDSmart - My reasoning and details behind this statement are a large part of my book. There, I specifically focus on solar panels, because mot people believe they are "clean (green) and renewable" technologies. They are neither, nor is any other technology.

My understanding is that "arithmetic" refers to an approach or a process, not a technology. "Technology" is defined in my online dictionary as "machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge." (The underlining is of my doing.)

I did mean all technologies pollute. Energy technologies are included in that. I emphasize them because those technologies are the focus of my book.

I do believe this, and I gave many reasons and details in my book. I don’t believe anyone could prove"any of my statements in the book are false,

You take the first line from an "online dictionary" and ignore the rest. Pathetic.

You clearly know less about energy than a first-year engineering student, yet you pretend to be an expert.

Your claim that: "They all [energy technologies] cost more energy to create, operate, and dispose of than they ever produce." is clearly untrue, and exposes you as the fraud you are.

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

To raise the temperature of the oceans by another 1 degree C, estimates vary between 30,000 and 50,000 Tsar Bombas.

And our (human) activities, mainly those employing technologies, will probably achieve that in the next 10 years or so. Maybe sooner.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You take the first line from an "online dictionary" and ignore the rest. Pathetic.

You clearly know less about energy than a first-year engineering student, yet you pretend to be an expert.

Your claim that: "They all [energy technologies] cost more energy to create, operate, and dispose of than they ever produce." is clearly untrue, and exposes you as the fraud you are.

I clearly stated that that part of the online definition is the one I accept.

I am not an expert in energy, but I wrote a book on energy technologies in which I emphasize that they do not "create” energy; they "harvest” it from one source, transform it (usually into electricity), and then distribute it for human use. All the steps involved in the creation, distribution, use, maintenance, and, finally, retirement of energy technologies cost more energy than they ever produce. The energy technology section of my book goes into detail about this: solar panels, which most people believe is a "green" and renewable technology. They, and no other technology, are that.

12 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I clearly stated that that part of the online definition is the one I accept.

Okay, per your definition, you are right.

12 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I am not an expert in energy, but I wrote a book on energy technologies in which I emphasize that they do not "create” energy; they "harvest” it from one source, transform it (usually into electricity), and then distribute it for human use. All the steps involved in the creation, distribution, use, maintenance, and, finally, retirement of energy technologies cost more energy than they ever produce. The energy technology section of my book goes into detail about this: solar panels, which most people believe is a "green" and renewable technology. They, and no other technology, are that.

This statement is also untrue, and even further exposes you as a fraud that simply regurgitates nonsense and presents it as fact.

Hey, just redefine energy like you did technology and you'll be right about this as well.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Okay, per your definition, you are right.

This statement is also untrue, and even further exposes you as a fraud that simply regurgitates nonsense and presents it as fact.

Hey, just redefine energy like you did technology and you'll be right about this as well.

I wonder how many books he has sold?

51 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I am not an expert in energy, but I wrote a book on energy technologies in which I emphasize that they do not "create” energy; they "harvest” it from one source, transform it (usually into electricity), and then distribute it for human use. All the steps involved in the creation, distribution, use, maintenance, and, finally, retirement of energy technologies cost more energy than they ever produce. The energy technology section of my book goes into detail about this: solar panels, which most people believe is a "green" and renewable technology. They, and no other technology, are that.

This statement is also untrue, and even further exposes you as a fraud that simply regurgitates nonsense and presents it as fact.

Hey, just redefine energy like you did technology and you'll be right about this as well.

Name me one technology that "creates” energy. I say there are none, and they just "harvest” energy from some source. Neither nuclear fission nor fusion “creates” energy. The energy is already there; we just "harvest" it for our own use, and in the process create a lot of pollution.

Let's go back to the title and topic of this forum, "Scientists warn earth near irreversible “hothouse” state." Although I am not a scientist, I agree with that conclusion from the scientific perspective. However, because it is a scientific statement, it addresses only the scientific aspects of this crisis. My book and I focus on the human aspect of this crisis.

One example is one of the three main causes I identify for this crisis: human overpopulation. I propose reducing our population by reducing the birth rate to one woman/one child. My projections show that if we did this, we could reduce our population by 90% in about 150 years. The two obvious problems with that are that we, as humans, would not want to announce and enforce a one-woman/one-child law, and even if we did, we, IMO, don’t have 150 years left before the Earth’s biosphere has been so destroyed that it no longer will support human life. Also, as a side issue, as our medical technology "improves," our average lifespan increases, which only adds to our overpopulation.

So, I don’t disagree that scientifically, this crisis could be solved. But I am confident that when you factor in the human perspectives, it won’t be solved.

These are topics I cover in more detail in my book.

8 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

I wonder how many books he has sold?

I have sold over 100 books, but I give them away for free on my website, and I’ve had over 500 downloaded.

12 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Name me one technology that "creates” energy. I say there are none, and they just "harvest” energy from some source. Neither nuclear fission nor fusion “creates” energy. The energy is already there; we just "harvest" it for our own use, and in the process create a lot of pollution.

Let's go back to the title and topic of this forum, "Scientists warn earth near irreversible “hothouse” state." Although I am not a scientist, I agree with that conclusion from the scientific perspective. However, because it is a scientific statement, it addresses only the scientific aspects of this crisis. My book and I focus on the human aspect of this crisis.

One example is one of the three main causes I identify for this crisis: human overpopulation. I propose reducing our population by reducing the birth rate to one woman/one child. My projections show that if we did this, we could reduce our population by 90% in about 150 years. The two obvious problems with that are that we, as humans, would not want to announce and enforce a one-woman/one-child law, and even if we did, we, IMO, don’t have 150 years left before the Earth’s biosphere has been so destroyed that it no longer will support human life. Also, as a side issue, as our medical technology "improves," our average lifespan increases, which only adds to our overpopulation.

So, I don’t disagree that scientifically, this crisis could be solved. But I am confident that when you factor in the human perspectives, it won’t be solved.

These are topics I cover in more detail in my book.

Now you've changed your tune, did you do a little reading?

You are correct, energy technologies cannot create energy, nothing can, at least nothing currently understood.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Now you've changed your tune, did you do a little reading?

You are correct, energy technologies cannot create energy, nothing can, at least nothing currently understood.

Yes, before I wrote my book, I did a lot of reading - and still do. Oh, and I don’t think I’ve ever "changed my tune" in this forum topic.

I have, however, "changed my tune" since I wrote the book. In it, I proposed that there were only three sources of energy: nuclear, solar, and gravity (the Moon’s effect on the Earth). Since then, I’ve "changed my tune” to a single note and single source of energy: gravity. That’s the common name of the force (energy) that draws atoms together.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

And our (human) activities, mainly those employing technologies, will probably achieve that in the next 10 years or so. Maybe sooner.

And yet there are still people in denial of the fact global warming and climate change are the result of anthropomorphic emissions, beginning with the Industrial Revolution.

Economically, countries moving towards supplying their energy needs from renewable sources will fare better than those continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

Proof? Norway is close to 100% renewables. The USA is 26%.

Norway 's debt to GDP ratio is 56%. After allowing for their massive sovereign wealth fund, net debt is zero.

America has a debt to GDP ratio of 126%, backed by printing presses.

Ironically, Norway's current strong financial position came about by husbanding the wealth created from its North Sea oil assets.

In America, the wealth generated by the shale oil revolution has been p!ssed away.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

And yet there are still people in denial of the fact global warming and climate change are the result of anthropomorphic emissions, beginning with the Industrial Revolution.

Economically, countries moving towards supplying their energy needs from renewable sources will fare better than those continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

Proof? Norway is close to 100% renewables. The USA is 26%.

Norway 's debt to GDP ratio is 56%. After allowing for their massive sovereign wealth fund, net debt is zero.

America has a debt to GDP ratio of 126%, backed by printing presses.

Ironically, Norway's current strong financial position came about by husbanding the wealth created from its North Sea oil assets.

In America, the wealth generated by the shale oil revolution has been p!ssed away.

Norway gets most of its power from hydro

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Norway gets most of its power from hydro

True. Hydro power is classed as renewable energy. What's your point?

30 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, before I wrote my book, I did a lot of reading - and still do. Oh, and I don’t think I’ve ever "changed my tune" in this forum topic.

I have, however, "changed my tune" since I wrote the book. In it, I proposed that there were only three sources of energy: nuclear, solar, and gravity (the Moon’s effect on the Earth). Since then, I’ve "changed my tune” to a single note and single source of energy: gravity. That’s the common name of the force (energy) that draws atoms together.

OMG. Stop spouting nonsense. Gravity my aunt.

Try an online science course - there are some good ones now.

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

And yet there are still people in denial of the fact global warming and climate change are the result of anthropomorphic emissions, beginning with the Industrial Revolution.

Economically, countries moving towards supplying their energy needs from renewable sources will fare better than those continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

Proof? Norway is close to 100% renewables. The USA is 26%.

Norway 's debt to GDP ratio is 56%. After allowing for their massive sovereign wealth fund, net debt is zero.

America has a debt to GDP ratio of 126%, backed by printing presses.

Ironically, Norway's current strong financial position came about by husbanding the wealth created from its North Sea oil assets.

In America, the wealth generated by the shale oil revolution has been p!ssed away.

I agree with everything you say.

I was sorry to hear that Norway’s current fiscal strength was the result of exploiting its North Sea oil assets. Those, as you know, are not being locally renewed at a pace that would allow the energy they have stored to be harvested by humans forever. (Also, I say that there is no such thing as “renewable” or “green” energy.)

(Sometimes I like to suggest to people that fossil fuels are just another form of solar power, but few understand that.)

https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html

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

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

we are still stuck in the deepest ice age since before complex life evolved, (Quaternary ice age) and almost all lives lost are due to cold, not warmth

https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future

Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.

The Myth is that climate was lovely during little ice age 1300-1850

Reality is that crops would routinely freeze over before they had time to ripen, and famine was the norm, and europeans migrated to americas in a last attempt to stave off starvation

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

OMG. Stop spouting nonsense. Gravity my aunt.

Try an online science course - there are some good ones now.

Thanks, but as I’ve said repeatedly, my book is not about science. It’s about how humans use technology to harvest energy, and how humans do so with no regard to the damage we are doing to the Earth’s environment, and will continue to do so until we destroy the biosphere we need to survive. All while expecting science and some, as yet, uninvented, brand new technology to save us from ourselves.

18 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's taken mankind about 300 years to change the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by 53% , when it was stable for the previous 10,000 years.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension as well?

Scientific data can be or become corrupted, misinterpreted or fabricated.

Studies suggest that around 2% of scientists have admitted to falsifying or fabricating data at least once in their career, but up to 33.7% admit to other questionable research practices.

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

And yet there are still people in denial of the fact global warming and climate change are the result of anthropomorphic emissions, beginning with the Industrial Revolution.

Economically, countries moving towards supplying their energy needs from renewable sources will fare better than those continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

Proof? Norway is close to 100% renewables. The USA is 26%.

Norway 's debt to GDP ratio is 56%. After allowing for their massive sovereign wealth fund, net debt is zero.

America has a debt to GDP ratio of 126%, backed by printing presses.

Ironically, Norway's current strong financial position came about by husbanding the wealth created from its North Sea oil assets.

In America, the wealth generated by the shale oil revolution has been p!ssed away.

Not much of a comparison. Norway has also been blessed with enough suitable hydroelectric sites to generate 90% of national power consumption and has a population only about 1/60th of the USA.

The US shale oil boom was relatively short-lived and oil prices crashed by 2015.

The US debt was accelerating up before all that, especially after the 2008 GFC.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with everything you say.

I was sorry to hear that Norway’s current fiscal strength was the result of exploiting its North Sea oil assets. Those, as you know, are not being renewed at a pace that would allow the energy they have stored to be harvested by humans forever.

(Sometimes I like to suggest to people that fossil fuels are just another form of solar power, but few understand that.)

To be realistic, oil is not going away. It is essential for fertilizers, plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants etc.

ICE engines in vehicles are going to be around for another 50 years, even assuming there is enough raw materials available to replace them with EV's.

Battery mass is a problem for ships and aircraft. The energy density of a battery, to enable passenger aircraft to rival jets for carrying capacity and range, would have to be 8 times what is available with cutting edge battery technology now.

12 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Thanks, but as I’ve said repeatedly, my book is not about science. It’s about how humans use technology to harvest energy, and how humans do so with no regard to the damage we are doing to the Earth’s environment, and will continue to do so until we destroy the biosphere we need to survive. All while expecting science and some, as yet, uninvented, brand new technology to save us from ourselves.

If you really think that gravity draws atoms together, then you really need to stop writing...and start reading.

So if humans are the root cause the only solution is to remove them, sounds a little dramatic , but its actually inevitable, it won't happen overnight , but ultimately it will happen , its just a matter of time, so as our days our numbered anyway let's just carry on and get it over with No point in spending our last days living in a self made stone age

we won't destroy the planet, the planet will destroy us , better get used to it

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

I have sold over 100 books, but I give them away for free on my website, and I’ve had over 500 downloaded.

giving stuff away for free is not selling, its just a form of disposal

12 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Scientific data can be or become corrupted, misinterpreted or fabricated.

Studies suggest that around 2% of scientists have admitted to falsifying or fabricating data at least once in their career, but up to 33.7% admit to other questionable research practices.

The same studies suggest 98% of scientists are honest, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say about politicians.

So on the basis of that 2%, you feel you are justified in discarding ALL data relating to climate science?

Most of the disputes over data in that field are not related to fabrication or falsification of data, more how it is adjusted or corrected for local conditions.

If you want to see real falsification and fabrication, visit the pharmaceutical industry. There are some doozies.

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you really think that gravity draws atoms together, then you really need to stop writing...and start reading.

i agree with the first bit , but as far as the second part goes, i'm ambivalent as to whether he starts reading or not

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

True. Hydro power is classed as renewable energy. What's your point?

Hydro power is not a renewable energy source. None of the energy-harvesting sources is renewable.

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

To be realistic, oil is not going away. It is essential for fertilizers, plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants etc.

ICE engines in vehicles are going to be around for another 50 years, even assuming there is enough raw materials available to replace them with EV's.

Battery mass is a problem for ships and aircraft. The energy density of a battery, to enable passenger aircraft to rival jets for carrying capacity and range, would have to be 8 times what is available with cutting edge battery technology now.

I didn't mean the need for oil is not going away. I’m saying that the quantity of oil in the Earth is being reduced much faster than it's being created (by the Sun).

I agree with all the rest of your post above.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

The same studies suggest 98% of scientists are honest, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say about politicians.

So on the basis of that 2%, you feel you are justified in discarding ALL data relating to climate science?

Most of the disputes over data in that field are not related to fabrication or falsification of data, more how it is adjusted or corrected for local conditions.

If you want to see real falsification and fabrication, visit the pharmaceutical industry. There are some doozies.

He he ,your fudging the numbers to make yourself look/feel good.

You forgetting the 33.7% that have admitted to other questionable research practices..

For me ,End of comments.