Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
David Thomson wrote: Hi Wesley, There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most deposits and fossils. I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils exist or they don't. And it is equally obvious that regardless of the actual dates, a rich biosystem did not occur at the same time as an Ice Age. The stability in that case would only be an illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of your reasoning? How do dating errors (not Michel's type of dating errors) cause the illusion of massive amounts of biomatter and diverse species? It is always safer to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's stable and die having discovered your error. More flawed reasoning. Are you telling me that if we don't understand how something works, we are charged with fixing it until we do understand? That is how problems arise, not how they are solved. This is exactly what the GW debate comes down to. There are people who distort their interpretation of the data to prove something is broken, and then seek to fix it. It is the process of fixing things that don't need fixing that actually breaks them. Nature knows what it is doing. The planet Earth does not need the arrogance of our feeble intelligence to fix the climate cycle. Even if we do succeed in altering the climate, such as seeding the oceans with iron, what happens when iron prices go through the roof and the seeding program is cancelled? The resulting huge whale population then starves to death for lack of food. Either that or the Japanese build up a huge market for whale products and drives them into extinction. There were people who played with pure sodium, and when it spontaneously caught fire, they threw water on it, which caused a major explosion. The climate change problem is serious enough without shortsighted humans trying to intervene. Even if we were successful in the short run, it is highly improbable we could keep up our efforts into the long run. The best way to survive global climate change is to adapt, which is the method preferred by all successful species. Dave Good points Dave. I can't explain the dating problems here, its a creationist debate essentually, there are other sites for that. Email me privately for those details. Suffice to say that I think the errors are large but the greenhouse effect should still be real. As for human action I think we tend to want simple answers to complex questions. Fertilizing the ocean is one such simple answer, far too simple. We need comprehesive ownership systems if we are going to farm the sea instead of just hunting it. Your correct, human arrogance is dangerous but there are times when inaction is equally arrogant and dangerous. The energy technologies discussed on vortex, peswiki, etc will help solve problems and give us the leway to fix the problems as they come. If greenhouse is not a problem then we loose nothing by going to alternative energy; assuming we are smart enough to keep the oil men and the coal miners etc from starving or rioting.
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
One big point in favor of the factory ships implementation: immediate recycling of the nutrients (including recovery of a sizeable proportion of the iron which will have been dispensed), which probably find themselves concentrated in the press cake after the oil has been pressed out of the microalgae. This is assuming the oil itself keeps only a negligible proportion of the nutrients, is this correct? If we return the press cake to the ocean surface as we go, the nutrients are ready to be re-used almost immediately: all we will have removed is renewable stuff: CO2 from the atmosphere, photosynthesis energy from the sun, and maybe some water, which makes the process sustainable even on a large scale IMHO. Michel (a repented whale hunter ;-) - Original Message - From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC >I forgot to mention, the process should be repeated on the move in open sea >rather than e.g. in a bay, so that each iteration occurs at a place where >dissolved CO2 and nutrients have not been recently depleted by the previous >runs (it takes time for those resources to be restored) > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > > >> We are all in-seine aren't we, this is Vortex after all :) >> >> In any case I think we all agree on the function to be implemented: >> >> Local iron fertilization of the ocean surface > On the fly harvesting of the >> algae bloom > Conversion to oil and possibly charcoal >> >> The rest is mere implementation details, cost will decide, we should rule >> out no particular technical solution at this point (not even the whales Nick >> ;-) >> >> Can you do the cost analysis for the factory ships implementation you >> describe below Fred? >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message - >> From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:20 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC >> >>> Sounds to me like Michel (Dave's Gender I. D. Problem) is acting out >>> Arthur Dent's worst nightmare. >>> I posted Michel an algae-confinement-fine mesh-floated-seine idea the other >>> day, but >>> living near the Seine I guess he thinks I'm in-seine. :-) >>> The seas should contain adequate nutrients that can diffuse into the seines >>> that >>> can be tens of meters wide and thousands of meters long. The iron powder >>> can be retained in the seine, with barges that reel it in and through for >>> harvesting >>> and iron replenishment. >>> A whale of a lot better than torturing a declining population of whales. >>> >>> Fred >> >> >
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi Wesley, > There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most > deposits and fossils. I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils exist or they don't. And it is equally obvious that regardless of the actual dates, a rich biosystem did not occur at the same time as an Ice Age. > The stability in that case would only be an > illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of your reasoning? How do dating errors (not Michel's type of dating errors) cause the illusion of massive amounts of biomatter and diverse species? > It is always safer > to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's > stable and die having discovered your error. More flawed reasoning. Are you telling me that if we don't understand how something works, we are charged with fixing it until we do understand? That is how problems arise, not how they are solved. This is exactly what the GW debate comes down to. There are people who distort their interpretation of the data to prove something is broken, and then seek to fix it. It is the process of fixing things that don't need fixing that actually breaks them. Nature knows what it is doing. The planet Earth does not need the arrogance of our feeble intelligence to fix the climate cycle. Even if we do succeed in altering the climate, such as seeding the oceans with iron, what happens when iron prices go through the roof and the seeding program is cancelled? The resulting huge whale population then starves to death for lack of food. Either that or the Japanese build up a huge market for whale products and drives them into extinction. There were people who played with pure sodium, and when it spontaneously caught fire, they threw water on it, which caused a major explosion. The climate change problem is serious enough without shortsighted humans trying to intervene. Even if we were successful in the short run, it is highly improbable we could keep up our efforts into the long run. The best way to survive global climate change is to adapt, which is the method preferred by all successful species. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
David Thomson wrote: I don't see what need there is to take the carbon out of the air. We spent 150 years of hard work getting all that sequestered carbon back into the biosphere. Don't these people realize the climate of the Earth was most stable during the time of the dinosaurs? Our planet went for hundreds of millions of years with no ice ages and there was 1000 times more biomatter in the biosystem than there is today with 1000s more species. If people want to take the carbon back out, all they need to do is send another comet into Earth's atmosphere. If I had my way, we would double carbon production in hopes of putting a permanent end to the present Ice Age. Dave This may be true but our ecosystems are under pressure and depleted in terms of species both producer and consumers. A depleted system mich respond with massive infestation of marine "weeds" with impacts on both the natural ecosystem and the fishing industry. There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most deposits and fossils. The stability in that case would only be an illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. It is always safer to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's stable and die having discovered your error.
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Actually I have material on ocean fertilization, including iron, going back to 1978 or so. Co-evolution quarterly had a design for a green ship that delivered both fertilizer and a seed stock of algy and fish fingerling. This combination gives you much more ecological control. I'll see if I can find it; though my kid brother has just moved in and the storage situation here has become chaotic. Jones Beene wrote: Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has "borrowed" the (unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John Martin, who was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former director of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories ... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin at some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win or share in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel from Martin's Moss Landing team are the same in any event. Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. Before getting too enamored with the implications of those successful iron fertilization experiments - which have been in the public record for 16 years - one must face several caveats. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27 Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of lessening the impact of global warming by increasing algae growth, and CO2 uptake, the scientific evidence is incomplete and suggests there may be unintended consequences, especially at the scale necessary for global change. Of course if the Algae were harvested as an oil substitute - then that would probably help immensely, but just growing it without harvesting as R George is proposing - is not sufficient. Methane BTW is a far more worrisome threat than CO2, being twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas and the Arctic (vast areas of Siberia Canada, Alaska) is now releasing much more of it than anyone ever thought possible - so perhaps that gas should be addressed first - big prize or not. Jed Rothwell wrote: Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from Tom Valone: www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
I forgot to mention, the process should be repeated on the move in open sea rather than e.g. in a bay, so that each iteration occurs at a place where dissolved CO2 and nutrients have not been recently depleted by the previous runs (it takes time for those resources to be restored) Michel - Original Message - From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > We are all in-seine aren't we, this is Vortex after all :) > > In any case I think we all agree on the function to be implemented: > > Local iron fertilization of the ocean surface > On the fly harvesting of the > algae bloom > Conversion to oil and possibly charcoal > > The rest is mere implementation details, cost will decide, we should rule out > no particular technical solution at this point (not even the whales Nick ;-) > > Can you do the cost analysis for the factory ships implementation you > describe below Fred? > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:20 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > >> Sounds to me like Michel (Dave's Gender I. D. Problem) is acting out >> Arthur Dent's worst nightmare. >> I posted Michel an algae-confinement-fine mesh-floated-seine idea the other >> day, but >> living near the Seine I guess he thinks I'm in-seine. :-) >> The seas should contain adequate nutrients that can diffuse into the seines >> that >> can be tens of meters wide and thousands of meters long. The iron powder >> can be retained in the seine, with barges that reel it in and through for >> harvesting >> and iron replenishment. >> A whale of a lot better than torturing a declining population of whales. >> >> Fred > >
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
We are all in-seine aren't we, this is Vortex after all :) In any case I think we all agree on the function to be implemented: Local iron fertilization of the ocean surface > On the fly harvesting of the algae bloom > Conversion to oil and possibly charcoal The rest is mere implementation details, cost will decide, we should rule out no particular technical solution at this point (not even the whales Nick ;-) Can you do the cost analysis for the factory ships implementation you describe below Fred? Michel - Original Message - From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > Sounds to me like Michel (Dave's Gender I. D. Problem) is acting out > Arthur Dent's worst nightmare. > I posted Michel an algae-confinement-fine mesh-floated-seine idea the other > day, but > living near the Seine I guess he thinks I'm in-seine. :-) > The seas should contain adequate nutrients that can diffuse into the seines > that > can be tens of meters wide and thousands of meters long. The iron powder > can be retained in the seine, with barges that reel it in and through for > harvesting > and iron replenishment. > A whale of a lot better than torturing a declining population of whales. > > Fred
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > > > Sounds awful and cruel I realize (reminds me of that whale briefly > > brought into existence together with the petunia pot in The Hitch > > Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was that in the film Fred?), but... if > > our own survival is at stake, well... your thoughts welcome :) > > Sounds to me like Michel (Dave's Gender I. D. Problem) is acting out Arthur Dent's worst nightmare. I posted Michel an algae-confinement-fine mesh-floated-seine idea the other day, but living near the Seine I guess he thinks I'm in-seine. :-) The seas should contain adequate nutrients that can diffuse into the seines that can be tens of meters wide and thousands of meters long. The iron powder can be retained in the seine, with barges that reel it in and through for harvesting and iron replenishment. A whale of a lot better than torturing a declining population of whales. Fred > > Michel Jullian wrote: > > Mmm, growing the algae without harvesting them _could_ be sufficient > > (pending calculations), but only for a one off operation: present > > excess CO2 sequestered into the living algae biomass increase, > > period. Could win the prize though. > > > > What surprises me most with this scheme is that one should need to > > bring fertilizers into the oceans, which already contain all the > > minerals you can dream of in amply sufficient concentrations. The > > increased growth action of the dust, if confirmed, might not be one > > of fertilization, maybe it increases photosynthesis by > > reflecting/diffusing the sunlight rather. > > Haven't been following this thread closely ... but a number of years ago > someone tried the experiment of seeding a small area of the ocean with > iron; it caused an immediate algae bloom. Apparently it's in short > supply. At that time it was proposed that bombing the oceans with iron > would suck a lot of CO2 out of the air. The problems with such an > approach, if actually tried on a large scale, are likely to be pretty > horrible, though, or so I would guess. > > > > > > Anyway, back to the harvesting hypothesis, whether or not we can > > stimulate growth one way or another. > > > > I have an idea for that, it's a bit... well here it is anyway. Highly > > efficient phytoplankton harvesters + phytoplankton -to-oil converters > > already exist actually, they are called whales :))) I guess you see > > what I am coming to: instead of harvesting the algae ourselves we > > would heavily repopulate the oceans with herds of whales (porn movies > > -or audio clips rather- featuring actors of the right species like > > they successfully use to repopulate pandas in China??), the whales > > would harvest the algae and process them into whale oil, and then we > > would harvest the whales and sequester the oil, plus use some of it > > as fuel. > > > > Sounds awful and cruel I realize (reminds me of that whale briefly > > brought into existence together with the petunia pot in The Hitch > > Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was that in the film Fred?), but... if > > our own survival is at stake, well... your thoughts welcome :) > > > > Michel > > > > > > - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, > > February 16, 2007 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges > > Branson on ABC > > > > > >> Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has "borrowed" > >> the (unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John > >> Martin, who was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former > >> director of: > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories > >> > >> ... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin > >> at some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win > >> or share in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel > >> from Martin's Moss Landing team are the same in any event. > >> > >> Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. > >> Before getting too enamored with the implications of those > >> successful iron fertilization experiments - which have been in the > >> public record for 16 years - one must face several caveats. > >> http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27 > >> > >> Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of > >> lessening the impact of global warming by incre
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC ... > Haven't been following this thread closely ... but a number of years ago > someone tried the experiment of seeding a small area of the ocean with > iron; it caused an immediate algae bloom. Apparently it's in short > supply. At that time it was proposed that bombing the oceans with iron > would suck a lot of CO2 out of the air. The problems with such an > approach, if actually tried on a large scale, are likely to be pretty > horrible, though, or so I would guess. ... Hence the idea of harvesting the excess algae on the fly (whales thread), we don't want our blue planet to change color. Michel
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Michel Jullian wrote: Mmm, growing the algae without harvesting them _could_ be sufficient (pending calculations), but only for a one off operation: present excess CO2 sequestered into the living algae biomass increase, period. Could win the prize though. What surprises me most with this scheme is that one should need to bring fertilizers into the oceans, which already contain all the minerals you can dream of in amply sufficient concentrations. The increased growth action of the dust, if confirmed, might not be one of fertilization, maybe it increases photosynthesis by reflecting/diffusing the sunlight rather. Haven't been following this thread closely ... but a number of years ago someone tried the experiment of seeding a small area of the ocean with iron; it caused an immediate algae bloom. Apparently it's in short supply. At that time it was proposed that bombing the oceans with iron would suck a lot of CO2 out of the air. The problems with such an approach, if actually tried on a large scale, are likely to be pretty horrible, though, or so I would guess. Anyway, back to the harvesting hypothesis, whether or not we can stimulate growth one way or another. I have an idea for that, it's a bit... well here it is anyway. Highly efficient phytoplankton harvesters + phytoplankton -to-oil converters already exist actually, they are called whales :))) I guess you see what I am coming to: instead of harvesting the algae ourselves we would heavily repopulate the oceans with herds of whales (porn movies -or audio clips rather- featuring actors of the right species like they successfully use to repopulate pandas in China??), the whales would harvest the algae and process them into whale oil, and then we would harvest the whales and sequester the oil, plus use some of it as fuel. Sounds awful and cruel I realize (reminds me of that whale briefly brought into existence together with the petunia pot in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was that in the film Fred?), but... if our own survival is at stake, well... your thoughts welcome :) Michel - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has "borrowed" the (unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John Martin, who was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former director of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories ... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin at some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win or share in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel from Martin's Moss Landing team are the same in any event. Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. Before getting too enamored with the implications of those successful iron fertilization experiments - which have been in the public record for 16 years - one must face several caveats. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27 Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of lessening the impact of global warming by increasing algae growth, and CO2 uptake, the scientific evidence is incomplete and suggests there may be unintended consequences, especially at the scale necessary for global change. Of course if the Algae were harvested as an oil substitute - then that would probably help immensely, but just growing it without harvesting as R George is proposing - is not sufficient. Methane BTW is a far more worrisome threat than CO2, being twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas and the Arctic (vast areas of Siberia Canada, Alaska) is now releasing much more of it than anyone ever thought possible - so perhaps that gas should be addressed first - big prize or not. Jed Rothwell wrote: Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from Tom Valone: www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv - Jed
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi Michel, I haven't dated for over 20 years, so it really doesn't matter whether female Vo's exist at all. I don't think in terms of relationships like most people do. When I see women, I just see more people. What I look for in people is whether they have a good heart or not, the other parts aren't all that interesting. Dave > -Original Message- > From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:25 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > > Before you try dating me Dave, you should know that female Vo's exist only > in your dreams :) > > http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Michel > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:54 PM > Subject: RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > > > > Hi Michel, > > > >> > I know Michel thought I was kidding her... > >> ... > >> > Dave > >> > >> Even worse than I thought. Dave when the MIW come don't forget > mentioning > >> you talked with a female Vo :))) > >> > >> Michel > > > > What are you trying to say, that you are as crazy as I am? I doubt it! > My > > life is so bizarre even I have to question my own sanity. ;-) > > > > Dave > >
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Before you try dating me Dave, you should know that female Vo's exist only in your dreams :) http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Michel Michel - Original Message - From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:54 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > Hi Michel, > >> > I know Michel thought I was kidding her... >> ... >> > Dave >> >> Even worse than I thought. Dave when the MIW come don't forget mentioning >> you talked with a female Vo :))) >> >> Michel > > What are you trying to say, that you are as crazy as I am? I doubt it! My > life is so bizarre even I have to question my own sanity. ;-) > > Dave >
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi Michel, > > I know Michel thought I was kidding her... > ... > > Dave > > Even worse than I thought. Dave when the MIW come don't forget mentioning > you talked with a female Vo :))) > > Michel What are you trying to say, that you are as crazy as I am? I doubt it! My life is so bizarre even I have to question my own sanity. ;-) Dave
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
> I know Michel thought I was kidding her... ... > Dave Even worse than I thought. Dave when the MIW come don't forget mentioning you talked with a female Vo :))) Michel
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi John, Building a nanomachine or a space elevator is hardly near the scale of changing the Earths climate. In case you are not aware, volcanism and seismicity have been increasing steadily in the past 6 years. There are many volcanoes that have not erupted for over 10,000 years, which are just now erupting again. In the past year, there have been three M6 earthquakes in the Gulf of Mexico, an M7+ quake in Mozambique, and the Ethiopian rift zone spread by dozens of feet right before the eyes of scientists, just to name a few major Earth change events. You have little appreciation for the magnitude of momentum Earth changes carry. The climate is just one factor of many, which are interrelated, and it all traces back to the Sun. However, there is a new wildcard in play. Our solar system just entered an Interstellar cloud about nine years ago and we wont be leaving it for 10,000 to 50,000 years. Contrary to the myths purveyed by Al Gore and the IPCC, the climate is not just a matter of CO2 balance. People who buy into this great deception are incredibly naïve and ignorant. The current global warming debate appears to be some kind of intentional misinformation campaign to divert peoples attention from the real underlying mechanics presently in motion. There is nothing we can do to stop the present cycle of change, but we can prepare for the damage that will occur. Not everybody will survive, that is a given. Wasting our money and resources trying to bail out a sinking ship with a teaspoon is not the solution. We should be staffing the life rafts and gathering our provisions. To keep the ship from rolling over we might increase survivability by blowing the hull. We could take a lesson from Noah, who was one of the few who understood the severity of the problem, last time. There is no point in arguing when everyone is so certain his or her own knowledge is complete. I have presented a lot of very interesting information on the Terracycles site for anyone who is interested. I have learned loads more in the five years since. Im spending my time doing what I can to prepare, not only for myself, but for future generations. If you want to waste your time trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when they should be increased, that is up to you. BTW, why do you think our society has developed into a huge fossil fuel consuming civilization when liquid metal fast breeder reactors have been around since the 1940s? Why do you think all those energy saving and free energy inventions have been suppressed over the past 100 years? Why do you think the UFO phenomenon is always debunked, even when there is obvious photographic and physical evidence of its existence? People (or beings) far more influential than us have been aware of the coming Earth changes for a long time. We are mere cows on a huge farm concerned about who poops where while our overlords are looking at our market value. Just take a deep breath and reflect on the greater picture. We cant change the fact that the Earth is changing, but we can keep the human species alive if we put our minds to it. Dave Make an elevator to geosynchronous (I assume?) orbit. Make nano machines Both of those may even be near future. For the somewhat more distant future there are thoughts such a traveling to distant stars and beyond. Dyson spheres. Tippler time travel by rotating a stack of neutron stars and other stellar engineering. And of course terraforming other planets. So obviously it IS possible, it is within man's grasp to either correct the current greenhouse gas problem and or stop any adverse global weather condition. How easy or difficult depends on how such a goal is achieved, how subtle and sophisticated or ingenious the techniques used are, for instance I believe in cloud busting and other such environmental engineering by the subtle energies of nature that I suspect many in here would reject, needless to say it could be achieved more easily this way than by a brute force method but either way it plainly IS possible. On 2/17/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi John, > Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Obviously it cannot be stopped. It has already happened a dozen times in the past 120,000 years. What makes you think we are special and climate change was not going to happen to us? Dave
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Human achievements are significant. Ultimately almost anything is possible, some things man has envisioned doing in the future: Make an elevator to geosynchronous (I assume?) orbit. Make nano machines Both of those may even be near future. For the somewhat more distant future there are thoughts such a traveling to distant stars and beyond. Dyson spheres. Tippler time travel by rotating a stack of neutron stars and other stellar engineering. And of course terraforming other planets. So obviously it IS possible, it is within man's grasp to either correct the current greenhouse gas problem and or stop any adverse global weather condition. How easy or difficult depends on how such a goal is achieved, how subtle and sophisticated or ingenious the techniques used are, for instance I believe in cloud busting and other such environmental engineering by the subtle energies of nature that I suspect many in here would reject, needless to say it could be achieved more easily this way than by a brute force method but either way it plainly IS possible. On 2/17/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi John, > Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Obviously it cannot be stopped. It has already happened a dozen times in the past 120,000 years. What makes you think we are special and climate change was not going to happen to us? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi John, > Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Obviously it cannot be stopped. It has already happened a dozen times in the past 120,000 years. What makes you think we are special and climate change was not going to happen to us? Dave
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
On 2/17/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your position, like that dangerous > lunatic > Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus "Dirty Harry" who "felt > lucky" and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum... No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this debate. Instead of looking only at the present time I beg to differ. You don't know for a fact that it will lead to what you envision, nor do you know if the consequences will be worth it to human, animal or vegetable. (mineral should be fine ;) What species won't survive the violent changes? Which ones won't survive their new environment? And you are proposing to help the earth by massive pollution! Also there is the very real possibility that in all those millions of years something has changed and the earth can't be reset. There is a fringe theory that says that there used to be a canopy or rings of water/ice that caused the floods (on coming down) which are universally present in pretty much all peoples history. (Atlantis, Genesis as well as most/all native legends and even some assorted scientific oddities) So all things considered I don't think you can really be assured it even could work if it is desirable which it is most likely not. , I'm looking ahead at multiple generations of humans. If we don't start focusing heavily on survival, future generations simply will not survive. Climate change is inevitable That's a theory not a fact. , and it would occur whether humans tried bringing the carbon back into the biosphere, or not. Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Granted if it was naturally going to happen it might take some significant intervention, but it is possible to reverse it not that we know that it's going to happen anyway.
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi Nick, > E, Dave, that may be true but getting from where we are now to that > "paradise" involves going through a probably horrendous series of probably > violent climate instabilities. Billions of people would die, millions of > species would be wiped out. There is no two ways about it, you are absolutely correct. That is why our efforts should be spent on survival, not slowing down the process. > Prove that it will be a gentle transition and people may listen. No chance! There is not going to be a gentle transition. Our options right now are to go through a complete climate reversal (ice advance), or a complete terraforming of the Earth. Our sights should be set on future generations. It is very selfish of us to think only of our own unfortunate situation and not help prevent future generations from sliding back into a primitive state. > Sheer cold logic says that you cannot prove this so > please stop muddying the waters. Your position, like that dangerous > lunatic > Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus "Dirty Harry" who "felt > lucky" and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum... No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this debate. Instead of looking only at the present time, I'm looking ahead at multiple generations of humans. If we don't start focusing heavily on survival, future generations simply will not survive. Climate change is inevitable, and it would occur whether humans tried bringing the carbon back into the biosphere, or not. I have researched climate change for the past decade and started a web site on my observations at www.terracycles.com. My climate research came to a halt when I discovered a completely new physics paradigm, which could greatly advance the human species and our level of technology. I know Michel thought I was kidding her about building a wireless power transmission system. She probably also did not recognize the vehicle in the space-time bubble as the "flying triangle" vehicle reported by so many people and seen by myself from only 100 feet away. I have spent my whole life doing independent research in many areas of knowledge. Trust me, the best way to deal with climate change is to go through it head first and return the Earth back to its stable condition. Yes, it will be very painful, but it is inevitable. We tend to look back on civilization 5000 years ago and say, "what primitive people they were, glad I'm living in modern technology." And these same people say, "Wow, those primitive slaves really had it in them to carry huge stone blocks with ropes and logs to build those pyramids." Even though it is obvious from the weathering on the Sphinx that it existed previous to the last global climate change event, we are still in denial that humanity was once advanced to our present level, if not more advanced. It is likely that civilization has advanced several times in the past 100,000 years, and has been wiped out each time. My desire is to see an end to this cycle so that humans can have a chance to evolve into a truly intelligent species. Far from muddying the waters, I'm trying to clear them up so we can see what is really going on. I'm also looking ahead and acting on behalf of all those unborn survivors who will only hear stories about the great civilization that fell due to climate change. Some may wonder why our forbearers did not think as much about our own safety, but here we are with the potential to help future generations. Whining about the coming disasters and shutting down our economy out of fear is not going to help our children. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
David Thomson wrote:-> E, Dave, that may be true but getting from where we are now to that "paradise" involves going through a probably horrendous series of probably violent climate instabilities. Billions of people would die, millions of species would be wiped out. Prove that it will be a gentle transition and people may listen. Sheer cold logic says that you cannot prove this so please stop muddying the waters. Your position, like that dangerous lunatic Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus "Dirty Harry" who "felt lucky" and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum... Nick Palmer
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
I don't see what need there is to take the carbon out of the air. We spent 150 years of hard work getting all that sequestered carbon back into the biosphere. Don't these people realize the climate of the Earth was most stable during the time of the dinosaurs? Our planet went for hundreds of millions of years with no ice ages and there was 1000 times more biomatter in the biosystem than there is today with 1000s more species. If people want to take the carbon back out, all they need to do is send another comet into Earth's atmosphere. If I had my way, we would double carbon production in hopes of putting a permanent end to the present Ice Age. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Mmm, growing the algae without harvesting them _could_ be sufficient (pending calculations), but only for a one off operation: present excess CO2 sequestered into the living algae biomass increase, period. Could win the prize though. What surprises me most with this scheme is that one should need to bring fertilizers into the oceans, which already contain all the minerals you can dream of in amply sufficient concentrations. The increased growth action of the dust, if confirmed, might not be one of fertilization, maybe it increases photosynthesis by reflecting/diffusing the sunlight rather. Anyway, back to the harvesting hypothesis, whether or not we can stimulate growth one way or another. I have an idea for that, it's a bit... well here it is anyway. Highly efficient phytoplankton harvesters + phytoplankton -to-oil converters already exist actually, they are called whales :))) I guess you see what I am coming to: instead of harvesting the algae ourselves we would heavily repopulate the oceans with herds of whales (porn movies -or audio clips rather- featuring actors of the right species like they successfully use to repopulate pandas in China??), the whales would harvest the algae and process them into whale oil, and then we would harvest the whales and sequester the oil, plus use some of it as fuel. Sounds awful and cruel I realize (reminds me of that whale briefly brought into existence together with the petunia pot in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was that in the film Fred?), but... if our own survival is at stake, well... your thoughts welcome :) Michel - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC > Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has "borrowed" the > (unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John Martin, who > was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former director of: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories > > ... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin at > some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win or share > in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel from Martin's > Moss Landing team are the same in any event. > > Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. Before > getting too enamored with the implications of those successful iron > fertilization experiments - which have been in the public record for 16 > years - one must face several caveats. > http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27 > > Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of > lessening the impact of global warming by increasing algae growth, and > CO2 uptake, the scientific evidence is incomplete and suggests there may > be unintended consequences, especially at the scale necessary for global > change. Of course if the Algae were harvested as an oil substitute - > then that would probably help immensely, but just growing it without > harvesting as R George is proposing - is not sufficient. > > Methane BTW is a far more worrisome threat than CO2, being twenty times > more potent as a greenhouse gas and the Arctic (vast areas of Siberia > Canada, Alaska) is now releasing much more of it than anyone ever > thought possible - so perhaps that gas should be addressed first - big > prize or not. > > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: >> Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from >> Tom Valone: >> >> www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has "borrowed" the (unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John Martin, who was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former director of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories ... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin at some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win or share in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel from Martin's Moss Landing team are the same in any event. Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. Before getting too enamored with the implications of those successful iron fertilization experiments - which have been in the public record for 16 years - one must face several caveats. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27 Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of lessening the impact of global warming by increasing algae growth, and CO2 uptake, the scientific evidence is incomplete and suggests there may be unintended consequences, especially at the scale necessary for global change. Of course if the Algae were harvested as an oil substitute - then that would probably help immensely, but just growing it without harvesting as R George is proposing - is not sufficient. Methane BTW is a far more worrisome threat than CO2, being twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas and the Arctic (vast areas of Siberia Canada, Alaska) is now releasing much more of it than anyone ever thought possible - so perhaps that gas should be addressed first - big prize or not. Jed Rothwell wrote: Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from Tom Valone: www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv - Jed
[Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from Tom Valone: www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv - Jed
