Houston-area school board votes to remove 13 chapters from state-approved science textbooks, citing controversial topics

[BCP1928]

So the company's unwillingness to cover those types of risk are because of the regulations by the State?

Right. The risk of extreme damage due to weather events is increasing. State insurance regulators are unwilling to let rates rise enough to cover the increased risk. So, the insurance companies stop selling insurance. Surely, you wouldn't have them forced to continue selling insurance at a loss, would you?

 

[rambot]

The temperature of the bottle that had CO2 introduced into it rose higher than the one that did not have CO2.

Exactly.
Now, my next question would be:

Do you expect CO2 molecules to behave differently depending on where they are located or do you expect those molecules to behave differently outside the bottle?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Right. The risk of extreme damage due to weather events is increasing. State insurance regulators are unwilling to let rates rise enough to cover the increased risk. So, the insurance companies stop selling insurance. Surely, you wouldn't have them forced to continue selling insurance at a loss, would you?

I never suggested that they should.

Thank you for your informed input.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Exactly.
Now, my next question would be:

Do you expect CO2 molecules to behave differently depending on where they are located or do you expect those molecules to behave differently outside the bottle?

No - I do not believe the behavior of those CO2 molecules would change outside of the bottle.

 

[Paulos23]

So the company's unwillingness to cover those types of risk are because of the regulations by the State?

Sort of. Even if the insurance company could charge what is needed to cover losses, it may be to high for people to afford.

We are entering a high risk period in many parts of the county that will become the norm for many risks and people need to adjust so the risk becomes less. There is only so much collective insurance can do.

If people decide to stay in a floodplain instead of moving or put up a dam around their house, should you expect to be covered? I think the same is going to happen with being in a forest in a dry area, hurricane zone, etc

 

[rambot]

No - I do not believe the behavior of those CO2 molecules would change outside of the bottle.

Perfect. So now we have established that CO2 molecules have the ability to hold infrared energy. Agreed?

If we are agreed, I would then ask: Are you familiar with things in nature like the rock cycle, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Sort of. Even if the insurance company could charge what is needed to cover losses, it may be to high for people to afford.

We are entering a high risk period in many parts of the county that will become the norm for many risks and people need to adjust so the risk becomes less. There is only so much collective insurance can do.

If people decide to stay in a floodplain instead of moving or put up a dam around their house, should you expect to be covered? I think the same is going to happen with being in a forest in a dry area, hurricane zone, etc

I can see that. There are many things we could do to mitigate potential damage - but not everyone agrees on what to do.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Perfect. So now we have established that CO2 molecules have the ability to hold infrared energy. Agreed?

If we are agreed, I would then ask: Are you familiar with things in nature like the rock cycle, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle?

Yes - those things that were not present in the plastic bottle.

 

[rambot]

Yes - those things that were not present in the plastic bottle.

Yes but are you are you aware of how cycles act in Nature, the roll that cyles play in nature, and the fantastic implications of the natural world living with those cycles?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Yes but are you are you aware of how cycles act in Nature, the roll that cyles play in nature, and the fantastic implications of the natural world living with those cycles?

I know somewhat of their functions and how important they are.

How would they have affected the experiment in the bottle?

 

[rambot]

I know somewhat of their functions and how important they are.

How would they have affected the experiment in the bottle?

It wouldn't.

Honestly though, the cyclical nature of so many attributes of nature is what makes God's creation so uttery astounding to me. What's amazing about it is the balance that cycles allow. In addition, they also create a system that has a tiny bit in resilience though they are still delicate. It can manage SMALL tweets and ruffles and then can "absorb abberations" them back into the cycle.

These cycles work as they have been for (likely, in some way) billions of years. And the stability of that cycle is dependent, on managing impacts onto the cycle. Yes, there is resilience built into the system, but that does not mean the system cannot be affected by outside sources.

For example, what do you think may happen if suddenly the amount of water on earth increased by 60%. That would have, beyond a catastrophic impact, on the planet. But what about just adding 10% more water? What kinds of impacts would happen from that? Well it doesn't sound like much but that is 1/2 the volume of the Indian ocean...so yeah, that probably would have some impacts.


Are you with me so far? Any questions about my main point (cycles promote balance but are still delicate and any change will have SOME effect on that cycle)

 

[Zaha Torte]

It wouldn't.

Honestly though, the cyclical nature of so many attributes of nature is what makes God's creation so uttery astounding to me. What's amazing about it is the balance that cycles allow. In addition, they also create a system that has a tiny bit in resilience though they are still delicate. It can manage SMALL tweets and ruffles and then can "absorb abberations" them back into the cycle.

These cycles work as they have been for (likely, in some way) billions of years. And the stability of that cycle is dependent, on managing impacts onto the cycle. Yes, there is resilience built into the system, but that does not mean the system cannot be affected by outside sources.

For example, what do you think may happen if suddenly the amount of water on earth increased by 60%. That would have, beyond a catastrophic impact, on the planet. But what about just adding 10% more water? What kinds of impacts would happen from that? Well it doesn't sound like much but that is 1/2 the volume of the Indian ocean...so yeah, that probably would have some impacts.


Are you with me so far? Any questions about my main point (cycles promote balance but are still delicate and any change will have SOME effect on that cycle)

I'm with you.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm with you.

Consensus is a tricky thing. You can't get countries to agree on anything. Capitalism or communism. Freedom of rights or restrictions of the same. Interventionist or isolationist. Suni or Shia. Christian or secular. Muslim or Hindu. Women's rights or women's subjugation. The coalition of the willing or the axis of evil. Countries have literally gone to war over a football game. So yeah, consensus eh? Slippery little customer. Fat chance of getting anything anywhere near it. Well...with one exception.

The Paris Accord, which was an agreement that recognised gobal warming and set targets for combating it, was signed by every country on the planet (bar three: Libya, Yemen and Iran. I'll note that somebody in a position to do so extricated you guys from it a while back, but the guy who took his place immediately signed you back in).

That sort of consensus where you have North Korea agreeing with South Korea, where you have Israel agreeing with Saudi Arabia, where you have the US agreeing with China and Russia agreeing with Ukraine...well, that must surely give you pause for thought. Surely, that degree of consensus must make you think 'Hmm, maybe I should take another look at this.'

No? Or maybe your level of expertise on the matter is such that you can dismiss all the experts in all the countries on the planet. No, of course it isn't. So let me suggest that you allow people who are worried about the type of world their children and grand children will inherit give you all the information you need to make an educated decision.

 

[Valletta]

Perfect. So now we have established that CO2 molecules have the ability to hold infrared energy. Agreed?

If we are agreed, I would then ask: Are you familiar with things in nature like the rock cycle, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle?

I'm familiar with the bicycle.

 

[BCP1928]

Consensus is a tricky thing. You can't get countries to agree on anything. Capitalism or communism. Freedom of rights or restrictions of the same. Interventionist or isolationist. Suni or Shia. Christian or secular. Muslim or Hindu. Women's rights or women's subjugation. The coalition of the willing or the axis of evil. Countries have literally gone to war over a football game. So yeah, consensus eh? Slippery little customer. Fat chance of getting anything anywhere near it. Well...with one exception.

The Paris Accord, which was an agreement that recognised gobal warming and set targets for combating it, was signed by every country on the planet (bar three: Libya, Yemen and Iran. I'll note that somebody in a position to do so extricated you guys from it a while back, but the guy who took his place immediately signed you back in).

That sort of consensus where you have North Korea agreeing with South Korea, where you have Israel agreeing with Saudi Arabia, where you have the US agreeing with China and Russia agreeing with Ukraine...well, that must surely give you pause for thought. Surely, that degree of consensus must make you think 'Hmm, maybe I should take another look at this.'

No? Or maybe your level of expertise on the matter is such that you can dismiss all the experts in all the countries on the planet. No, of course it isn't. So let me suggest that you allow people who are worried about the type of world their children and grand children will inherit give you all the information you need to make an educated decision.

A consensus based on a hoax to act as a slippery slope leading to one world government, I think is the MAGA reasoning. And we know that there is no greater threat to a Christian America than one world government. (except maybe drag queens reading to children)

 

[Zaha Torte]

Consensus is a tricky thing. You can't get countries to agree on anything. Capitalism or communism. Freedom of rights or restrictions of the same. Interventionist or isolationist. Suni or Shia. Christian or secular. Muslim or Hindu. Women's rights or women's subjugation. The coalition of the willing or the axis of evil. Countries have literally gone to war over a football game. So yeah, consensus eh? Slippery little customer. Fat chance of getting anything anywhere near it. Well...with one exception.

The Paris Accord, which was an agreement that recognised gobal warming and set targets for combating it, was signed by every country on the planet (bar three: Libya, Yemen and Iran. I'll note that somebody in a position to do so extricated you guys from it a while back, but the guy who took his place immediately signed you back in).

That sort of consensus where you have North Korea agreeing with South Korea, where you have Israel agreeing with Saudi Arabia, where you have the US agreeing with China and Russia agreeing with Ukraine...well, that must surely give you pause for thought. Surely, that degree of consensus must make you think 'Hmm, maybe I should take another look at this.'

No? Or maybe your level of expertise on the matter is such that you can dismiss all the experts in all the countries on the planet. No, of course it isn't. So let me suggest that you allow people who are worried about the type of world their children and grand children will inherit give you all the information you need to make an educated decision.

I don't give that Accord much credence because every country sets their own standards and there are no methods of enforcement.

Basically - it does not require the biggest polluters to really do anything.

Coming to an agreement on some "imminent threat" that requires no action is not convincing to me at all.

If the biggest advocates of climate change being an "imminent threat" are the same people who own and fly all the private jets, own and sail all the yachts, own and drive the most gas-guzzling vehicles - and are buying up all the beach-front properties - color me skeptical.

 

[rambot]

I'm with you.

Ok cool. Now I wanna pull our focus into the carbon cycle for a minute. In lieu of explaining each of the process, I'll show you a diagram that explains it pretty well.
And to clarify, it's NOT the "CO2 cycle"...just carbon.

So to be clear, this is a BIT of a skematic, but it shows how a molecule of carbon is not something that just sits there in one form. It moves through a whole system accomplishing several tasks and binding with different other molecules in those processes.

What I would bring your attention to, is the bottom of the chart where it says "dead organisms and waste products" (and of course what's underneath). Assuming you're not a YEC, we can continue with the idea that, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, the dead and decaying organisms in certain parts of the world, managed to, with just the right amounts of time, pressure and heat, convert swampland, brush, and dead animals and plants into the fossil fuels we see below the surface.

Now you'll note that the "Dead organisms" section of the cycle has an arrow moving AWAY from it as well. Because you know if you have a compost pile, your decaying plant material is losing carbon both through the air, and as food for micro and macroorganisms, and is being leached back into the soil (or, of course, purposefully distributed within your compost, to other parts of your soil).

Anyways, you note that our current "dead organisms" are part of the cycle. In fact, the cycle is pretty much closed. You'll note that you COULD take the human made source from this diagram and the cycle would still function normally. But you'll also note that, fossils just sitting under the surface of the planet are not a part of the cycle. They are just sitting there. Doing nothing.

What that means is the planet has had a natural "bank" or storage area for MASSIVE amounts of carbon. Over hundreds of millions of years, carbon was being sequestered underground. In fact, it was, very very slowly, being removed from that carbon cycle on the surface. This carbon was and is being stored as the fossils fuels you are more than aware of.

I'm hoping this is all making sense so far.

Now the question is:

Are you aware of how much carbon (or carbon dioxide) have humans released since the mid 18th century when urbanization, industrialization and coal burning began to pick up?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Ok cool. Now I wanna pull our focus into the carbon cycle for a minute. In lieu of explaining each of the process, I'll show you a diagram that explains it pretty well.
And to clarify, it's NOT the "CO2 cycle"...just carbon.

View attachment 347964



So to be clear, this is a BIT of a skematic, but it shows how a molecule of carbon is not something that just sits there in one form. It moves through a whole system accomplishing several tasks and binding with different other molecules in those processes.

What I would bring your attention to, is the bottom of the chart where it says "dead organisms and waste products" (and of course what's underneath). Assuming you're not a YEC, we can continue with the idea that, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, the dead and decaying organisms in certain parts of the world, managed to, with just the right amounts of time, pressure and heat, convert swampland, brush, and dead animals and plants into the fossil fuels we see below the surface.

Now you'll note that the "Dead organisms" section of the cycle has an arrow moving AWAY from it as well. Because you know if you have a compost pile, your decaying plant material is losing carbon both through the air, and as food for micro and macroorganisms, and is being leached back into the soil (or, of course, purposefully distributed within your compost, to other parts of your soil).

Anyways, you note that our current "dead organisms" are part of the cycle. In fact, the cycle is pretty much closed. You'll note that you COULD take the human made source from this diagram and the cycle would still function normally. But you'll also note that, fossils just sitting under the surface of the planet are not a part of the cycle. They are just sitting there. Doing nothing.

What that means is the planet has had a natural "bank" or storage area for MASSIVE amounts of carbon. Over hundreds of millions of years, carbon was being sequestered underground. In fact, it was, very very slowly, being removed from that carbon cycle on the surface. This carbon was and is being stored as the fossils fuels you are more than aware of.

I'm hoping this is all making sense so far.

Now the question is:

Are you aware of how much carbon (or carbon dioxide) have humans released since the mid 18th century when urbanization, industrialization and coal burning began to pick up?

I assume that it would be alot.

 

[rambot]

I assume that it would be alot.

Since about 1750, the calculated amount is 1,500,000,000,000metric tonnes (1.5 trillion). And as I understand it, one kilogram of CO2 is the the volume equivalent of a 1mx1mx1m beach ball size

Of course there are absolutely miniscule fluctuations of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because, of course, that CO2 is constantly getting taken in by trees and plankton AND getting released from animals and decaying matter. But the due general natural cycle, the system can EASILY remain stable. The cyclical nature allows those miniscule fluctuations to be easily managed.

Now if you look throughout the history of the world, you will find that there were outrageously higher levels of co2 in our atmosphere.... like 15-20x what we see now. And for some, they take that as proof that "we'll be fine" (more on that later). However, it is important to note that the state of the world then was very, very different. Like, incomparably different. How so? Well, vegetation had not yet evolved on terrestrial earth and the only living things were all under water. A planet devoid of a HUGE mechanism for getting rid of CO2 is not an reasonable comparison to today's environment. What's interesting is that plants started to evolve on the surface but it still took millions of years for co2 levels to come CLOSE to what we know today.

But I want to address fluctuations and variations with a cycle. In addition to those high levels, we can find MASSIVE fluctuations in CO2 found in the atmosphere. These fluctuations have different sources but one thing that they tend to have in common (unless it was caused by a catastrophic event like an asteroid or something), is the length of time these changes occurred on. These changes and shifts occurred of tens of millions of years. To demonstrate these very very very LONG term changes, we can see the affect that cycles have in a short term.

Manu Lau is a very famous weather station stuck on top of a mountain in Hawaii far away from development. It has been tracking co2 in the atmosphere for the past few decades...what is interesting is what the co2 increase looks like:

Notice how the red line increases and decreases EVEN WHILE the trend line goes up. This is because of a fascinating quirk of our planet. You'd note (if you look at a map) that the VAST majority of our earth's terrestrial landscape is in the northern hemisphere. And of course, tied to that would be that massive amount of vegetation that would be able to take co2 out of the atmosphere and create o2. And so, when the north side of the planet is in summer, the co2 levels are low and, conversely, when the north is in winter there is less vegetable to remove co2. So you see that, even though there is variability, the planet's systems correct themselves: a beautiful balance. At least in a way.

Until you see our trend line. You can see that each year, the top arch of the red line is a TINY bit higher. It's ppm so those changes are quite small. But the important thing to note is that there IS an increase each year.


Still with me? Any questions? Anything you have a problem with?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Since about 1750, the calculated amount is 1,500,000,000,000metric tonnes (1.5 trillion). And as I understand it, one kilogram of CO2 is the the volume equivalent of a 1mx1mx1m beach ball size

Of course there are absolutely miniscule fluctuations of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because, of course, that CO2 is constantly getting taken in by trees and plankton AND getting released from animals and decaying matter. But the due general natural cycle, the system can EASILY remain stable. The cyclical nature allows those miniscule fluctuations to be easily managed.

Now if you look throughout the history of the world, you will find that there were outrageously higher levels of co2 in our atmosphere.... like 15-20x what we see now. And for some, they take that as proof that "we'll be fine" (more on that later). However, it is important to note that the state of the world then was very, very different. Like, incomparably different. How so? Well, vegetation had not yet evolved on terrestrial earth and the only living things were all under water. A planet devoid of a HUGE mechanism for getting rid of CO2 is not an reasonable comparison to today's environment. What's interesting is that plants started to evolve on the surface but it still took millions of years for co2 levels to come CLOSE to what we know today.

But I want to address fluctuations and variations with a cycle. In addition to those high levels, we can find MASSIVE fluctuations in CO2 found in the atmosphere. These fluctuations have different sources but one thing that they tend to have in common (unless it was caused by a catastrophic event like an asteroid or something), is the length of time these changes occurred on. These changes and shifts occurred of tens of millions of years. To demonstrate these very very very LONG term changes, we can see the affect that cycles have in a short term.

Manu Lau is a very famous weather station stuck on top of a mountain in Hawaii far away from development. It has been tracking co2 in the atmosphere for the past few decades...what is interesting is what the co2 increase looks like:
View attachment 347967

Notice how the red line increases and decreases EVEN WHILE the trend line goes up. This is because of a fascinating quirk of our planet. You'd note (if you look at a map) that the VAST majority of our earth's terrestrial landscape is in the northern hemisphere. And of course, tied to that would be that massive amount of vegetation that would be able to take co2 out of the atmosphere and create o2. And so, when the north side of the planet is in summer, the co2 levels are low and, conversely, when the north is in winter there is less vegetable to remove co2. So you see that, even though there is variability, the planet's systems correct themselves: a beautiful balance. At least in a way.

Until you see our trend line. You can see that each year, the top arch of the red line is a TINY bit higher. It's ppm so those changes are quite small. But the important thing to note is that there IS an increase each year.


Still with me? Any questions? Anything you have a problem with?

I am with you. You have been very clear. Please continue.