Sigfrid Mallozzi, the chart you provided covers hundreds of thousands of years (compressed into a small amount of screen space), but the human caused industrial revolution didn't begin till about 300 years ago and most of the CO2 emitted by it was in the last 100 years. The chart provided by you doesn't really show what has happened in the past 300 years ago. Furthermore, the chart's URL says it is for the Antarctic but the changes in ice quantity and and polar warming am talking about are primarily of the Arctic (where is there no land mass at the pole). That is the opposite side the planet than the Antarctic (where there is a large land mass at the pole)! The polar melting of ice is primarily at the Arctic.
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Vidgun I trust the reliability of the AP News, but not of wild claims plastered on social media sites without adequate supporting documentation. At https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-bill-gates-foundation-name-952700093300 they say "Gates Foundation wasn’t named the Institute for Population Control".
Where is your source for the photo and the information about the electric cars? Without a source, the photo of cars parked in a lot is not any proof to me of your claim about the cars. Companies are in existence for the recycling of various kinds of electric batteries.
The sea ice in the Arctic is on a continuing melting trend (though obviously it freezes during winter).
Virtually all (if not all) of petroleum oil (and coal) extracted out of the ground was made by decay (under pressure) of vegetation (and maybe of animals) during massive extinctions many millions of years ago over millions of years and are thus fossil fuels. I learned that over 20 years ago from scientific articles/books. See https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/fossil-fuels/ for example. It says in part the following.
"Fossil fuels are made from decomposing plants and animals. These fuels are found in the Earth’s crust and contain carbon and hydrogen, which can be burned for energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas are examples of fossil fuels. Coal is a material usually found in sedimentary rock deposits where rock and dead plant and animal matter are piled up in layers. More than 50 percent of a piece of coal’s weight must be from fossilized plants. Oil is originally found as a solid material between layers of sedimentary rock, like shale. This material is heated in order to produce the thick oil that can be used to make gasoline. Natural gas is usually found in pockets above oil deposits. It can also be found in sedimentary rock layers that don’t contain oil. Natural gas is primarily made up of methane."
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/why-well-never-run-out-of-oil says the following.
"The Origin of Oil
Unlike coal, which is widely distributed throughout the world, petroleum is more difficult to find and extract. Coal forms wherever plants were buried in sediments in ancient swamps, but several conditions must exist for petroleum — which includes oil and natural gas — to form.
The first is an accumulation of algae and other microorganisms in shallow seas, like those that periodically formed as the continents drifted apart and moved together again over hundreds of millions of years. Second, these microorganisms must get trapped in silt, which can happen wherever giant rivers emptied into shallow seas. “There wouldn’t be much oxygen, so they were preserved instead of rotting away,” says Roger Anderson, a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Finally, these pools of dead microorganisms must be subjected to the right conditions — say, a temperature of about 150 degrees, under pressure for a few million years. That prolonged pressure-cooking causes chemical reactions that convert proteins, carbohydrates, and other compounds in the material into crude oil. If the temperature rises to about 200 degrees, the result will be natural gas.
No matter where oil is found, it is always a sign that the area once lay at the bottom of a stagnant sea. And in places like the Salt Lake in Utah and the Black Sea, oil continues to be formed today. In the Gulf of California, near the Colorado River delta, researchers pulled up a mud sample and found it laced with petroleum — a sure indication that, somewhere down below, oil is now being formed. That may prove to be an oil-rich province someday, but don’t rush just yet to bid for exploration rights, says Anderson. “It’ll take about 10 million years before its ready.”Even the most inhospitable locations are being made drill-friendly. A decade ago, oil was discovered in just over 200 feet of water off the coast of Newfoundland. Because icebergs flow through the area, no ordinary oil platform would work. Then engineers hired by a group of oil companies designed an iceberg-proof goliath. Its base is a huge 16-pointed star made of 650,000 tons of concrete and steel. (The points, which are supposed to deflect and break up icebergs, have not yet actually collided with one.) The price: $4 billion. The platform, called the Hibernia, is expected to recover 615 million barrels of oil over 15 to 20 years. That’s not much compared with, say, the 200 billion barrels that Saudi Arabia holds in its oil fields. But it’s a good example of how oil companies are branching out and squeezing oil from improbable places.
Know Your HydrocarbonsFossil fuels — the hydrocarbons known as peat, coal, oil, and natural gas — are formed from the constituents of deeply buried and preserved organic matter. They make good fuels because the energy stored in the bonds between carbon and hydrogen is abundant and easy to release in combustion with oxygen. Some hydrocarbons are simpler than others. Coal, for example, is mostly carbon, while petroleum — which includes oil and natural gas — is mostly carbon and hydrogen. Still, crude oil is anything but simple. It’s made up of carbon molecules of many different sizes. The lightest— — with the shortest carbon chains — make good motor fuels because they are easily vaporized in engines. The heaviest hydrocarbons form viscous oil, paraffin, and asphalt. But even the longer carbon chains can be broken up chemically — in a process called cracking — to create fuels made of lighter molecules."
Are you a young earth creationist? I am convinced of evolution. Non-evolutionary Creationism is at odds with the scientific evidence, but evolution is supported by science.
The book called "Daniel" was not written when it claims to have been written and it is not inspired by God, any god.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
People, please note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline says the following. "Arctic sea ice decline has occurred in recent decades due to the effects of climate change on oceans, with declines in sea ice area, extent, and volume. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been melting more in summer than it refreezes in the winter. Global warming, caused by greenhouse gas forcing is responsible for the decline in Arctic sea ice. The decline of sea ice in the Arctic has been accelerating during the early twenty‐first century, with a decline rate of minus 4.7% per decade (it has declined over 50% since the first satellite records).[1][2][3] It is also thought that summertime sea ice will cease to exist sometime during the 21st century.[4] ... Sea ice area means the total area covered by ice, whereas sea ice extent is the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice, while the volume is the total amount of ice in the Arctic.[5] "
-
7
It appears Paul utilized Wisdom of Solomon
by peacefulpete inromans 1:18-31.
18 the wrath of god is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about god is plain to them, because god has made it plain to them.
20 for since the creation of the world god’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.. 21 for although they knew god, they neither glorified him as god nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
When studying the New Testament Bible and when trying to discern the factors which influenced the origination and development of Christianity up to 100 CE, is very helpful to study the books of the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles which Protestants label as Apocryphal.
-
7
It appears Paul utilized Wisdom of Solomon
by peacefulpete inromans 1:18-31.
18 the wrath of god is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about god is plain to them, because god has made it plain to them.
20 for since the creation of the world god’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.. 21 for although they knew god, they neither glorified him as god nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Should it really be said that Paul plagiarized the words of the writer of the book called "Wisdom of Solomon" if what was done was not illegal back then? Even now it not illegal to include without permission massive content (even verbatim) from books which are in the public domain, even when without making any attribution to those (such as without mentioning those books in any credits or footnotes).
-
68
1975 selling of houses
by Paul Bonanno inas 1975 was approaching, many witnesses sold their property.
do you know about specific cases that are willing to share their experience of doing so?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Fortunately my JW mom and her JW parents did not sell their houses back in 1975. My mom didn't sell her house (which I grew up in) till very recently. She inherited and is keeping the house her JW parents had till their death.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Vidqquin, do you really think the vast majority of climate scientists will make huge financial profits by humankind switching to Net Zero emissions? I strongly doubt that the vast majority of climate scientists will. I strongly doubt that the vast majority of climate scientists are heavily financially invested in green energy technology, despite me believing that they likely think such technology is vital to solving the climate change global warming problem (by global warming I mean a trend in the warming of the average global temperature). Like most working people they likely have the bulk of their investments in multiple topics of stocks and likely with the bulk of it in diversified index mutual funds (such as in 401K accounts) and/or diversified index ETFs. Furthermore, they are probably too busy doing their scientific work to be financial tycoons.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Vidqun I notice you said that "The other group will be interested in $$$, control and depopulation with their Net Zero targets." But what about you? Do you have a vested financial interest in the fossil fuel industry? I don't know if that is case, but I ask the question since you say people should follow the money and that people should look to see if there are vested interests. Maybe you own a great many shares of stock of oil companies and coal mining companies and/or other fossil fuel companies. Maybe you are a coal miner. I don't know.
Regarding idea of a goal of "depopulation with their Net Zero targets" I think the following. I think the idea that there are people [including Bill Gates] who aim to depopulate (or drastically reduce the population) in order to achieve their Net Zero targets is a totally bogus idea. I see no evidence in support of that idea at all. But why are some people promoting the idea? Are they entirely doing so in order make money from it (or to prevent loosing money in investments in fossil fuel companies)? Are they doing so to make money from in YouTube videos or on various websites (such as from advertising) by increasing the number of visits to their web pages (or by increasing click views). Or, do they perhaps get a thrill from scaring people and are doing just for fun, without believing in it themselves?
--------
Here is a further thought, though a minor one.
Vidqun, in your post I notice that right after your words of "There are plenty more such forecasts:" you repeat precisely an example you mentioned earlier in your post. As a result you only provided one additional example of such forecasts instead of two more examples of such.
Here is another thought:
Regarding the example (of the forecast of Professor Wieslaw Maslowski) reported by the BBC back in 2007 (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm ), so what that the extreme forecast by one scientist of "northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years" following the year 2007 didn't become fulfilled? That was just an idea of only one climate scientist, not the consensus idea of numerous climate scientists, nor is it the average of the various forecasts of climate scientists. Within each scientific field there are a range of ideas. I weigh the various ideas which I come across rather than jump to concluding that one particular idea of one scientist is correct. The same BBC article mentions a less extreme forecast (though still one which says there is a problem). It says that Professor Peter Wadham, who despite thinking that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski is "is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice", nonetheless says "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040. ... My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."
The article then presents the view of another climate scientist, when the article says the following. 'And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."
----------
Vidqun, in one your posts you said the following. "Well, we have two narratives here. Somebody's lying. Ask yourself, what would be the motives? Honest scientists are interested in the truth." There is another narrative besides lying and telling the truth, namely that of being sincere while making an incorrect statement/conclusion. When someone says something which is false, it is not necessarily a lie. A lie is specific kind of false statement, namely one which was intended to deceive. Every talking human alive makes mistakes and makes false statements (due to errors), even those of us who are very sincere and not liars.
Regarding the link you provided of https://electroverse.net/jan-2020s-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-on-par-with-1979-90-avg/ when I click on it on my home computer system (which I admit is very old) the web page which loads up says only "Invalid Request". The same notice appears even when I go to " https://electroverse.net/ " itself. Maybe the problem is with my home computer system; I don't know.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Thanks joey jojo for your post about the amount of energy used to make wind turbines verses the amount of energy the wind turbines produce. I notice that your source (at https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ ) also says the following.
'A 2014 study which looked at the same issue found that 2-megawatt wind turbines installed in Northwest USA paid for themselves in 5-6 months.
A 2010 analysis of fifty separate studies found that the average wind turbine, over the course of its operational life, generated 20 times more energy than it took to produce. This level was “favourable” in comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear and solar power.'
joey jojo, I am puzzled by something you said about melting ice. I agree that melting ice (such as in a glass) doesn't increase increase the total amount of water, but it does increase the amount of liquid water (such as in a glass). It seems to me that if the amount of liquid water in the oceans increased (due to melting of Arctic ice, the liquid water in oceans would rise and sea levels would rise and thus some land areas (including islands) would become covered with water. Why do you think they wouldn't become covered with water? Is it because the weight of the water ice upon the liquid ice is pushing up the liquid water, and does that mean thus if the ice becomes entirely melted the height of the liquid water will still be at the same level? Likewise it seems to me in the case of liquid water in a glass with ice cubes floating on the water, that as the ice melted the level of liquid water in the glass would rise. In your view am I wrong about that? Maybe since ice has more volume and less density than liquid water means that liquid water levels don't rise when ice melts. I searched online to find a scientific answer to the questions (I also thought of doing my own experiment).
At https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/melting-ice-rising-seas I found instructions on doing an experiment in our homes. I also found the following conclusion regarding the effects of melting ice cubes (to simulate melting sea ice). "What about the melting sea ice? Ice is less dense than water, which is why it floats. When ice melts, the resulting water is denser, so a particular mass of what had been solid ice will have a smaller volume when it becomes liquid water. This change in volume exactly offsets the small percentage of ice that is above the water's surface. Therefore, melting sea ice does not affect sea levels." [See also https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae389.cfm and https://smithplanet.com/stuff/iceandwater.htm .] This confirms what you said about melting ice in a glass of water. The same web page ( https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/melting-ice-rising-seas ) does say something else though which is very important to the topic of the effect of increases of global temperatures upon sea levels. It says the following.
"Melting ice isn’t the only culprit for sea level rise. Other factors in the environment also cause sea level rise, including the effects of heating liquid water. When liquid water is warmed up, it increases in volume (takes up more space), while the actual amount of water (number of water molecules) stays the same. This is called thermal expansion, and it’s causing sea levels to rise as sea water is warmed by higher air temperature and expands, taking up more space. Investigate the effects of thermal expansion yourself by trying the Swelling Seas Science Snack."
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
ZaneM44 humans are social animals. Humans are dependent upon other humans for survival (even if if is in the form of buying things made by other humans) and to satisfy their emotional needs. As a result they evolved moral traits that work to the advantage of both the individuals and the species. The ones that didn't evolve such traits (such as those who are very anti-social, especially those who are psychopaths) are less fit for survival in human society and thus end up being no more than a minute percentage of the population. The ingrained moral code of humankind comes from their evolutionary biology as social animals, not from from an alleged God/god. A number of books on evolution mention that. I recommend that you read some of them.
Humans that live in cities or villages (and since the invention of agriculture by humans about 10,000 or 12,000 years ago permanent settlements and eventually cities came into existence) especially need to get along with each other, since they frequently come into close contact with other. [That is why highly urban areas tend to be more liberal (including politically liberal) than rural areas.] That results on certain basic rules of behavior becoming agreed upon by human societies and enforced upon them by human made laws. Those basic rules include no murder, nor stealing, and no raping.
I'm an atheist and I have a strong moral code. I try to avoid doing to others that which I don't want done to me.
P.S. - Admittedly, lions are are social animals, but evolutionary scientists give some reasons why it is beneficial for species of lions to do the things you mentioned. One weird thing (to me) is that after a lion kills the cubs of another lion, the females of those dead cubs choose to mate with the lion who killed their cubs, in order to have more cubs. The psychology of lions is thus significantly different than that of humans. What is good (or at least acceptable) for one species in not necessarily so for another species.