Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jacobus

  1. On 9/16/2021 at 6:53 PM, Shijune said:

    So I've been thinking a lot about how we can help fix and stop climate change and one thing came to mind... I remember watching a documentary about the history of earth from the start and hearing that a bacteria is what produced the air we breathed today and it is estimated that it contributes to 50-80% of that.

    After realizing this is a huge amount i was wondering... is it possible to genetically modify the Phytoplankton to be exact to produce more oxygen or do make them reproduce faster? if we can get them to produce faster... would this be able to stop global warming? (This would also need more trees and less carbon emissions as well). Let me know I've been super interested in this subject recently.

    please no hate just an idea.

    Hello. I completely agree with the use of bacterium for metabolizing Co2 and methane. I found its use unavoidable and imperative at industrial scale. However any genetic modification in my consideration could get out of control and to backfires us due to the prosaic goal to find patentable versions, for charging accordingly to the governments are paying the bills. Our world is full of genetic disasters are being diseminated around for just few fake buggs, or dollars. Regards.

  2. On 3/22/2021 at 12:28 PM, Cheyennegregory said:

    I realized this a few years ago. This is my theory although I am 100% certain it is not a theory but fact however this is science and without hard evidence it is still theory.

    There are many theories about how this can occur and the most popular is the theory involving slight variations in earths orbit around the sun but this is just bad science and after you read this you will understand why. 

    When earth is healthy with little negative influence from mankind earths forests thrive. When this occurs  the air becomes rich with oxygen and very little carbon causing too much of the suns heat to escape as there is not enough carbon in the atmosphere to trap the heat. This cooling effect slows evaporation which Decreases the amount of rain in the atmosphere and as this happens fresh water sources at a lower and lower latitude freeze and majority of the moisture is out of the atmosphere. This is when the ice age starts. During the ice age The northern forests die and anywhere else the ground remains frozen for an extended period of time. I do not know one thing though which is how far south this ice cover extends it must very from ice age to ice age. This was why an ice age occurs. 100%

    Now my theory on how earth recovers from an ice age. 

    An ice age does not mean that the entire planet is covered in I believe. My belief and many’s belief is that the equator remains ice-free however may  experience snow and freezing rain frequently. You see Mother Nature is constantly creating balance and in a perfect world with zero negative influence from mankind she knows exactly which forests need rain, which forests need to burn and any other occurrence that needs to happen. this Is important because along the equator there has to be wildfires so that the earth can get warm again. And maybe I’m wrong about variations in earths orbit not causing an ice age. Perhaps these variation in conjunction with a thriving planet is what is needed to start the ice age. 





    Hello friend. 

    In my consideration there must be several factors helping to it. However I strongly considered there could happen due to a surfaces drifting. That gets triggered by those oscillations linked to the movements of precesion and nutation. Once those coincided into an extreme inclination of the globe, this could start the Earth Surface drifting, by gradually melting the ice caps due to their new position regarding the Sun. I made a book is talking a bit about it for exposing my speculation. You will find it at General Philosopy section "Book of philosophy." I hope you will have the time for enjoying it. Kind regards.

  3. On 9/7/2021 at 5:51 PM, Doogles31731 said:

    I’m having trouble deciding where to start in this Climate Change thread. I’m not a climate scientist, so I can only make comments to some extent on the broad picture. I’m not a member of any group, and any thoughts I present are the results of my own research on aspects of the claims.

    As distinct from the general thrusts of arguments to date, I’m pleased to say that the IPCC appears to be becoming more conservative about the average global near surface temperatures. It’s a huge change from the ‘Mann hocker stick” and ‘Al Gore’ alarmist days.

    The 2021 Report Summary relating to temperatures is contained in Section A.1.1, which says, in part, -- Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84- 1.10] °C higher than 1850-1900 . Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011– 2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C).”

    Has anyone asked the question as to whether we would be better off globally if our temperature was a couple of degrees warmer? Apparently somebody has, because a paper published in Lancet this year --  Zao et al (2021; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext) -- came up with this conclusion -- Globally, 5083173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 40879675965520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·5811·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related). “ This means of course that we have 9 times less deaths related to hot weather than we do from cold weather. Such a positive outcome has to be balanced of course with the claimed disadvantages of the overall small average increase in global near surface temperatures.

    The proponents of climate catastrophe claim that the adverse effects of warming are obvious -- rising sea levels, loss of glaciers and sea ice around the poles, polar bears dying off, coral reefs dying, more severe cyclones, wildfires etc. I’ve had a look at some of these claims, and I find  them questionable.

    For example, forest fires don’t appear to have been too unusual in Russia during the last 750 years -- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379111000655 and polar bears are increasing in numbers -- https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/. Severe cyclones are NOT more frequent in Australia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_region_tropical_cyclone -- Severe Tropical Cyclones frequencies recorded were -- 76, 67, 65, 41, 38 in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s respectively. The figures for Hurricanes in the USA do not show any significant difference statistically on a decadal basis -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes.

    Would less ice in the Arctic facilitate shipping and trade from a 'North West' passage?

    Does anyone else check these claims?

    I’ll leave it there for now, rather than make the post too long.


    Hello, In my consideration the situation is terrible. The last two consecutive summer Sibera has been burning hard, due to our atmosphere wavering. That's letting Yakutia outside the Arctic atmosphere coverage for too long and it consequently dries until burns. The biggest isue there is due to its temperature the fire is melting the permafrost and all inland methane is getting release, for feedback the fire due to its combustibility until all oxidized, for getting Co2. In my consideration is quite probable the next year could get release the overseas methane from the Russian shallow waters. That as we could understand not will burn, until it atmospheric accumulation gets so high than something like a thunder could suddenly oxidized all.  Kind regardsfrom Port Orli Vanuatu.

  4. Hello everybody, I'm new here. My name is Santiago. I pass the last four years exclusively working in my book of philosophy. I did this due to our global situation as species. I think, it was the best I could do with my time for trying to avoid our extinction. My book is basis on the classic of religion and philosophy. In fact is working out a linkage between the Republic and the Revelation, for me those are almost the same, despite their styles are completely different. My intention was to try to find a social model than permits us to keep existing and to reach a better level of civilization. The book touches all things related to civilization, from energy production and consumption, politics, urbanism, economics, religion, space, science and so forth... I hope you will enjoy it, like I enjoyed it. In case you like it, then don't hesitate to share it with everybody and to keep developing it by you own. I think, we need it. Nevertheless from now one, you have me here for debating any of my ideas in case you will consider, it worth to do so. I let you the link here for you can downloaded my book. Size 5.9m due to a series of folio on it.

    Kindregards from Port Orli Vanuatu.


    commercial link removed by moderator perr Rule 2.7

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.