Remember me
▼ Content

Can climate change be stopped and should it be stopped



Page 2 of 3<123>
11-12-2019 15:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Maybe you misread that last post. It was saying not to use corn and wood for energy.


No, you said corn and wood were not enough.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 15:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
When you suggested that plants get O2 from water, does that meant that plants can split the O2 out of water?[quote]
Yes.
[quote]keepit wrote:
I'm not a chemist but it seems that it would be easier for plants to split O2 from a carbon atom than to split 2 O@'s from 4 Hydrogen atoms. Nature is pretty efficient.
[quote]
It's not about being easier or efficient.
























/



The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 16:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
ITN, The literature i read says that trees are better carbon sinks than grass.


What literature? Fast growing plants are better carbon sinks.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 16:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
Just guessing here but if you took a carbon from CO2 in the air and gave it to water from the ground to make a carbohydrate that would be easier than splitting H off from water. Just guessing.


You are guessing. CO2 contains no hydrogen.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 16:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
Just guessing here but if you took a carbon from CO2 in the air and gave it to water from the ground to make a carbohydrate that would be easier than splitting H off from water. Just guessing.
Yeah bio-fuels are of course very viable. If oil goes over $100 an barrel it's starts be a cheaper alternative.

I always think it's odd though when converting land into energy farms is viewed as "environmental", I mean solar farms are pretty ugly. I guess the greenery of bio-fuel farming is preferable.


You are confusing the value of the dollar again as a constant.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 20:43
keepit
★★★☆☆
(969)
ITN,
You misread my post. I wasn't suggesting CO2 has hydrogen.
Good grief man.

I don't think anyone here is confusing the value of the dollar as a constant.
Edited on 11-12-2019 20:45
11-12-2019 20:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(969)
ITN,
You misinterpret more things than you get right.
11-12-2019 23:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You misread my post. I wasn't suggesting CO2 has hydrogen.

Yes you did.
keepit wrote:
Good grief man.

Apparently you can't keep track of what you write.
keepit wrote:
I don't think anyone here is confusing the value of the dollar as a constant.

You did.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 23:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You misinterpret more things than you get right.


Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2019 00:06
keepit
★★★☆☆
(969)
You're a waste of time ITN. None of the stuff you said is true.

For example, do you actually believe that i think there is Hydrogen in CO2? Your statement about that is YOU!
Edited on 12-12-2019 00:08
12-12-2019 00:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1602)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Gas,
Since growing them takes CO2 out of the air, it is good to grow them because it delays the CO2 increase. The trouble is you can grow much wood in 10 years. You can get a lot of trees started but they won't amount to much for a longer time than 10 years.


Use grass. It's more effective than a tree anyway.


Yeah, but people smoke grass, and getting more popular since legalization in many areas.

Trees would do better, if people quit cutting them down for Christmas decorations. Fairly certain those trees aren't ten years old... So what if they die and rot, there are always new trees. They all don't die and rot at the same time, except maybe in California.
12-12-2019 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
You're a waste of time ITN. None of the stuff you said is true.

Bulverism fallacy.
keepit wrote:
For example, do you actually believe that i think there is Hydrogen in CO2? Your statement about that is YOU!

Contextomy fallacy. Pay attention dude.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2019 01:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Gas,
Since growing them takes CO2 out of the air, it is good to grow them because it delays the CO2 increase. The trouble is you can grow much wood in 10 years. You can get a lot of trees started but they won't amount to much for a longer time than 10 years.


Use grass. It's more effective than a tree anyway.


Yeah, but people smoke grass, and getting more popular since legalization in many areas.

Trees would do better, if people quit cutting them down for Christmas decorations. Fairly certain those trees aren't ten years old... So what if they die and rot, there are always new trees. They all don't die and rot at the same time, except maybe in California.


Trees don't grow as fast. It takes carbohydrate production for a plant to grow. Fast growing plants use CO2 faster.

Yup. Pot happens to be one of those plants!



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-12-2019 01:39
13-12-2019 10:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2037)
HarveyH55 wrote:... if people quit cutting them down for Christmas decorations.
I think most Christmas Trees are farmed aren't they?
"There are close to 15,000 farms growing Christmas Trees in the U.S., and over 100,000 people are employed full or part-time in the industry. It can take as many as 15 years to grow a tree of typical height (6 - 7 feet) or as little as 4 years, but the average growing time is 7 years."

I think making things out of wood does a lot to sequester carbon.
13-12-2019 16:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:... if people quit cutting them down for Christmas decorations.
I think most Christmas Trees are farmed aren't they?

Yes they are. Very few people go out to cut down their own tree. More and more of them are plastic now. They don't dry out and become a fire hazard, come prewired with lights in most cases, and are looking better and better. You can even get Scentsicles to hang on a plastic tree to simulate a very realistic smell.
Christmas trees in offices in the U.S. are almost all plastic now.
tmiddles wrote:
"There are close to 15,000 farms growing Christmas Trees in the U.S., and over 100,000 people are employed full or part-time in the industry.

Quite true. There are Christmas tree farms all over the U.S. We have quite a few of them right here in the Pacific Northwest.
tmiddles wrote:
It can take as many as 15 years to grow a tree of typical height (6 - 7 feet) or as little as 4 years, but the average growing time is 7 years."

Depends on the size of the tree you want to sell. Many of these are pruned throughout their life to make them bushier, almost like a live Banzai plant.
tmiddles wrote:
I think making things out of wood does a lot to sequester carbon.

Carbon is never 'sequestered'. It is an element. It exists in a variety of compounds including carbohydrates, hydrocarbons, alcohols, solvents, some gases like carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane, and of course appears alone as coal, charcoal, or soot.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2019 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
tmiddles wrote:I think making things out of wood does a lot to sequester carbon.

I think burning things out of wood breaks the carbon's fetters and sets the carbon free, free to travel for a while before helping other trees grow wood.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-12-2019 20:50
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/
14-12-2019 22:09
Amanbir Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(49)
Hijumi wrote:
First of all yes I do believe that climate change exists and that we are very close to the point that I believe that within a few years it will be unavoidable. I believe theoretically that it can be stopped. But I have come to the conclusion that's it not going to be stopped. Why?


nonsense posting started!


sit down, sit, in your place, in your place, a coldplay.


final word on the matter: wisdom kill.

enter>>


'2 degree changes don't hurt me'.*frown*


'No'. *nodding in a non-affirmative way*


exit<<
15-12-2019 08:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2037)
James___ wrote:
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/


Great find James! Very interesting stuff.
15-12-2019 21:35
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/


Great find James! Very interesting stuff.



Thanks. I was kind of surprised by it myself. What might take some searching to find out is the increase in CO2 because deforestation leads to agricultural production. That's something that could only be lowered by decreasing agricultural production and restoring forests. Basically it's a permanent change in the Earth's CO2 budget.
15-12-2019 23:07
Amanbir Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(49)
the people of england don't like watching the 70's show cuz the kid's special??

is he?

i will be operating like a mercenary, in africa operations.

the mandarins did this to disrupt the 70's al pacino movies about vietnam.

crux of the matter: Climate Economics will need FRENCH TECHNOLOGY.


::ye think yer head be hacked, nei. ye wait.
15-12-2019 23:08
Amanbir Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(49)
PS: that's for you claude hole. i don't work in africa.

that brain of yer's, that brain.
15-12-2019 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
James___ wrote:
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/


Argument from randU fallacy. No one knows how much CO2 is generated by any particular source.


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2019 23:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/


Great find James! Very interesting stuff.


Of course you like ANY resource full of random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2019 00:43
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/


Argument from randU fallacy. No one knows how much CO2 is generated by any particular source.



It's good to see that you are back to being yourself
16-12-2019 02:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
James___ wrote:It's good to see that you are back to being yourself

It's good to see that you are back tipping your king


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-12-2019 02:34
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:It's good to see that you are back to being yourself

It's good to see that you are back tipping your king


.


Товарищ
16-12-2019 07:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2037)
James___ wrote:
Thanks. I was kind of surprised by it myself....a permanent change in the Earth's CO2 budget.
Yeah I just don't think of Paul Bunyan or a cattle rancher in Brazil being major players in this. Upside is trees are plantable.

Maybe Greta Thunberg needs to becombe Greta Appleseed
16-12-2019 09:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
ITN, The literature i read says that trees are better carbon sinks than grass.

'The literature' you are referring to is therefore wrong. No book, pamphlet, magazine, or journal is a proof.

Fast growing plants use the most CO2.


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2019 12:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2037)
Into the Night wrote:...No book, pamphlet, magazine, or journal is a proof.
But pulling things out of your ass is?
Edited on 16-12-2019 12:48
16-12-2019 15:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...No book, pamphlet, magazine, or journal is a proof.
But pulling things out of your ass is?

You wish; it's all you've got.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-12-2019 15:36
Amanbir Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(49)
MAN SAXON CELT MAN SAXON CELT!!!

they STOP everything, they will STOP this climate change.
16-12-2019 23:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2037)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...No book, pamphlet, magazine, or journal is a proof.
But pulling things out of your ass is?

You wish; it's all you've got.
Me? Oh I'm just not so creative with the fundamentals of Physics as you and ITN. As you know I accept the party line on things like the laws of thermodynamics.

Like: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE. 12 citation. I can't take credit for a single one. But I am a BELIEVER! Ha ha. No doubt about them whatsoever.

I know, I'm a gullible warmazombie to not understand that a college primary Physics text book is a pack of lies as you two like to pretend. Oh well, guess I'm just not enlightened like you.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 16-12-2019 23:47
16-12-2019 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...No book, pamphlet, magazine, or journal is a proof.
But pulling things out of your ass is?

You wish; it's all you've got.
Me? Oh I'm just not so creative with fundamentals of Physics as you and ITN. As you know I accept the party line on things like the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope. You deny thermodynamics completely.
tmiddles wrote:
Like: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE. 12 citation. I can't take credit for a single one. But I am a BELIEVER! Ha ha. No doubt about them whatsoever.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I know, I'm a gullible warmazombie to not understand that a college primary Physics text book is a pack of lies as you two like to pretend.

Lie. Never said any such thing. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh well, guess I'm just not enlightened like you.

You are not enlightened at all.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2019 04:12
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...No book, pamphlet, magazine, or journal is a proof.
But pulling things out of your ass is?

You wish; it's all you've got.
Me? Oh I'm just not so creative with fundamentals of Physics as you and ITN. As you know I accept the party line on things like the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope. You deny thermodynamics completely.
tmiddles wrote:
Like: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE. 12 citation. I can't take credit for a single one. But I am a BELIEVER! Ha ha. No doubt about them whatsoever.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I know, I'm a gullible warmazombie to not understand that a college primary Physics text book is a pack of lies as you two like to pretend.

Lie. Never said any such thing. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh well, guess I'm just not enlightened like you.

You are not enlightened at all.



Alphabet soup fallacy, ie., asf.
20-12-2019 18:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
tmiddles wrote: Me? Oh I'm just not so creative with the fundamentals of Physics as you and ITN.

This is where you are mistaken. You are nothing BUT creative. Your approach to science is to view it as a subjunctive art, i.e. "How do I *wish* the laws of nature worked? What imaginary reality gives me the BEST dopamine fix?" Your violations of physics are truly imaginitive and aesthetically pleasing. In fact, they represent the "Vision of Utopia" type of thinking that makes your religion as popular as it is.

tmiddles wrote: As you know I accept the party line on things like the laws of thermodynamics.

I fully realize that you do not question your religion's dogma on any matter whatsoever, which includes its misunderstanding of thermodynamics, e.g. that thermal energy somehow flows from cooler to warmer as long as there is more of it flowing from warmer to cooler.

Have you asked your church for a repeatable example that isolates this thermal energy flow from cooler to warmer?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2019 21:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2037)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:As you know I accept the party line on things like the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope. You deny thermodynamics completely.
IBdaMann wrote:Your violations of physics are truly imaginitive...

I totally buy into the teachings of Provost and Planck on the subject:
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat Who's work do you trust? Anyone you can name?
IBdaMann wrote:
Have you asked your church for a repeatable example...
Just call those gents the Pope and Archbishop of my church of thermodynamics. Got your repeatable example IBD. It's YOU!

IBdaMann, a repeated example of Net Thermal Radiation


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
20-12-2019 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:As you know I accept the party line on things like the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope. You deny thermodynamics completely.
IBdaMann wrote:Your violations of physics are truly imaginitive...

I totally buy into the teachings of Provost and Planck on the subject:

Non-sequitur. They didn't create any theory of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat

There is no such thing as 'net heat'. There is no such thing as 'thermal radiation'. Buzzword fallacy. False authority fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Who's work do you trust? Anyone you can name?

RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:
Have you asked your church for a repeatable example...
Just call those gents the Pope and Archbishop of my church of thermodynamics.[/quote]
Non-sequitur fallacy. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Got your repeatable example IBD. It's YOU!

Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2019 22:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2037)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I totally buy into the teachings of Provost and Planck on the subject:

Non-sequitur. They didn't create any theory of thermodynamics.
What?!?

If Pierre Provost didn't create theories of thermodynamics who did???
21-12-2019 00:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I totally buy into the teachings of Provost and Planck on the subject:

Non-sequitur. They didn't create any theory of thermodynamics.
What?!?

If Pierre Provost didn't create theories of thermodynamics who did???

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Can climate change be stopped and should it be stopped:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1226-04-2019 02:48
It's 2050 And This Is How We Stopped Climate Change612-03-2019 22:22
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact