patrick.net

B.A.C.A.H. says

richwicks says

I am very much against dogmatism.

But atheism is dogma.

It CAN be but doesn't have to be. A communist society may DOGMATICALLY enforce atheism. Nobody has a right to do that. Your beliefs regardless of whether they are or are not rational or true - they are YOUR beliefs. I can challenge them, but it's wrong to force.

You've probably seen me argue there is no "left or right, only up and down" with regard to politics. Well, it's sort of like that with spiritual (?) belief. Maybe atheists are hard left, and evangelical are hard right, at the top though - they don't care. They just want a conflict. The top takes advantage of both "sides". People like Richard Dawkins and Madalyn Murray O'Hair are the pied pipers of the atheists and people like Peter Popoff, Jim Bakker, Billy Graham, and Benny Hinn toot for the religious - but ultimately, they are just exploiting them.

The left/right is a false dichotomy - atheism and a particular religion is CERTAINLY a false dichotomy, but maybe it's more general? Maybe atheism versus religious belief is a false dichotomy?

B.A.C.A.H. says

Such a shame to have the noble "dog" in dogma.

I do not think I do, if I do, I'm unaware of it.

I WAS dogmatically atheist for 20 years I'd say? But I cannot deny I FEEL there is something there. Now whether this is a delusion or not is immaterial. I cannot deny the usefulness, perhaps the necessity, for religion to maintain a society. Everybody seems to have the sense that there's something else, so actively denying it (which I did!) is probably detrimental to me. Even if it is entirely false, and evolution and abiogenesis IS the origin of life and all species, it seems to have an evolutionary basis and have utility for me to have some sense of a higher power.

In other words, even if there is no god, it's probably detrimental for people to actively deny it because there damned well seems to be an innate sense of it. Many people feel this way. Ever heard of an atheist talk about the "god shaped hole in their heart"? That's what they are talking about. I don't know if ALL atheists feel this, but I know MANY do. Nobody in a group of atheists is confused when you talk about your "god shaped hole".

B.A.C.A.H. says

Atheism is dogma, = bad science. Ironic as some athesists dogmatically shout down the concept of intelligent design.

Science really has no dogma. Do you know in science you NEVER prove anything to be correct? All you're doing is proving what ISN'T correct, and what's left over, well, these are very highly likely possibilities that have happened 100% of the time during observation (except that one time I'm pretty certain I made an error in measurement.)

Intelligent design - that's FINE to teach your kids if you want, but it's not useful in that it is NOT a science. A science has a model, and the model can make predictions, and being able to make predictions is useful. Because of evolutionary theory - we have evolutionary algorithms. You might hate them, but they are pretty damned impressive. Even if evolution is wrong and it didn't happen, and we were all created 30 years ago with false memories of our earlier childhood, evolutionary theory is useful today.

Religion is dogma. "YOU MUST BELIEVE X! TO NOT BELIEVE X MAKES YOU A HERETIC!!!"

We're seeing "scientism" today. "Global warming is real! It's going to kill us all! You stole my childhood!" That's not science either and it IS dogma. But it's not science.

I used to believe in global warming, but I was frustrated that all the predictions it made were totally wrong. The predictions used to legitimately frighten me and make me feel awful for the world and the children of the future. It's a burden to believe we're destroying the planet and wiping out species because we're just too fucking selfish. It makes you feel bad all the time, it makes you hate other people that are more wasteful than you, more selfish - that's the REAL purpose of "global warming". It's to place people at a competitive disadvantage.

Global warming - it's just a psy-op.

richwicks says

Do you know in science you NEVER prove anything to be correct? All you're doing is proving what ISN'T correct,

Correct. Nor can dogmatic atheists prove there's no intelligent design. They just take it on "faith" that intelligent design is an impossibility, and can be obnoxious expressing that view. Bad science.

Just about every (un-scientific) dogmatic atheist I've run into, has some baggage from attending K-12 in Catholic Schools, having that dogma rammed down their throats. The non-Catholic / non-Christian kids whose parents bought them into those schools don't have the baggage, presumably because their parents told them to politely play along.

B.A.C.A.H. says

richwicks says

Do you know in science you NEVER prove anything to be correct? All you're doing is proving what ISN'T correct,

Correct. Nor can dogmatic atheists prove there's no intelligent design. They just take it on "faith" that intelligent design is an impossibility, and can be obnoxious expressing that view. Bad science.

You can't prove the entire universe didn't suddenly spring into existence 5 minutes ago. You can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, perhaps he's hanging out on Neptune and kids just aren't good anymore. You can't prove that Christianity is the true religion, or that Greek Mythology wasn't the true religion - maybe Roman actually collapsed because they abandoned their gods?

In science you don't start out with an assumption something is correct, you start out with a bunch of observations that you are FAIRLY certain are correct (and you might be testing them later to find out if they were) and then building from that to draw a conclusion.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Just about every (un-scientific) dogmatic atheist I've run into, has some baggage from attending K-12 in Catholic Schools, having that dogma rammed down their throats. The non-Catholic / non-Christian kids whose parents bought them into those schools don't have the baggage, presumably because their parents told them to politely play along.

Well I went to public school and became dogmatically atheist for a period of time simply because I felt I had been deceived for a good portion of my life, and I had a lot of evidence I was, and I still conclude I was.

I didn't have a particularly bad experience with religion, but the hypocrisy of it was just so infuriating. The televangelists were scum, there was a scandal with one of our preachers (it's a town secret, and even I don't know the story - so let that sleeping dog lay), there were tons of politicians that droned on about morality and god and so on, only to be found out to be fucking their long time boyfriend, or fucking, I don't know - the white house intern. I didn't see any moral framework to it, I viewed the VAST majority of people who expressed their belief in religion not only to be hypocrites, but ABJECT hypocrites. Religion was just a shield, and the more bible beating they were, the worse they were.

I had the same disgust with politicians - their abject hypocrisy. Hope and Change was more fucking wars and bombing, for example, and bailing out a bunch of goddamned criminals on Wallstreet that just ripped off the entire fucking nation. You don't know how cynical I was. It wasn't pleasant to experience that viewpoint but it was then, I truly grew up. Truly began to understand what the world actually was.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Atheism is dogma, = bad science. Ironic as some athesists dogmatically shout down the concept of intelligent design.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Correct. Nor can dogmatic atheists prove there's no intelligent design. They just take it on "faith" that intelligent design is an impossibility, and can be obnoxious expressing that view. Bad science.

The information science argument for intelligent design is fairly strong:

All data we know of is organized and specific. None of it emerged from self-organizing natural processes without intelligence.

DNA resembles data.

Sometimes natural signals are mistaken for data, like Pulsars first were.

If we see organized, specific data, based on abductive reasoning (see Karl Popper), we should assume intelligence, not natural processes, based on prior experience and observation, since there is no precedence for otherwise.

Note: this is not the same as data mutating as it is being copied or exposed to environmental pressure; but the origin point of the data itself.

By the way, somebody did the Monkey to William Shakespeare Writings experiment with 5 monkeys.

Here is the first draft:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090318143423/http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/publication/NOTES_EN.pdf

Note this experiment already assumes the existence of English language, specific English characters, and the existence of typewriters all arising naturally in order for the typing process to begin.

richwicks says

Well I went to public school and became dogmatically atheist for a period of time simply because I felt I had been deceived for a good portion of my life, and I had a lot of evidence I was, and I still conclude I was.

I didn't have a particularly bad experience with religion, but the hypocrisy of it was just so infuriating.

Sounds like the baggage of the atheists I know whose rejection of Catholic education dogma turned them against religion. Confused inside their minds between religion (a human societal institution) and being open minded to the possibility creative design. So much baggage they cannot separate the two concepts inside their minds.

Just FYI - if you check my earliest posts on this site, you'll see I was a firm Atheist.

B.A.C.A.H. says

richwicks says

Well I went to public school and became dogmatically atheist for a period of time simply because I felt I had been deceived for a good portion of my life, and I had a lot of evidence I was, and I still conclude I was.

I didn't have a particularly bad experience with religion, but the hypocrisy of it was just so infuriating.

Sounds like the baggage of the atheists I know whose rejection of Catholic education dogma turned them against religion. Confused inside their minds between religion (a human societal institution) and being open minded to the possibility creative design. So much baggage they cannot separate the two concepts inside their minds.

You misunderstand.

I became an atheist because I thought it was a logical conclusion. If something can't be shown to exist through a test, why assume it exists? I can verify an atom exists. I can verify an electron exists. I can arrange these tests myself.

I became a strident atheist because I grew to hate the religion because I saw it as a cover for abject immorality. The pope is probably a pedophile - for example. But, if you want to be a good Catholic, make certain you donate some money so that they can do good works and other bullshit. The Catholic Church is DISGUSTINGLY rich. I hate the leaders of the religion, and maybe still do. Some of the adherents as well but 15 years ago, I'd have considered you a "sucker" and would have treated you with disdain.

I though the immorality and evil of the leaders reflected badly on the adherents. I've reconsidered that position.

richwicks says

Ever heard of an atheist talk about the "god shaped hole in their heart"? That's what they are talking about. I don't know if ALL atheists feel this

That's actually the first time I've ever heard this, and for me the answer is a decisive, "No, I don't have that." One of my earliest memories, with 22 months the upper bound by year, was my paternal grandmother's funeral which was literally the ONE time I set foot in a church till relatives started getting married 6+ years later. There had been explanations and questions earlier the gist of which was, we're going into God's house so you need to keep quiet. I was bored and fidgeting, with my gaze returning repeatedly to a small but bright stained glass window near the ceiling, the only colorful thing in a spartan room full of dour grownups all dressed in black. During a lull I piped up and pointed to the window and asked, "Is God up THERE, Mommy?"

In my 20s I certainly TRIED to explore the foundations of religion. I asked a girl out and she said sure let's go to a bible study together. She didn't even show up but I went to all 4 of what turned out to be new/curious church orientation/induction type meetings. It was interesting, but I was blunt about the parlor trick of "Hold the person's hand next to you and let God tell you what's on their mind." While the room erupted with cries of "OMG IT WORKS!" I just deadpanned to my neighbor that I didn't "hear" a thing. He acted kind of ashamed... that I didn't believe and avoided me thereafter. By the last day I was staring at the drum kit on the stage behind the podium, imagining a comedic rimshot at some of the more outlandish things the leader was saying. Of my own accord I read the bible, about many religions, dabbled in the works of Castenada (overblown IMO) and Shulgin, tried to unify shamanism, ethnobotany, messiahs and heretics; tried various psychedelics and experienced firsthand the subjective sense of a godlike omniscience in the universe, and confronted my own mortality and the meaning and permanence "firsthand" multiple times as I "died" during certain particularly bad trips.

The closest I've gotten is a subjective sense that there's SOMETHING "MORE" to the universe than what humans can routinely sense, experience, and comprehend or imagine. I don't find knowing "how do rainbows fucking work?" diminishes their beauty or my awe and wonder at seeing an especially nice one, but observe some people find this very distressing. It's like they WANT there to be a man behind that curtain pulling levers and controlling the universe, and they WANT to pay no attention to him and resent those who call for it. "Spoiling the magic" is frequently said to scientists and naturalists by supernaturalists. One of the few things I CAN say about the "something more" of the universe: If there EXIST beings so superior they are the literal progenitors of life on Earth, the religions of the planet have literally everything SO wrong that I'm embarrassed on behalf of the entire PLANET at the thought of these beings ever finding out what the religious thought up and how deeply they believe their constructs.



MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

By the way, somebody did the Monkey to William Shakespeare Writings experiment with 5 monkeys.
Note this experiment already assumes the existence of English language, specific English characters, and the existence of typewriters all arising naturally in order for the typing process to begin.

Those conditions make it kind of a poor metaphor. I think a better one is giving monkeys a bunch of lego sets, which like molecules can and easily do bond together in certain specific ways but not others, each according to their very nature. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect they'd assemble a perfect Taj Mahal, Millennium Falcon, or whatever is on the various boxes included down to the last color correct brick no matter HOW long they spent with the bricks, or that they'd even make them into abstract yet familiar to them things like representations of trees and other monkeys. I bet they WOULD relatively quickly develop things like boxes, bowls, spoons, back scratchers, and grooming pincers, and rapidly evolve them in a form follows function manner to species much like humans would set out to build given the same task and bricks. Long before they built anything complex out of them, they would start using them as trade tender for food and grooming or sexual access.

richwicks says

I used to believe in global warming, but I was frustrated that all the predictions it made were totally wrong.

Predictive value is a HUGE signal of the veracity of any data or claim. As for AGW, I consider the concept sound and evidence of effects visible. I agree the predictions of its proponents have been exasperatingly poor. I attribute this more to overselling than evidence of a sinister secret world government plot, and am personally inclined to attribute it to incompetence over malice particularly among overly enthusiastic lay proponents.


MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

If we see organized, specific data, based on abductive reasoning (see Karl Popper), we should assume intelligence, not natural processes, based on prior experience and observation, since there is no precedence for otherwise.

This is an interesting angle that I will remember and add to my ruminations and further inquiries into the topic. As for the underlying mathematics and statistics needed for a deep firsthand analysis, those are unabashedly out of my depth.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

Ever heard of an atheist talk about the "god shaped hole in their heart"? That's what they are talking about. I don't know if ALL atheists feel this

That's actually the first time I've ever heard this, and for me the answer is a decisive, "No, I don't have that."

It may be a byproduct of my childhood indoctrination into religion.

Automan Empire says

I went to all 4 of what turned out to be new/curious church orientation/induction type meetings. It was interesting, but I was blunt about the parlor trick of "Hold the person's hand next to you and let God tell you what's on their mind." While the room erupted with cries of "OMG IT WORKS!" I just deadpanned to my neighbor that I didn't "hear" a thing. He acted kind of ashamed... that I didn't believe and avoided me thereafter.

OK, let me explain what this is as I personally experience it. It's a vague feeling of another presence.

When I'm alone, I can forcibly make myself feel to be alone, and isolated and I habitually did this for something like 20 years - but if I allow myself, I can feel that there's some presence there just generally around me. Since I was thinking about this today, it FEELS as if it's sitting in the left side of my brain, about center of that mass.

It doesn't talk to me, but I can bounce ideas off from it and (mentally) talk to it - I feel no need to compunction to voice anything out loud to it. It's probably just another section of my brain or a brain tumor, or a delusion. I have no idea. I know at least some people experience something similar. Not generally something I talk about as it's a bit personal, so I haven't done a large sampling on this.

I think there is a lot of shared delusions that people will falsely engage in for group conformity within religion. I do NOT engage in this behavior and never have. You probably have heard of the Asch conformity experiment in which the test subject is surrounded with people he thinks are OTHER test subjects, but are part of the experiment. Trivial questions are asked like "which of the 4 lines is the shortest, a, b, c, or d?" and at certain times, the participants in the experiment are ALL asked to give an incorrect (but the same) answer to see if the test subject will comply with their supposed observation. Very frequently they do.

I am not a person to agree with the group, even before I was aware of this experiment. Now that I'm aware of this test, I understand it's commonly used in propaganda, and now I never will conform to the group if I think I'm correct. Most people WILL. In the group you were in, it's quite possible the person that said "OMG IT WORKS!" may have been a shill, or there could have been several.

I'll go off a bit on a tangent here with regard to group conformance and how common it is.

People wonder why the "democrats can be so crazy" - exposure to television and other celebrated personalities is just implementing the Asch conformity experiment. "Conservatives are crazy" is also correct. Both "sides" implement it. My conclusion is that society is basically insane as a result.

From personal experience - decades ago I had a "friend" that constantly gaslit me - would tell me I did things I didn't do, or didn't do things I did, that I would misremember something they said - etc. That was a horrible relationship because you feel, because it's your friend, that you need to give them the benefit of the doubt - maybe you WERE wrong? It happened 2 months ago after all... Maybe I DID do that?

People who do this may have borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder - or whatever, the DSM is bullshit anyhow. Point being is they are crazy, and they drive you crazy. It creates self doubt, it's awful to be put in that state all the time. It literally drives you nuts and to end that cycle, I basically had to keep notes about what I did and then refer to them to verify my memory was correct. Maybe HIS memory was incorrect, but I doubt it - he was just lying to me. And it would be over trivial shit.

The point I'm making with this, is that our government has borderline personality disorder and/or narcissistic personality disorder. It's in our news (ESPECIALLY in our news), our films, television shows, and even in newspapers - the LAST place you'd think they'd lie because you have a record - but they do - why do you think some people would collect 10 years of newspapers? Cultural and political norms are commonly created entirely artificially by pushing conformity, and by isolating people from actual real people. Our "entertainment" is mostly propaganda. It wasn't always like this, but you have to go back quite a ways before you find "just entertainment".

Religion may POSSIBLY shield people from this influence to some degree I think. They are more intransigent about accepting the "new norm". The "get with it man! It's year X!" doesn't work with them. In a way, I kind of have to respect the people of the Westboro Baptist Church. Without religion, society can be changed very quickly. Look at the Amish - they just ignore propaganda straight up. None of their kids are going to be transgendered. Everybody in the modern world - I think they're a bit psychologically damaged, and quite purposely.

Automan Empire says

Predictive value is a HUGE signal of the veracity of any data or claim. As for AGW, I consider the concept sound and evidence of effects visible. I agree the predictions of its proponents have been exasperatingly poor. I attribute this more to overselling than evidence of a sinister secret world government plot, and am personally inclined to attribute it to incompetence over malice particularly among overly enthusiastic lay proponents.

I wanted to comment on this.

The Earth is far more resilient than we realize, and animals can easily deal with 10x the CO2 in the atmosphere, barely without being able to recognize it.

The question is if CO2 is detrimental to lifeforms. It's advantageous to plants, largely harmless to animals - so the only question is if it causes harm in some other way. The prediction was the melting of icecaps, and raising ocean levels also the prediction was that it would create deserts. There is no evidence of this at all. The Earth appears to be getting MORE vegetation, not less. CO2 increases appear to be benefiting the planet and all life forms.

It may be that CO2 increase is actually a BENEFIT to this planet.

Governments just take advantage of anything. It's always "give us money and we'll fix it!" - well, you can give them $1.00 and you get 1 penny to actually fix the problem. I don't see any serious attempt to deal with "global warming" - the real concern is "what can we do when we run out of fossil fuel"? That's a real problem, but the solution is distribution of energy resources, and that works against energy providers.

richwicks says

the real concern is "what can we do when we run out of fossil fuel"? That's a real problem, but the solution is distribution of energy resources, and that works against energy providers.

You have addressed the mainstream false narrative regarding CO2 and global warming very well, and I'm very much in agreement with you on that. Regarding running out fossil fuel, that is impossible for two reasons:

1. "fossil fuel" is actually not from dead animals at all, but abiogenicly generated by subducted water and limestones at the bottom of the oceans, after they come under the heat and high pressure caused by uranium and thorium decay inside the earth and the tidal force from the moon. It's just a matter of how deep do we want to dig, economically limited by the alternative mentioned in the following point:

2. We are on the verge of being able to produce synthetic fuel from ocean water, thanks to US navy effort trying to fuel combat aircraft wings on aircraft carriers. Ocean water has 50+ times higher CO2 content than the air. The carriers would be using nuclear reactor for energy source, whereas civilian facilities can use solar energy (solar concentrators and solar panels). That technology can turn every tropical country with a sea coast into Saudi Arabia, and even vast areas like the Sargasso Sea and "Pacific trash patch" (i.e. ocean surfaces where currents and wind are slow moving in circular patterns). Extremely high voltage electric transmission lines lose about 10% energy every 1000 miles, so running a high voltage line from equatorial Africa to Europe would lose more than half of the electricity generated, whereas tankers shipping synthetic fuel would lose much less. Furthermore, fixed transmission lines would attract and cause the rise of ever more greedy despots, flexible shipping lines that can originate from just about anywhere near the equator would be much harder to monopolize. A solar panel can generate 3-5 times as much energy in equatorial Africa compared to the same panel in Germany. Synthetic fuel will be the battery, with far higher volumetric efficiency and weight efficiency than lithium batteries, and safer. The giant oil tankers will be the transmission line, far more efficient and far less susceptible to being monopolized by despots in between than thousands of miles of copper wires.

Reality says

1. "fossil fuel" is actually not from dead animals at all, but abiogenicly generated by subducted water and limestones at the bottom of the oceans, after they come under the heat and high pressure caused by uranium and thorium decay inside the earth and the tidal force from the moon.

It's irrelevant if fossil fuels are abiogenic or biogenic - it eventually runs out.

Reality says

We are on the verge of being able to produce synthetic fuel from ocean water

What synthetic fuel would this be? Hydrogen? It has very high energy density in terms of kg/watt but compression of it to transport it makes it very inefficient.

richwicks says

It's irrelevant if fossil fuels are abiogenic or biogenic - it eventually runs out.

It is regenerated by the heat and high pressure of the earth's mantel (working on water and limestone subducted at plate tectonic boundaries; limestones CaCO3 get their carbon from shellfish and coral fixing CO2 in water into CaCO3; CO2 in water comes from the air, as it is highly soluble in water). The heat and high pressure of the earth's mantel is caused by the nuclear decay of uranium and thorium inside the earth, and by the tidal gravitational force between the earth and the moon. The earth will be swallowed by the expanding sun (at the latter's Red Giant stage) before exhausting uranium and thorium inside the earth.

richwicks says

What synthetic fuel would this be? Hydrogen? It has very high energy density in terms of kg/watt but compression of it to transport it makes it very inefficient.

Synthetic fuel as in produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process . . . i.e. both jet fuel (what the USN is after) and every kind of fuel and lubricant that Germany produced during WWII and their modern day equivalents.

Reality says

Ocean water has 50+ times higher CO2 content than the air.

That is not saying much. CO2 is a trace element in the air, and even multiplying that by 50 leaves the CO2 concentration very low. Let's do some math:
A gallon of JP5 (basically kerosene with additives) weighs about 6.5 pounds. At least two thirds of that hydrocarbon is carbon. Just how much sea water do you think you would have to strain to get the 4 pounds or so of carbon you would need to make that gallon of JP5? Keep in mind that CO2 is only about 1/3 carbon. And if were one to strain all that CO2 out of the surface of the sea, you would essentially starve all the algae/plankton in the area that consume CO2. That would also affect the ocean oxygen concentration since that removed CO2 would no longer be converted to oxygen by the plankton/algae photosynthesis.

richwicks says

"fossil fuel" is actually not from dead animals at all, but abiogenicly generated by subducted water and limestones at the bottom of the oceans,

Limestone itself is a product of "dead animals."

HeadSet says

That is not saying much. CO2 is a trace element in the air, and even multiplying that by 50 leaves the CO2 concentration very low. Let's do some math:
A gallon of JP5 (basically kerosene with additives) weighs about 6.5 pounds. At least two thirds of that hydrocarbon is carbon. Just how much sea water do you think you would have to strain to get the 4 pounds or so of carbon you would need to make that gallon of JP5? Keep in mind that CO2 is only about 1/3 carbon. And if were one to strain all that CO2 out of the surface of the sea, you would essentially starve all the algae/plankton in the area that consume CO2. That would also affect the ocean oxygen concentration since that removed CO2 would no longer be converted to oxygen by the plankton/algae photosynthesis.

The CO2 content in ocean water is plenty high enough for the process that the US Navy is trying to make jet fuel. For civilian purpose, solar energy (concentrators/mirrors and solar panels) would be much cheaper than military grade ship-board nuclear reactors as the ultimate energy source (the produced fuel is only the "battery" for carrying the energy, actually half-battery as oxygen in the air will be the other half; and the post-reaction waste will be carried back to the ocean water by nature instead of being dead weight in a car). As for algae and planktons, the limiting factor for their growth is not CO2 in water but iron in water (otherwise the concentration of CO2 in water would not remain more than 50x the CO2 content in the air).

HeadSet says

Limestone itself is a product of "dead animals."

In the biogenic theory of petroleum origin, the "dead animals" refers to the organic chemical compounds in dead animal bodies, not the inorganic CaCO3. More importantly, biogenic theory postulates organic chemical compounds in dead animals accumulated millions of years ago, therefore irreplaceable. CaCO3 from shellfish and coral is produced in massive quantities everyday in nature; even white beach sand is made of the stuff.

Reality says

As for algae and planktons, the limiting factor for their growth is not CO2 in water but iron in water.

I never knew this. Usually it's phosphorus which limits plant growth on land.

Patrick says

I never knew this. Usually it's phosphorus which limits plant growth on land.

For algae growth, the limiting factor can be either phosphorus or iron, or both, but never CO2 concentration in water. I remember reading for-profit projects "fertilizing" ocean surface with iron dust for CO2 trading credits (here is a link on "iron fertilization": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization )

Comes to think of it, the synthetic fuel production process of extracting CO2 from sea water (and then Fischer-Tropsch it into liquid fuel using either solar or nuclear energy) can also get CO2 trading credits. Elon Musk needs to get on this. LOL!

Reality says

The CO2 content in ocean water is plenty high enough for the process that the US Navy is trying to make jet fuel.

That is quite the wave off there. How many gallons of sea water would it take to extract enough CO2 to get the 4 lbs of carbon needed for a gallon of fuel? Of course the amount of dissolved CO2 in sea water would depend on temperature and the bicarbonate effects, but generally tops about 337 ppm. So, a million pounds of water would have 337 pounds of CO2, and thus about 112 lbs of carbon. So at best 1 million gallons of water has only enough carbon to make 28 lbs of fuel. That is not even 1 minute of fuel for a fighter jet.

Reality says

CaCO3 from shellfish and coral is produced in massive quantities everyday in nature; even white beach sand is made of the stuff.

Yes, those beautiful white sand beaches are basically pulverized seashells. But the limestone that comes from quarries, makes up the Sphinx, and buried deep underground is the accumulation of millions of years of a slow process.

Patrick says

the limiting factor for their growth is not CO2 in water but iron in water.

I never knew this. Usually it's phosphorus which limits plant growth on land.

Assuming more CO2 = more plant growth is simplistic and naive. Most ecosystems are straining against some local limiting factor, whether not enough of a macro or micronutrient present, or conditions making them not bioavailable to the plant.

30 years ago, the pine trees in even the remote pristine areas of Germany's Black Forest were suffering from chlorosis; yellow retarded growth tips due to lack of iron and magnesium. They eventually figured out the soils didn't suddenly become depleted of nutrients, acid rain from uncontrolled nitrous oxide and sulfide emissions lowered the pH of their local environment to the point where the still-plentiful elements couldn't get absorbed by the plant. Fortunately, the general danger had already been recognized and mitigation efforts started upon in the form of industrial and vehicle emission controls, so the multi-faceted problem of "acid rain" was already well on the road to being solved WITHOUT depriving humanity of the fruits of industry or mechanized transportation as critics of "the left" often claim.

These clean burn technologies have matured about as far as they can go. Everything from power plants, down to the scale of personal devices like cars and water heaters, has gotten emissions down to practically nothing but CO2 and water. Aerosol and particulate emissions are relatively "easy" to remove technologically speaking. The "Scientists thought Earth was going into a new ice age in the 70s" trope leaves out the fact that this was a very real concern through the late 60s as aerosol and particulate pollution were so severe that they blocked insolation and heat gain faster than rising CO2 blocked more heat energy from escaping.

richwicks says

Hydrogen? It has very high energy density in terms of kg/watt but compression of it to transport it makes it very inefficient.

Another issue, plain hydrogen is the smallest molecule that exists, which is part of why hydrogen cars are so costly to engineer for. To wit: That shit leaks almost no matter WHAT the engineers do!

Reality says

I remember reading for-profit projects "fertilizing" ocean surface with iron dust for CO2 trading credits

I remember that, and without looking at the wiki link rn my recollection was that the effect is extremely temporary, as in you have to KEEP sprinkling the iron for the effect to sustain. It's tough to reach even a zero sum state, much less a process that ultimately removes more CO2 than it generates. A more recent "sexy" among environmentalists but IMO technologically dumb idea is mining and crushing olivine and transporting it to the sea.

Automan Empire says

Assuming more CO2 = more plant growth is simplistic and naive.

No. That is something that can be experimentally tested and proved. Even the NOAA admits that https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-dioxide. Even some science classes have proven plants grow faster in a sealed terrarium when extra CO2 is pumped in.

In fact, it is rather simplistic naïve to think that adding CO2 would not aid plant growth. After all, CO2 is essential for plant growth but is only a trace element. Adding more CO2 is like adding fertilizer to deficient soil.

HeadSet says

No. That is something that can be experimentally tested and proved.

This may feel like a gotcha, but it completely ignores the very next sentence. Literally nobody is denying this like you suggest. In areas where there is no shortage of macro and micro nutrients, of COURSE more CO2 means accelerated plant growth. "The left" knew this 30 years ago, and had evolved CO2 enrichment alongside hydroponics technologies quite far for their indoor pot gardens. This assertion reminds me of my Mom's neighbor from the LA suburbs who owned property in Oregon, going on and on about how the spotted owl controversy (yeah that long ago) was bullshit because forests grew back FAST! Based on their experience cutting a bunch of trees down on their property and finding surprisingly huge new trees in their place a couple of years later. What they downplayed to an aside late in the discussion was that their property where they experienced this was in a river bottom, the very place where nutrients and topsoil leached away from the mountainsides get concentrated and endlessly replenished!

HeadSet says

Of course the amount of dissolved CO2 in sea water would depend on temperature and the bicarbonate effects, but generally tops about 337 ppm. So, a million pounds of water would have 337 pounds of CO2, and thus about 112 lbs of carbon. So at best 1 million gallons of water has only enough carbon to make 28 lbs of fuel. That is not even 1 minute of fuel for a fighter jet.

I'm afraid the two estimates you are giving are self-contradictory: a million gallons of sea water is roughly 8 times as much as a million pounds of sea water, so if a million pounds of sea water contain 112lbs of carbon, a million gallons of sea water should have enough carbon to make more than 1000lbs of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. A million gallons of fresh water is worth quite a lot, but a million gallons of sea/ocean water is worth next to nothing.

Edit: you might have applied divide by 8 where the calculation should have been multiply by 8. So your estimation was off by a factor of 64. 28x64= 1792.

HeadSet says

Yes, those beautiful white sand beaches are basically pulverized seashells. But the limestone that comes from quarries, makes up the Sphinx, and buried deep underground is the accumulation of millions of years of a slow process.

At the tectonic subduction boundaries, the earth's mantel taking the sea floor in is not exactly rejecting the white sand at the sea bottom or the new shellfish or coral growth from yesterday! The limestone coming from the quarry was after the sea floor had been pushed up to above sea surface level (simply because people don't dive into the sea to quarry limestones from the sea bottom for its freshness, but would rather pick a place where a long wait has taken place for tectonic activities push up sea bottoms opposite the subduction side shaping it into mountains before hacking the mountain side with a hammer); the earth's mantel is not asking to take in the Sphinx instead of the sea floor itself. It's a massive recycling center for carbon, not an art collector ;-)

Automan Empire says

This may feel like a gotcha

I do not do "gotchas" here. I like the intellectual discussions with a knowledgeable crowd that includes various subjects and interests.

Reality says

dit: you might have applied divide by 8 where the calculation should have been multiply by 8.

Could be, I will check.

Reality says

Edit: you might have applied divide by 8 where the calculation should have been multiply by 8.

No, the error is that I wrote "gallons" on the second line when I meant to write "pounds." It is a million pounds of water to make 28 pounds of fuel. That still means 125,000 gallons of water to get enough carbon for less than one minute of flight. A one hour flight would take over 7.5 million gallons of seawater to be processed. 7.5 million gallons that has to go through a chemical/screen/electrolysis method to extract that CO2 even before doing the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

HeadSet says

No, the error is that I wrote "gallons" on the second line when I meant to write "pounds." It is a million pounds of water to make 28 pounds of fuel. That still means 125,000 gallons of water to get enough carbon for less than one minute of flight. A one hour flight would take over 7.5 million gallons of seawater to be processed. 7.5 million gallons that has to go through a chemical/screen/electrolysis method to extract that CO2 even before doing the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

That makes no sense: you had already stated that "So, a million pounds of water would have 337 pounds of CO2, and thus about 112 lbs of carbon." Why would 112 lbs of carbon result in only 28 pounds of fuel when all the carbon is turned into hydrocarbon fuel? The hydrogen atoms attaching to the carbon chain are not antigravity devices. 112lbs of carbon should result in more than 130lbs of hydrocarbon fuel (hydrocarbon chains usually have 2 hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom in the chain, plus two more hydrogens at the head and tail; assigning atomic weight 12 and 1, so (112/12) * (12+1+1) = 130.67; that's before adding the weight of the hydrogen atoms at the head and tail of the chains). A million gallons of sea water should result in over 1000lbs of hydrocarbon fuel if all the CO2 is taken out and the carbon in the CO2 molecules turned into hydrocarbon fuel, assuming roughly 337ppm CO2 concentration in sea water.

Edit: also the CO2 concentration number provided by Headset is wrong. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is usually cited as 412ppm in 2020. Sea water in 2021 is assessed at around 2050 micromol CO2 per kg of sea water (Molar mass of CO2 is 44). The latter translates to close to 900ppm by weight. So we should be looking at enough carbon in a million gallon of sea water to make about 3000lbs of liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

Reality says

Why would 112 lbs of carbon result in only 28 pounds of fuel when all the carbon is turned into hydrocarbon fuel?

Because JP5 weighs 6.4 pounds per gallon and it is about 2/3 carbon. Therefore, I divided 112 by 4 to get 28 pounds of fuel. But you are correct - the 28 lbs is just the carbon component, I should have added in the hydrogen part.

Reality says

Edit: also the CO2 concentration number provided by Headset is wrong

I had sources that averaged about 337 ppm, and here is one that I did not consider:



I thought .00205 moles/kg sounded high, so I compared it to the CO2 in Coke. Since Coke turned out to be about .14 moles/kg, your estimate is well within reason.

Gotta admit, I made a couple of unforced errors here, and Patnet has too many knowledgeable folks like you to get away with such goofs.

So, according to your inputs and calculations, 1 million gallons of water makes 3,000 lbs of fuel. My estimate of 28 pounds of fuel lasting about one minute would be true for a something like a Learjet flight, an Navy fighter in an operational mission would use that 3,000 lbs in about 30 minutes. So, the question is the feasibility an extraction process that needs 2 million gallons of sea water per hour of flight time, in addition to the process that creates the fuel from that extracted CO2. Interesting to see if the Navy actually does this.

Reality says

richwicks says

What synthetic fuel would this be? Hydrogen? It has very high energy density in terms of kg/watt but compression of it to transport it makes it very inefficient.

Synthetic fuel as in produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process . . . i.e. both jet fuel (what the USN is after) and every kind of fuel and lubricant that Germany produced during WWII and their modern day equivalents.

I did not know that. I knew the Germans were making gasoline from coal but I didn't realize the were starting from carbon monoxide. I would bet even low grade high sulfur coal could be used to make synthetic fuel this way.

Automan Empire says

They eventually figured out the soils didn't suddenly become depleted of nutrients, acid rain from uncontrolled nitrous oxide and sulfide emissions lowered the pH of their local environment to the point where the still-plentiful elements couldn't get absorbed by the plant. Fortunately, the general danger had already been recognized and mitigation efforts started upon in the form of industrial and vehicle emission controls, so the multi-faceted problem of "acid rain" was already well on the road to being solved WITHOUT depriving humanity of the fruits of industry or mechanized transportation as critics of "the left" often claim.

The disappearance of the Acid Rain Scam, explained:

The situation turned out to be much more complex than had been predicted. The acidity of a lake is determined as much by the acidity of the local soil and vegetation as it is by acid rain. Many lakes in north-eastern America, dead in the 1980s, had plenty of fish in 1900. It was surmised by environmentalists that 20th-century sulphur dioxide emissions had choked these lakes to death with acid rain. But the NAPAP showed many of these lakes were acidic and fishless even before European settlement in America. Fish survived better in these lakes around 1900 because of extensive slash and burn logging in the area. The soil became more alkaline as the acid vegetation was removed, reducing the acid flowing into the lakes and making the water hospitable to fish. Logging stopped in 1915, acid soils and vegetation returned and the lakes became acidic again. The study also found that in many cases forests were suffering debilitation due to insects or drought and not acid rain.

The NAPAP reported in 1990. The findings were explosive: first, acid rain had not injured forests or crops in US or Canada; second, acid rain had no observable effect on human health; third, only a small number of lakes had been acidified by acid rain and these could be rehabilitated by adding lime to the water. In summary, acid rain was a nuisance, not a catastrophe.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603

SO2 cap and trade was immensely profitable; Enron wanted to expand it to CO2 and both protect their Nat Gas Pipeline investment and profit like it did from SO2 cap-and-trade bullshit:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/11/remember-the-acid-rain-scare-global-warming-hysteria-is-pouring-down/?sh=54a2ddca53fc

Boreal Pines emit NO2 and contribute to smog and acidification of high altitude/latitudinal water bodies.
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/03/13/804613.htm

Sensing profit through the ability to create panic and get the government to regulate competitors, the NAPAP release just made Corporations seek out new BS to amplify. After Acid Rain, the media pivoted straight to the Ozone Layer, another issue which was "disappeared".

Even though we now know that CHY-na is violating the CFC Treaty, and I very much doubt Chinese factories are limiting their SO2 emissions either, but not a peep.
https://theconversation.com/how-we-traced-mystery-emissions-of-cfcs-back-to-eastern-china-117545



Additional lines of investigation confirm NE China is source for burst of CFC Production; well in excess of Montreal Agreement amounts.
http://hydrocarbons21.com/articles/9010/study_confirms_source_of_cfc_11_is_northeastern_china

Because CHY-na is above criticism, it's too much of a supplier for Amazon and Walmart and for Wokeness in US Academia and NGOs... and cushy consulting jobs and good words with Chinese Universities and US NGOs for Revolving Door Bureaucrats to stand up against.

Totally politicized for profit and Narrative Construction purposes.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

The situation turned out to be much more complex than had been predicted. The acidity of a lake is determined as much by the acidity of the local soil and vegetation

I'm talking about acidity of rainwater, which affects the microclimate of individual plants collectively but won't significantly change the long term pH of bodies of water due to dilution and buffering. Acid rain researchers and activists never claimed that acid rain was affecting the pH of bodies of water, that is a red herring dismissal of the entire topic. Sounds like you're just mashing up different claims, situations, and concerns as if they're one and the same.

HeadSet says

Automan Empire says

This may feel like a gotcha

I do not do "gotchas" here. I like the intellectual discussions with a knowledgeable crowd that includes various subjects and interests.

If your discourse was consistently as you claimed, you would have responded to the content of my original claim and rebuttal to you, not the form of it. Nobody is claiming higher atmospheric CO2 levels will NOT increase plant growth in the absence of other localized nutrient constraints, and to my knowledge this has claim NEVER been made in any discussion or prediction of the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Automan Empire says

Nobody is claiming higher atmospheric CO2 levels will NOT increase plant growth in the absence of other localized nutrient constraints, and to my knowledge this has claim NEVER been made in any discussion or prediction of the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Oh, I've heard this. The forests were burning down last year on the West Coast because of global warming and large areas of the Earth was going to return to desert. Famines were going to happen as a result of global warming, I've been hearing that since I was a kid.

I spent a few minutes the other day trying to get images of what South America looked like over the years, but I gave up. If http://maps.google.com is accurate (?) the amount of jungle in South America is in 2007 is identical to what it is today.

I've heard so much BS about global warming, so many lies, how can I believe anything they say at all? The arctic was actually reported as being ice free one year. They actually printed that in national papers. It was completely false.

Automan Empire says

I'm talking about acidity of rainwater, which affects the microclimate of individual plants collectively but won't significantly change the long term pH of bodies of water due to dilution and buffering. Acid rain researchers and activists never claimed that acid rain was affecting the pH of bodies of water, that is a red herring dismissal of the entire topic. Sounds like you're just mashing up different claims, situations, and concerns as if they're one and the same.

The purpose of the Acid Rain panic was to privilege Nat Gas over Coal. There was never any Precipitation driven acidification of mountain water, which was the metric by which they measured acid rain to begin with and how it got to be a concern in the first place; that acid rain in isolated mountain water bodies were killing fish.

Instead, it was the soil chemistry caused by protecting mountain lake areas "Area of Natural Beauty" from harvesting.

Geological evidence confirmed that Pre-European (much less pre-industrial) mountain lakes in North America were more acidic with smaller fish populations than today.

richwicks says

Automan Empire says

Nobody is claiming higher atmospheric CO2 levels will NOT increase plant growth in the absence of other localized nutrient constraints, and to my knowledge this has claim NEVER been made in any discussion or prediction of the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Oh, I've heard this. The forests were burning down last year on the West Coast because of global warming and large areas of the Earth was going to return to desert. Famines were going to happen as a result of global warming, I've been hearing that since I was a kid.

Yeah, well I've been hearing skeptics take a gunny sack of completely independent claims about climate change, mash them together in nonsense ways, and conclude that "climate change is fake and proponents crazy/stupid" for decades. I expected much better than that from you in this thread.

Man, if there's on phrase that is total bullshit

"The Science says..."

or the alternative version:

"not according to the Science."

There is no such thing as "The Science". Science is a process, that depends on Free Debate, Falsification, Criticism, and repeated observations and testing.

100 years ago, if today's standards applied, you'd be told it was "The Science" that Continental Drift/Plate Tectonics were just Human Beings seeing Patterns in Nature as usual, just like People can see Mickey Mouse in a Cloud. Although the fossil record and geological strata fit beautifully with the theory.

(This is a general rant, not aimed at any post on this thread or really, board)