Can climate change be stopped and should it be stopped

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Can climate change be stopped and should it be stopped

Page 1 of 3

Can climate change be stopped and should it be stopped05-12-2019 20:24
Hijumi ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	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? People on a national and international level are not willing to stop it because of the economic and cultural drain it would cause. Furthermore, whatever personal plan I come up with to use less of everything and anything is not going to help at all. Consider for a second the climate accords in Paris. The goal of the agreement was to decrease the gain in overall global warming to 1.5% temperature increase. Scientists and sceptics alike believe the tipping point to be around 2%. Only a handful of all the participant countries has achieved the goals set together. Not to mention trump who threw out the agreement. Considering all of this I wonder if we should stop investing in sustainable energy and processes. And, focus on protecting those who will be affected the most. Or to set the money aside allowing for resources to be available when the world as a whole will be affected. And shift the focus in research to how to make our future brave new world better and in preventing the restarting of the whole cycle? I would love to hear what people think. I have found in my own circle of friends and acquaintance there's always something else more important. And an almost wishful thinking that someone will develop a miraculous technology and solve all our problems
05-12-2019 22:27
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I've never bought into the CO2 global warming nonsense. 0.04% makes it a trace gas, and really too little, to be of such a climate changer. This is our first inter-glacial, as scientifically aware society, we don't know what is normal. We've been very successful not knowing the future, why worry about something, we couldn't possibly predict, or change? I think those that are scared of the future, should invest in the changes they know they can adapt to, leave the rest of us out of it. There is going to be plenty of time to adjust to any future changes, hundreds of years, before the scorched earth scenario, if it happens. Going 'green' isn't all bad, if the changes are slowed down, like replacing retired equipment, rather than tearing everything up all at once. Solar farms, and wind farms, are silly ideas, a lot of real estate, and not much return. Money and resources used, better spent on better options. Oil and coal aren't the polluters they once were, and CO2 is actually something we use quite a bit of, and actually need to exist. All life on earth is based on carbon molecules. Plants and photosynthesis, is the only source of carbon, directly from the environment. CO2 provides the key element of life. Plants die at 150 ppm CO2, which means all life will ends shortly there after. Although, I tend to believe CO2 would eventually recover enough, for seed to sprout, and there would likely be smaller life forms that would survive quite a while, waiting for plants to start growing again. It's really in our best interest to keep CO2 much higher. Plants seem to be genetically tuned to do there best, in the 700-1200 ppm range. We humans are often exposed to 1000 ppm indoors, with no ill effects. 3000 ppm is deemed safe to work in, without special breathing equipment, long as they take breaks, and get some fresh air. I'm excited about a warmer climate, and higher CO2 levels, think it's going to be great for everyone. The gloomy, doomsday prophesies are mostly to sell a product, and motivate. Doubt the Apocalypse is near.
06-12-2019 17:54
Third world guy ★☆☆☆☆ (88)	Hijumi: You should consider being one of the millions of victims of a collective neurosis, such as that of the Salem witches, that of the Martians of Orson Wells, that of the trapped alien from the Roswell case, but in the era of social networks. There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
06-12-2019 18:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Hijumi wrote: First of all yes I do believe that climate change exists ... Yet you have no idea what this "Climate" is ... or who She is. It turns out that She is a completely static being who never changes. Hijumi wrote: and that we are very close to the point that I believe that within a few years it will be unavoidable. Boy did this make no sense. How does something that's not real become "unavoidable"? Hijumi wrote: I believe theoretically that it can be stopped. How do you "stop" something that isn't real? Hijumi wrote: But I have come to the conclusion that's it not going to be stopped. Why? ... because it isn't real? Hijumi wrote: People on a national and international level are not willing to stop it because of the economic and cultural drain it would cause. Possibly because they could spend all their available resources and still not stop something that isn't real. Hijumi wrote: Furthermore, whatever personal plan I come up with to use less of everything and anything is not going to help at all. ... because you can't stop anything that isn't real either. Hijumi wrote: Consider for a second the climate accords in Paris. Regardless of any group's inability to "stop" something that doesn't exist in the first place, European leaders are still willing to take expensive vacation trips to opulent resorts with the finest dining, all on the peasantry's dime ... and the joke's punch line is that it's all in the name of "stopping" something that isn't even real. Hijumi wrote: The goal of the agreement was to decrease the gain in overall global warming to 1.5% temperature increase. European leaders laugh that so many of the European peasantry actually believe that humanity can control this and will allow European leaders to tax them out of the little money they have and to spend it on giving themselves expensive vacation trips to opulent resorts with the finest dining. Hijumi wrote: Scientists and sceptics alike believe the tipping point to be around 2%. Nope. The gullible European peasantry believes that all the smart people on the planet believe this. Hijumi wrote: Only a handful of all the participant countries has achieved the goals set together. Are you saying that only a handful of countries have already "stopped" Global Warming for the rest of us? Hijumi wrote: Not to mention trump who threw out the agreement. We aren't gullible European peasantry. Hijumi wrote: Considering all of this I wonder if we should stop investing in sustainable energy and processes. Your question would be better worded "I wonder if we should stop pursuing expensive energy sources that cannot compete without government subsidy." Oh, the answer is yes, we should definitely stop. Hijumi wrote: And, focus on protecting those who will be affected the most. Nobody will be affected by something that isn't real. Hijumi wrote: Or to set the money aside allowing for resources to be available when the world as a whole will be affected. The world as a whole will never be affected by something that isn't real. Hijumi wrote: And shift the focus in research to how to make our future brave new world better and in preventing the restarting of the whole cycle? Sure, let's make the world better ... but this "cycle" of which you speak isn't real either. Hijumi wrote: I would love to hear what people think. Actually, I'm betting you won't. Hijumi wrote: I have found in my own circle of friends and acquaintance there's always something else more important. That's because there's always something else that is actually real. Hijumi wrote:And an almost wishful thinking that someone will develop a miraculous technology and solve all our problems If your biggest problem is something that isn't real then you should be a very happy person to learn that no one will ever be negatively affected by it. Are you happy at the news? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
06-12-2019 18:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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. Define 'climate change'. Hijumi wrote: I believe theoretically that it can be stopped. Stop what? Define 'climate change'. Hijumi wrote: But I have come to the conclusion that's it not going to be stopped. Why? Stop what? Define 'climate change'? Hijumi wrote: People on a national and international level are not willing to stop it because of the economic and cultural drain it would cause. Socialism is destructive. It is no reason to stop what you can't define. Define 'climate change'. Hijumi wrote: Furthermore, whatever personal plan I come up with to use less of everything and anything is not going to help at all. Help what? Define 'climate change'. Hijumi wrote: Consider for a second the climate accords in Paris. The goal of the agreement was to decrease the gain in overall global warming to 1.5% temperature increase. Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and since CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth, the Paris agreement is bogus. Hijumi wrote: Scientists and sceptics alike believe the tipping point to be around 2%. There is no 'tipping point'. Hijumi wrote: Only a handful of all the participant countries has achieved the goals set together. What goals? The destruction of the United States? Hijumi wrote: Not to mention trump who threw out the agreement. Trump is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Of course he threw out the agreement. It's the only sensible thing to do. Hijumi wrote: Considering all of this I wonder if we should stop investing in sustainable energy and processes. You don't get to decide people invest in. You don't get to decide what is 'sustainable' or not. You are not the king. You don't get to decide the energy markets. Hijumi wrote: And, focus on protecting those who will be affected the most. Affected by what? Void argument fallacy. Hijumi wrote: Or to set the money aside allowing for resources to be available when the world as a whole will be affected. By what? Void argument fallacy. Hijumi wrote: And shift the focus in research to how to make our future brave new world better and in preventing the restarting of the whole cycle? What 'cycle'? Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Hijumi wrote: I would love to hear what people think. I have found in my own circle of friends and acquaintance there's always something else more important. And an almost wishful thinking that someone will develop a miraculous technology and solve all our problems So you found comfort in the Church of Global Warming. Unfortunately, you are being manipulated by some very evil people that want to see the United States destroyed and replaced by fascism by oligarchy, all in the name of 'saving the planet' from something they can't even define. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

10-12-2019 01:45
zeroCOtwo ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	Hello out there, factually we know than CO2 is the no.1 problem. But even if we were not sure. Isn't it better to avoid the potential poison and eliminate possible variables of the equation? For those who know and understand the CO2 problem, I think hanging the bar high and working towards carbon neutrality is the way forward. Greets, zeroCOtwo, check out my blog: 0co2.home.blog
10-12-2019 01:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	zeroCOtwo wrote: Hello out there, factually we know than CO2 is the no.1 problem. Hello! We know factually that CO2 is not a problem. zeroCOtwo wrote: But even if we were not sure. Isn't it better to avoid the potential poison and eliminate possible variables of the equation? First, we ARE sure that CO2 is not a problem and no, Pascal's wager is still not valid. zeroCOtwo wrote: For those who know and understand the CO2 problem, i.e. the delusional ... or the extremely gullible ... zeroCOtwo wrote: I think hanging the bar high and working towards carbon neutrality is the way forward. Well, the next time I want an opinion from the peanut gallery I will certainly know where to look. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
10-12-2019 06:16
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	0CO2. The problem is, according to the United Nations, we will be past the point of no return as far as serious climate consequences by the time we get to net neutral by any foreseeable technology. Rather, i think we should make an all out effort to simply reduce the amount of spending and thereby reduce the CO2 production, all the while doing research at a slow enough pace to keep CO2 at a low enough level according to the U.N. recommendations. Edited on 10-12-2019 06:18
10-12-2019 06:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote:...reduce the amount of spending ... I think another way of accomplishing the same goal is to value things like lush forests as very valuable. We can invest in sequestering carbon by growing more and creating more life on the planet. The same aesthetic values that those with extreme wealth are able to indulged include wide open spaces, rural living, fresh food, and lots of plants. I don't think it's about less money, just less energy.
10-12-2019 07:37
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I think we can't grow enough forests in the next ten years to make a dent. Besides, those trees eventually rot and in the process the CO2 that was accumulated by the trees is released when they rot. Also, CO2 and energy go hand in hand. The using of less energy would work but it's like i learned in economics - in capitalism money begets money. In communism it's just the opposite. Edited on 10-12-2019 07:38
10-12-2019 07:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: I think we can't grow enough forests in the next ten years to make a dent. Besides, those trees eventually rot and in the process the CO2 that was accumulated by the trees is released when they rot. Also, CO2 and energy go hand in hand. The using of less energy would work but it's like i learned in economics - in capitalism money begets money. In communism it's just the opposite. Ask yourself this: What's REALLY saving Elephants, Giraffes and all the "cool" nature bits? Is it people forsaking living extravagant lives? No it's elevating them to being treasures worth preserving and some rich people going on safari. Not all money transactions are about burning fossil fuels. Edited on 10-12-2019 07:43
10-12-2019 08:48
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	With movies like Avatar or Independence Day, someone wants the resources someone else has. It's the same thing on our planet.
10-12-2019 16:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: 0CO2. The problem is, according to the United Nations, we will be past the point of no return as far as serious climate consequences by the time we get to net neutral by any foreseeable technology. Rather, i think we should make an all out effort to simply reduce the amount of spending and thereby reduce the CO2 production, all the while doing research at a slow enough pace to keep CO2 at a low enough level according to the U.N. recommendations. There is no 'tipping point'. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It's not a problem. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 16:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote:...reduce the amount of spending ... I think another way of accomplishing the same goal is to value things like lush forests as very valuable. We can invest in sequestering carbon by growing more and creating more life on the planet. The same aesthetic values that those with extreme wealth are able to indulged include wide open spaces, rural living, fresh food, and lots of plants. I don't think it's about less money, just less energy. Go live in the the cold and dark then, and stop driving your car, taking any bus or train, or going to work. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 17:22
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	keepit wrote: trees eventually rot and in the process the CO2 that was accumulated by the trees is released when they rot. So trees are carbon net neutral? Should we cut them down to save future generations? (cut them down with a battery powered saw, of course) I thought carbon neutral was good....awe hell I'm so confused Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

10-12-2019 18:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote:...reduce the amount of spending ... I think another way of accomplishing the same goal is to value things like lush forests as very valuable. Mission accomplished. We have lush forests. I even happen to live in one. tmiddles wrote: We can invest in sequestering carbon by growing more and creating more life on the planet. So, no lush forests, eh, dumbass? Did you know that trees require carbon dioxide, dumbass? tmiddles wrote: The same aesthetic values that those with extreme wealth are able to indulged include wide open spaces, No forests? Just barren, wide open spaces? tmiddles wrote: rural living, How are you going to live in barren land? You have to get food from somewhere, dumbass! tmiddles wrote: fresh food, There isn't any if you remove carbon dioxide from the air, dumbass! tmiddles wrote: and lots of plants. No plants either! Plants REQUIRE carbon dioxide. tmiddles wrote: I don't think it's about less money, just less energy. Go sit in the cold and dark, never drive a car again, never take a bus or train again, never fly in an airplane again, never go to work again. You will use less energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 18:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: I think we can't grow enough forests in the next ten years to make a dent. Besides, those trees eventually rot and in the process the CO2 that was accumulated by the trees is released when they rot. Also, CO2 and energy go hand in hand. The using of less energy would work but it's like i learned in economics - in capitalism money begets money. In communism it's just the opposite. Ask yourself this: What's REALLY saving Elephants, Giraffes and all the "cool" nature bits? Is it people forsaking living extravagant lives? No it's elevating them to being treasures worth preserving and some rich people going on safari. Not all money transactions are about burning fossil fuels. No money transactions are about burning fossil fuels. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 18:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: With movies like Avatar or Independence Day, someone wants the resources someone else has. It's the same thing on our planet. Life isn't a movie, dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 18:11
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Tmid, Every dollar spent is spent again and again for 7 times on the average. Those extra 6 times it is spent on things that involve fossil fuels. Almost every single thing involves fossil fuels.
10-12-2019 18:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Tmid, Every dollar spent is spent again and again for 7 times on the average. Those extra 6 times it is spent on things that involve fossil fuels. Almost every single thing involves fossil fuels. We don't use fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 18:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: trees eventually rot and in the process the CO2 that was accumulated by the trees is released when they rot. So trees are carbon net neutral? Should we cut them down to save future generations? (cut them down with a battery powered saw, of course) I thought carbon neutral was good....awe hell I'm so confused snicker So is he. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 18:15
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	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.
10-12-2019 18:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-12-2019 19:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote:...reduce the amount of spending ... The same aesthetic values that those with extreme wealth are able to indulged include wide open spaces, rural living, fresh food, and lots of plants. Great ... one economics moron giving advice to another. It amounts to "My imposition of hardship and cruelty on humanity is better than yours." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
10-12-2019 21:49
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, Generally speaking, i think trees are better carbon sinks than grass unless you re talking about forests that are subject to frequent forest fires.
10-12-2019 22:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: ITN, Generally speaking, i think trees are better carbon sinks than grass unless you re talking about forests that are subject to frequent forest fires. He was talking about producing oxygen. A patch of grass is much better than a tree. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
10-12-2019 23:52
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Doesn't make sense to me. Where does the O2 come from? A source other than the CO2 it takes in. What kind of economics is that?
10-12-2019 23:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: Tmid, Every dollar spent is spent again and again for 7 times on the average. Those extra 6 times it is spent on things that involve fossil fuels. Almost every single thing involves fossil fuels. I think the bottom line is what people are doing. My point is that if you're talking about something like having a more balance ecosystem it can be about what you DO not just about what you DON'T DO. So for example you can burn fuel that releases CO2 but you grew it so it's carbon neutral.
11-12-2019 00:40
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	We (Americans) use so much energy that i'm not sure we could make it with corn and wood. Doing that would use up a lot of resources.
11-12-2019 01:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: ITN, Generally speaking, i think trees are better carbon sinks than grass unless you re talking about forests that are subject to frequent forest fires. Nope. Plants that grow fast use more carbon dioxide. Grass, weeds, scrub alder, kudzu, etc. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

11-12-2019 01:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: Doesn't make sense to me. Where does the O2 come from? A source other than the CO2 it takes in. What kind of economics is that? Water and soil nutrients. The plant uses carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates, releasing excess oxygen from the reaction. Carbohydrates is food for the plant (and us!). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-12-2019 01:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: Tmid, Every dollar spent is spent again and again for 7 times on the average. Those extra 6 times it is spent on things that involve fossil fuels. Almost every single thing involves fossil fuels. I think the bottom line is what people are doing. My point is that if you're talking about something like having a more balance ecosystem it can be about what you DO not just about what you DON'T DO. So for example you can burn fuel that releases CO2 but you grew it so it's carbon neutral. All fuel is carbon neutral. You can't create mass out of nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-12-2019 01:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: We (Americans) use so much energy that i'm not sure we could make it with corn and wood. Doing that would use up a lot of resources. Why burn corn? It's food. Wood doesn't produce a lot of energy. It's okay for campfires and even a woodstove for smaller buildings, but I thought you wanted to save the trees. Which is it, dude? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 11-12-2019 01:38
11-12-2019 01:47
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, Maybe you misread that last post. It was saying not to use corn and wood for energy.
11-12-2019 01:49
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, Maybe you misread that last post in response to Tmid. It wasn't suggesting that mass was made out of nothing.
11-12-2019 01:52
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, When you suggested that plants get O2 from water, does that meant that plants can split the O2 out of water? 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. / Edited on 11-12-2019 02:45
11-12-2019 02:47
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, The literature i read says that trees are better carbon sinks than grass.
11-12-2019 04:09
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	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.
11-12-2019 09:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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.
11-12-2019 15:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: ITN, Maybe you misread that last post in response to Tmid. It wasn't suggesting that mass was made out of nothing. Actually, you did. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 3

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

Threads	Replies	Last post
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.	13	21-02-2020 20:12
It's 2050 And This Is How We Stopped Climate Change	6	12-03-2019 22:22
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?	15	17-09-2018 09:12