carbon footprint

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Private Climate Policy > carbon footprint > Page 5

Page 5 of 5

08-06-2019 05:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	keepit wrote: I appreciate you trying explain your point of view. There are an awful lot of misconceptions in there though. You don't know nearly as much economics as you do science and engineering. Argument of the stone fallacy. 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 08-06-2019 05:15
08-06-2019 07:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	keepit wrote: Sorry that i'm simplistic here but there are no closed systems other than the universe. This is a lame pretense to avoid a discussion. The idea of a "closed system" is conceptual. It signifies what is being considered in the system and what is considered external to the system. Are you saying that you are incapable of "considering" or "imagining" or "classifying"? So, the correct answer is that there as many closed systems as humanity wishes to make. keepit wrote: Even considering the universe as a whole there are scientists who believe they have found evidence that out universe has experienced a collision with another universe. The subjective beliefs of a few specific people are immaterial. The 2nd law of thermodynamics still has not been shown to be false despite the unknown number of universes that might have actually collided. In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics still holds despite all those near misses our universe has had. 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
09-06-2019 04:51
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: The subjective beliefs of a few specific people are immaterial. Do you mean like you and itn? I have to agree with you. And while you sound just like parott I know that you and him only happen to share the same view. Your beliefs are subjective and immaterial.
09-06-2019 20:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The subjective beliefs of a few specific people are immaterial. Do you mean like you and itn? I have to agree with you. And while you sound just like parott I know that you and him only happen to share the same view. Your beliefs are subjective and immaterial. Contextomy. Pay attention to the conversion, dope. 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
11-05-2024 19:55
markjfernandes ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	keepit wrote: Reduce your carbon footprint by reducing the amount of money you spend. Any money you spend gets respent and respent until eventually it gets spent on fossil fuels. If you don't spend that money it never gets to the point of producing CO2. I want to try to comment on the original post of this thread. It is an interesting idea to reduce expenditure to address the climate-change emergency. But wouldn't it be better to invest in 'green' projects that have a net effect of reducing carbon emissions? Don't "tree planting" projects do that? And there are also carbon-capture technologies. You could also invest in education in order to educate people regarding the issues: it might have an initial carbon footprint, but over time could have quite a strong impact on reducing carbon emissions. Not spending money might not have the desired effect because of the phenomena of 'fiat money' where, if you don't spend money, other people end-up creating money where they end-up using it in bad ways in respect to the climate-change emergency. --------------- Why do all these threads seem to be 'polluted' with "Into the Night" and "IBdaMann"'s 'climate-emergency denial' rhetoric, with their very long signatures that make using these threads very difficult? Is it not possible to have their denial arguments in a separate thread, and maybe have them banned from the other threads? They would have us believe that the scientific community is either woefully incompetent or involved in some kind of worldwide conspiracy. Both seem equally implausible. They quote the scientists in order to disprove the scientists. It just doesn't make sense. Wisdom would suggest to take heed of the scientific community especially since they are not saying perhaps to be concerned, but are instead saying to be very concerned.

11-05-2024 20:15
keepit ★★★★★ (3330)	First, in 20 or 30 years the population will be decreasing, if not sooner. Smaller population theoretically leads to less money spent. 2nd, there is a direct correlation to money spent and co2 produced. 3rd, many green solutions require large amounts of money to be spent up front leading large amounts of co2 produced up front. For example, an electric car costs 50 k for example. And a used ice car costs 1/2 that. The electric car won't save a total of 25k in gas for maybe 20 years (i don't remember the exact numbers). There's no co2 benefit in that transaction. But there is a negative effect of very many extra dollars spent and co2 produced up front. I just think it would be better to wait it out for the population decrease to take effect and bring about a co2 decrease. Hybrid vehicles seem to be a solution to this dilemma imho. Trees die and give up all the co2 they absorbed. It delays the inevitable unless the live a long time (which they usually do). I don't know much about carbon capture - it seems like they cost a lot up front and don't do that much good. Edited on 11-05-2024 20:19
RE: Trees do more than just sequester CO211-05-2024 21:45
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1622)	keepit wrote: First, in 20 or 30 years the population will be decreasing, if not sooner. Smaller population theoretically leads to less money spent. 2nd, there is a direct correlation to money spent and co2 produced. 3rd, many green solutions require large amounts of money to be spent up front leading large amounts of co2 produced up front. For example, an electric car costs 50 k for example. And a used ice car costs 1/2 that. The electric car won't save a total of 25k in gas for maybe 20 years (i don't remember the exact numbers). There's no co2 benefit in that transaction. But there is a negative effect of very many extra dollars spent and co2 produced up front. I just think it would be better to wait it out for the population decrease to take effect and bring about a co2 decrease. Hybrid vehicles seem to be a solution to this dilemma imho. Trees die and give up all the co2 they absorbed. It delays the inevitable unless the live a long time (which they usually do). I don't know much about carbon capture - it seems like they cost a lot up front and don't do that much good. I invite you to learn more about carbon capture on one of the "Carbon sequestration" threads. Trees do not "die and give up all the CO2 they absorbed." Much of the CO2 they absorbed was used to synthesize organic carbon that ended up in the soil. The roots themselves are a reservoir of slowly decomposing organic matter. While the tree was alive, depending on what kind of soil it grew on, it may have allocated more than half of its photosynthate to feed a mycorrhizal fungi symbiotic partner attached to its roots. Much of the organic carbon fed to the mycorrhizal fungi remains in the soil as slowly decomposing organic matter. And, depending on the chemistry of the vegetation, the organic matter may be loaded with plant "secondary" metabolites (e.g. polyphenols) that dramatically slow the rate of decomposition. I was a Peace Corps volunteer working in reforestation in the Dominican Republic, beginning 1982. At that time, there wasn't a lot of concern about trees as a mechanism of carbon dioxide sequestration. There was a very expensive dam that had been built for a major hydroelectric power station. The reservoir was filling up with silt from deforestation, and the dam was going to become worthless long before it could pay for itself. Watersheds without trees were causing muddy floods in the rainy season, and dry creek beds the rest of the year. One of my projects was to build rain catchment systems on the roof of a couple of large public schools. With the local creeks no longer a reliable source of water, the big tanks we built to store water collected off the school roof turned out to be a valuable resource to the community. So, never underestimate the power of trees. Reforestation is an EXCELLENT investment. Trees do NOT "cost a lot up front", and they do a WHOLE LOT OF GOOD. Update: The Dominican Republic is a rare success story where, since the 1980s, they now have significantly MORE forest cover than they did at the peak of deforestation. The watersheds are behaving more cooperatively with human needs now, supplying clean water to streams during the dry season, and minimizing erosion and flooding during the rainy season. The investment in reforestation to protect the reservoir and the hydroelectric power it provides paid off.
11-05-2024 22:34
keepit ★★★★★ (3330)	im a bm, Thanks for your explanation.
13-05-2024 01:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	markjfernandes wrote: I want to try to comment on the original post of this thread. It is an interesting idea to reduce expenditure to address the climate-change emergency. Climate cannot change. There is no such thing as 'climate change emergency'. markjfernandes wrote: But wouldn't it be better to invest in 'green' projects that have a net effect of reducing carbon emissions? Carbon is a fuel. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the planet. You cannot create energy out of nothing. markjfernandes wrote: Don't "tree planting" projects do that? Practically all trees used for lumber or paper are farmed. All vegetation requires carbon dioxide to survive. markjfernandes wrote: And there are also carbon-capture technologies. Carbon is a fuel. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. A plant is not a 'technology'. markjfernandes wrote: You could also invest in education in order to educate people regarding the issues: it might have an initial carbon footprint, If you have a carbon footprint, wash your boots. markjfernandes wrote: but over time could have quite a strong impact on reducing carbon emissions. Carbon is not 'emitted'. Carbon is a fuel. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. It is not possible to measure how much carbon dioxide is 'emitted' or from where. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. markjfernandes wrote: Not spending money might not have the desired effect because of the phenomena of 'fiat money' where, if you don't spend money, other people end-up creating money where they end-up using it in bad ways in respect to the climate-change emergency. Climate cannot change. There is no emergency. Fiat money is created by a government. markjfernandes wrote: Why do all these threads seem to be 'polluted' with "Into the Night" and "IBdaMann"'s 'climate-emergency denial' rhetoric, with their very long signatures that make using these threads very difficult? Is it not possible to have their denial arguments in a separate thread, and maybe have them banned from the other threads? Censorship isn't going to work. There is no Kiddie Pool to run to here. markjfernandes wrote: They would have us believe that the scientific community is either woefully incompetent or involved in some kind of worldwide conspiracy. Both seem equally implausible. Science is not a community or conspiracy. markjfernandes wrote: They quote the scientists in order to disprove the scientists. Science is not scientists. Global Warming priests are not scientists either. markjfernandes wrote: It just doesn't make sense. The Church of Global Warming routinely denies and discards the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are trying to replace theories of science with your religion. It is YOU not making sense. markjfernandes wrote: Wisdom would suggest to take heed of the scientific community Science is not a community. markjfernandes wrote: especially since they are not saying perhaps to be concerned, but are instead saying to be very concerned. Science is not a religion. Your religion is not science. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot create energy 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
13-05-2024 01:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Im a BM wrote: I invite you to learn more about carbon capture on one of the "Carbon sequestration" threads. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon doesn't need to be 'sequestered'. Im a BM wrote: Trees do not "die and give up all the CO2 they absorbed." Much of the CO2 they absorbed was used to synthesize organic carbon that ended up in the soil. Carbon isn't organic. Im a BM wrote: Much of the organic carbon Carbon isn't organic. Im a BM wrote: At that time, there wasn't a lot of concern about trees as a mechanism of carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon dioxide does not need to be sequestered. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. 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
18-05-2024 19:50
sealover ★★★★☆ (1771)	markjfernandez (I know I botched your name), it turns out that I was responding to a post by keepit, not by you. But my reply to keepit is relevant to the discussion you and I are having. keepit wrote: First, in 20 or 30 years the population will be decreasing, if not sooner. Smaller population theoretically leads to less money spent. 2nd, there is a direct correlation to money spent and co2 produced. 3rd, many green solutions require large amounts of money to be spent up front leading large amounts of co2 produced up front. For example, an electric car costs 50 k for example. And a used ice car costs 1/2 that. The electric car won't save a total of 25k in gas for maybe 20 years (i don't remember the exact numbers). There's no co2 benefit in that transaction. But there is a negative effect of very many extra dollars spent and co2 produced up front. I just think it would be better to wait it out for the population decrease to take effect and bring about a co2 decrease. Hybrid vehicles seem to be a solution to this dilemma imho. Trees die and give up all the co2 they absorbed. It delays the inevitable unless the live a long time (which they usually do). I don't know much about carbon capture - it seems like they cost a lot up front and don't do that much good. I invite you to learn more about carbon capture on one of the "Carbon sequestration" threads. Trees do not "die and give up all the CO2 they absorbed." Much of the CO2 they absorbed was used to synthesize organic carbon that ended up in the soil. The roots themselves are a reservoir of slowly decomposing organic matter. While the tree was alive, depending on what kind of soil it grew on, it may have allocated more than half of its photosynthate to feed a mycorrhizal fungi symbiotic partner attached to its roots. Much of the organic carbon fed to the mycorrhizal fungi remains in the soil as slowly decomposing organic matter. And, depending on the chemistry of the vegetation, the organic matter may be loaded with plant "secondary" metabolites (e.g. polyphenols) that dramatically slow the rate of decomposition. I was a Peace Corps volunteer working in reforestation in the Dominican Republic, beginning 1982. At that time, there wasn't a lot of concern about trees as a mechanism of carbon dioxide sequestration. There was a very expensive dam that had been built for a major hydroelectric power station. The reservoir was filling up with silt from deforestation, and the dam was going to become worthless long before it could pay for itself. Watersheds without trees were causing muddy floods in the rainy season, and dry creek beds the rest of the year. One of my projects was to build rain catchment systems on the roof of a couple of large public schools. With the local creeks no longer a reliable source of water, the big tanks we built to store water collected off the school roof turned out to be a valuable resource to the community. So, never underestimate the power of trees. Reforestation is an EXCELLENT investment. Trees do NOT "cost a lot up front", and they do a WHOLE LOT OF GOOD. Update: The Dominican Republic is a rare success story where, since the 1980s, they now have significantly MORE forest cover than they did at the peak of deforestation. The watersheds are behaving more cooperatively with human needs now, supplying clean water to streams during the dry season, and minimizing erosion and flooding during the rainy season. The investment in reforestation to protect the reservoir and the hydroelectric power it provides paid off.
19-05-2024 00:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Carbon isn't organic. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Stop spamming.
19-05-2024 02:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	sealover wrote: Trees do not "die and give up all the CO2 they absorbed." Thank you. You saved me the trouble. sealover wrote: I was a Peace Corps volunteer working in reforestation in the Dominican Republic, beginning 1982. I'd really like to know when you became indoctrinated into the Global Warming religion. I'm guessing that it happened sometime after your tour in the DomRep, and as a result, you began revising history (it's what all Marxists do) and your experiences at the DomRep became a primary chapter for rewrite. Being a Peace Corps worker is hard work, non-glamorous and is often thankless. I notice that your rewrite, however, makes you out to be a superhero who saves the world, and who bemoans dead coral reefs that never died because you don't expect anyone to ever scrutinize your claims. sealover wrote: The reservoir was filling up with silt from deforestation, Nope. All dams cause the reservoires to fill with the silt carried by the river. Similar to your claims of dead coral reefs, I will assume that there wasn't any deforestation in the first place. sealover wrote: One of my projects was to build rain catchment systems on the roof of a couple of large public schools. With the local creeks no longer a reliable source of water, the big tanks we built to store water collected off the school roof turned out to be a valuable resource to the community. Good job. You shouldn't unnecessarily water down such a respectable acomplishment by adding a backdrop of nonexistent deforestation. If you omit the intended fear and panic, it takes nothing away from your catchment system and your contribution. sealover wrote: So, never underestimate the power of trees. Never let your need for attention diminish your actual achievements. sealover wrote: Reforestation is an EXCELLENT investment. Not if there isn't any deforestation to correct. sealover wrote: Trees do NOT "cost a lot up front", and they do a WHOLE LOT OF GOOD. You don't create value by pretending that there are missing trees when there aren't. sealover wrote: Update: The Dominican Republic is a rare success story where, since the 1980s, they now have significantly MORE forest cover than they did at the peak of deforestation. It's almost as if there wasn't any deforestation to begin with.
20-05-2024 19:25
sealover ★★★★☆ (1771)	Into the Night wrote: Carbon isn't organic. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Stop spamming. Inorganic carbon isn't organic. Fully oxidized carbon, such as carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion are called "inorganic carbon" by people who actually study chemistry. "Organic carbon" is what people who actually study and understand chemistry call chemically reduced forms of carbon. The subject of "organic" chemistry. Dictionaries and textbooks are a much better source for the definition of scientific terms than the troll who admits to defining his own terms "from time to time". But what about THIS genius assertion: "No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth." - Into the Night Nobody ever said they could, dumbass. (because ITN loves to call others "dumbass") This stuff might make a little more sense to ITN if there were some understanding that it is the SUN that has the capability to warm the Earth. But after more than eight years of repeating the exact same sentence ("No gas or vapor has the capability blah blah blah"), it looks like way too much remedial education would be required.
20-05-2024 20:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: Carbon isn't organic. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Stop spamming. Inorganic carbon isn't organic. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: Fully oxidized carbon, such as carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion are called "inorganic carbon" by people who actually study chemistry. Carbon isn't oxygen. There is no such chemical as 'bicarbonate' or 'carbonate'. Carbon isn't carbon dioxide. sealover wrote: "Organic carbon" is what people who actually study and understand chemistry call chemically reduced forms of carbon. The subject of "organic" chemistry. Carbon isn't organic. You are denying chemistry. sealover wrote: Dictionaries and textbooks are a much better source for the definition of scientific terms than the troll who admits to defining his own terms "from time to time". No dictionary or textbook defines any word. Science isn't 'terms'. sealover wrote: But what about THIS genius assertion: "No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth." - Into the Night Nobody ever said they could, dumbass. YOU did. Don't try to deny your own posts. sealover wrote: This stuff might make a little more sense to ITN if there were some understanding that it is the SUN that has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't keep the Earth from radiating energy. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. It takes additional energy than from the Sun. Where is that energy coming from? sealover wrote: But after more than eight years of repeating the exact same sentence ("No gas or vapor has the capability blah blah blah"), it looks like way too much remedial education would be required. Your religion is not education. Denying theories of science is not education. Denying mathematics is not education. 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

20-05-2024 21:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	sealover wrote: But what about THIS genius assertion: "No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth." - Into the Night Into the Night is correct. See below. Nobody ever said they could, dumbass. [/quote] You have implied it several times via logical conclusion. Having implied it is sufficient to have claimed it. sealover wrote: This stuff might make a little more sense to ITN if there were some understanding that it is the SUN that has the capability to warm the Earth. You are incorrect. Your scientific illiteracy causes you to screw the pooch every time. If you actually had a modicum of science acumen, you would know that no body of matter can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. No gas or vapor can increase the temperature of anything; only additional energy can. Yes, the earth is heated by the sun to an equilibrium temperature, which cannot increase without additional energy above and beyond what the sun is currently providing. No gas or vapor amounts to "additional energy." Your error is one of a scientifically illiterate gullible who has fallen for the narrative that if he simply believes that magic atmospheric substances equate to additional thermal energy, then he will somehow transform into the very thienth geniuth he has always hoped and dreamed. Learn thermodynamics. I can teach you if you'd like.

Page 5 of 5

Join the debate carbon footprint:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change	75	14-01-2025 19:14
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	1046	14-01-2025 18:29
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands	143	09-12-2024 19:52
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon	30	06-07-2023 23:51