Remember me
▼ Content

carbon footprint



Page 1 of 5123>>>
carbon footprint04-06-2019 13:24
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
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.
04-06-2019 14:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
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.

Why would we want to reduce CO2?

Why would we want to kill the economy via killing the velocity of money?

What makes you think fossils burn? Fossils don't burn.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
04-06-2019 23:10
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
keepit wrote:
Reduce your carbon footprint by reducing the amount of money you spend.
Any money you spend gets repent and repent until eventually it gets spent on fossil fuels. If you don't spend that money it never gets to the point of producing CO2.


If people spent less, there would be fewer jobs, so I guess if you no longer have an income, you can't spend any money on fossil fuels. Then again, you can't spend money on food either. I'd rather work, and burn fossil fuels, starvation doesn't sound like pleasant way to die. I've road out plenty of catastrophic storms in my lifetime, don't think nature will be any tougher to deal with. There is no chance CO2 is going to change anything, except make plants very happy, which is food for all of us. Happy plants, happy people, more CO2. You'd have to be insane, to want to starve millions of people to death, just to save your beach house from flooding. That's really scary, and something to worry about.
04-06-2019 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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.

No money is spent on fossils fuels. Fossils don't burn.

There is nothing wrong with producing CO2.


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2019 22:10
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
So, with several threads, all basically the same, spend less... How are people going to stay employed, keep there businesses running. The profit margin isn't that high, depends on the volume of sales. Businesses would need to raise prices, lay-off workers, in order to meet their obligations (taxes, utilities, payroll). Ho do you figure on feeding all those people that lost their jobs, welfare, food stamps? Where are they going to live, they can only miss a few rent/mortgage payments, before they get moved out to the curb. You can't solve a problem, by creating a much bigger one. You can't borrow your way out of debt either, you just dig yourself in deeper.
05-06-2019 22:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
HarveyH55 wrote: How are people going to stay employed, keep there businesses running. The profit margin isn't that high, depends on the volume of sales. Businesses would need to raise prices, lay-off workers, in order to meet their obligations (taxes, utilities, payroll). Ho do you figure on feeding all those people that lost their jobs, welfare, food stamps?

HarveyH55, you are describing the inevitable hyperinflation if keepit's scenario were realized. In Venezuela today, the cycle of hyperinflation is driven by the printing of additional money which devalues the currency requiring prices to be raised requiring more money to be printed ... whereas in the case you are describing the hyperinflation cycle is driven by prices being raised which will necessitate additional money being printed which devalues the currency requiring prices to be raised.

The end result is the same. You were very astute to catch that.

HarveyH55 wrote: Where are they going to live, they can only miss a few rent/mortgage payments, before they get moved out to the curb. You can't solve a problem, by creating a much bigger one. You can't borrow your way out of debt either, you just dig yourself in deeper.

Yep, that's hyperinflation for you.

When it starts getting bad, guns become outlawed. When protests begin, the police are the only ones with guns ... powerful guns. Protests don't last long, nor do protesters.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
05-06-2019 22:26
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, with several threads, all basically the same, spend less... How are people going to stay employed, keep there businesses running. The profit margin isn't that high, depends on the volume of sales. Businesses would need to raise prices, lay-off workers, in order to meet their obligations (taxes, utilities, payroll). Ho do you figure on feeding all those people that lost their jobs, welfare, food stamps? Where are they going to live, they can only miss a few rent/mortgage payments, before they get moved out to the curb. You can't solve a problem, by creating a much bigger one. You can't borrow your way out of debt either, you just dig yourself in deeper.


It would take a lot of economic imagination. Basically job sharing and spending less money.
We don't need all those new cars and trucks and planes and Mc mansions. We don't need the lights on at night either, etc. We don't need as much military either if every one cooperates. It doesn't matter so much if the small counties don't cooperate on the military issue.
Some will become unemployed and would need govt support and respect. The loss of jobs is going on due to automation.
Consider the alternative, flooding, relocation of houses, business, infrastructure.
There is so much we spend money on that we don't need. It is polluting the world and causing CO2 to be produced.
We can't spend our way out of global warming.
Edited on 05-06-2019 22:28
05-06-2019 22:45
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
The fed and treasury would have to come up with solutions.
They're awful smart fellows.
05-06-2019 23:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55, you are describing the inevitable hyperinflation if keepit's scenario were realized. In Venezuela today, the cycle of hyperinflation is driven by the printing of additional money which devalues the currency requiring prices to be raised requiring more money to be printed ...



The US is printing additional money with little inflation. What happened in Venezuela is they they restricted food imports which is what triggered the hyper inflation. Everyone wanted to eat but food sources in that country were limited.
It is odd you should mention that but in most instances of hyperinflation, it was food prices that led the way.
What keepit suggests isn't practical. There is no enticement for pursuing environmentally friendly alternatives if ti requires a loss of income. It seems that neither you nor Harvey can consider any practical solution such as innovation.
The science illiterate usually avoid innovation because they don't understand the current science or how changing methodologies could improve results while still allowing for an advanced economy. The simple answer is if it worked a 100 years ago, it will work today.
History since about 1700 has shown that progress will happen. Yet none of you can consider what you would like it to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEgdeMGu4uQ
05-06-2019 23:47
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Sorry about using platitudes here but "You can do what you have to do". IF the sea level rises desperate alternatives will be considered. Not spending might be feasible.
I don't think we can spend our way out of global warming. Every dollar we spend produces CO2 and so is counterproductive in total.
05-06-2019 23:52
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
keepit wrote:
Sorry about using platitudes here but "You can do what you have to do". IF the sea level rises desperate alternatives will be considered. Not spending might be feasible.
I don't think we can spend our way out of global warming. Every dollar we spend produces CO2 and so is counterproductive in total.



CO2 levels started rising in 1950. Global warming started in 1978.
Coincidence? I like to think so.
06-06-2019 00:07
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
As i understand it, CO2 and global warming have gone hand in hand for a long time. There are other factors as well having an influence.
The efficient way to look at it is to see that CO2 impedes the flow of heat allowing temps to rise. That's the most fundamental thing. If the Ross Ice Shelf melts enough to break off the sea level will rise 10 feet in A BIG HURRY. Just think about the destruction that will cause.
Another thing - when something causes the CO2 level to increase, that increase stays in place for hundreds to a thousand years.
Edited on 06-06-2019 00:08
06-06-2019 01:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, with several threads, all basically the same, spend less... How are people going to stay employed, keep there businesses running. The profit margin isn't that high, depends on the volume of sales. Businesses would need to raise prices, lay-off workers, in order to meet their obligations (taxes, utilities, payroll). Ho do you figure on feeding all those people that lost their jobs, welfare, food stamps? Where are they going to live, they can only miss a few rent/mortgage payments, before they get moved out to the curb. You can't solve a problem, by creating a much bigger one. You can't borrow your way out of debt either, you just dig yourself in deeper.


It would take a lot of economic imagination.

Your 'imagination' has already been written down by Karl Marx.
keepit wrote:
Basically job sharing and spending less money.

So again you argue that people are going to make less money by government order.
keepit wrote:
We don't need all those new cars and trucks and planes and Mc mansions.

Who are YOU to decide what people need or want? YOU are not the dictator.
keepit wrote:
We don't need the lights on at night either, etc.

Who are YOU to decide what lights should be on? YOU are not the dictator.
keepit wrote:
We don't need as much military either if every one cooperates.

...and if they don't?
keepit wrote:
It doesn't matter so much if the small counties don't cooperate on the military issue.

I assume you mean 'countries'. Yes it does.
keepit wrote:
Some will become unemployed and would need govt support and respect.

So they become wards of the state, losing all respect.
keepit wrote:
The loss of jobs is going on due to automation.

WRONG. Automation increases jobs. The entire computer industry has become huge, thanks to automation. Same with the automotive industry before it.
keepit wrote:
Consider the alternative, flooding, relocation of houses, business, infrastructure.

Your usual doom and gloom predictions, right out of the scripture from the Church of Global Warming.
keepit wrote:
There is so much we spend money on that we don't need.

YOU don't get to determine need or wants. YOU are not the dictator.
keepit wrote:
It is polluting the world

You can't pollute the world. Everything in the world is still in the world (minus a bit of mass we left on the Moon and spacecraft we sent out into space).
keepit wrote:
and causing CO2 to be produced.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas necessary for life on Earth. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. Nothing is a pollutant simply because it is a certain substance. You seem to not be able to define 'pollutant' either.
keepit wrote:
We can't spend our way out of global warming.

Define 'global warming'. Why does anyone need to spend money on a meaningless buzzword?


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 01:14
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
Yeah, some mighty odd coincidence... Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring station was install on the side of a volcano, and went online, 1958... !978, NASA started to use satellite imagery, to estimate temperatures. Strange, both showing an increase, since both became common practice. Certainly, there must be other CO2 monitoring stations,but Mauna Loa is the usual one reported, when CO2 measurements are mentioned. How come left-leaning TV news and Weather, don't have a daily CO2 reading, for their locations, like they give temperature by city? Could it be, that it's not really that important? Could it be, that it takes a few days, maybe weeks, to get a reading, that is even close to the 'global' average? Co2 doesn't seem to sit still for very long, nor is it spread out very evenly either. it's 0.04% of the atmosphere, which has an estimated volume of 260 BILLION cubic MILES.

There is a natural variance in both CO2, and surface temperature. It' cool at night, than during the day. Much colder (least for the northerners) during the winter. The length of a day (sunlight) changes throughout the year. CO2 also has a natural variance, plants use most of it during daylight hours. Lot of plants are dormant, or dead, during the winter months, use little to none. The difference between the night time low, and daytime high has been around 25 F degrees, more or less some days, if we get rain or a lot of cloud cover.
06-06-2019 01:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
The fed and treasury would have to come up with solutions.
They're awful smart fellows.


The federal government is largely populated by idiots. There's a reason comedians use Congress as source material.

The Federal Reserve is not smart. They are an attempt to implement price controls on money. Price controls never work. They inevitably cause shortages. The Federal Reserve is no different. We call these shortages 'crashes'.

The Great Depression was caused by the Fed and lengthened into the 'great' depression by FDR.
The S&L crash was caused by the Fed.
The dot.com crash was caused by the Fed.
The housing crisis crash was caused by the Fed.

Trying to force interest rates low when they should be high only invites over speculation. That's when the 'good times' roll, and the bubbles begin to form. When the pyramid scheme collapses (as all pyramid schemes do), the crash hits.

Often times you will see the Fed raise interest rates in an effort to stop the pyramid scheme from crashing. It's too late to close that barn door. The horse is gone.

During the crash, you will often see the Fed try to 'stimulate the economy' by lowering interest rates again.

This scheme has never worked. It only causes bubble after bubble and the resulting crashes in between.

There was a time when economies ran without a central bank of any kind. Sure, they had their downturns, but NOTHING like what happens under the Fed, and those downturns would self correct within the year.

Economies don't run because of the central bank, they run despite the central bank.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 01:21
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
keepit wrote:
As i understand it, CO2 and global warming have gone hand in hand for a long time. There are other factors as well having an influence.
The efficient way to look at it is to see that CO2 impedes the flow of heat allowing temps to rise. That's the most fundamental thing. If the Ross Ice Shelf melts enough to break off the sea level will rise 10 feet in A BIG HURRY. Just think about the destruction that will cause.
Another thing - when something causes the CO2 level to increase, that increase stays in place for hundreds to a thousand years.



If you look at this https://binged.it/2Xp2Zoa from about 1938 to 1980 about all annual temperatures were lower while CO2 was steadily rising. And as you know, these guys don't think that global temperatures are rising.
The Little Ice Age https://binged.it/2XAFIjr quite possibly created a rebound effect. If this is what's happening then this is like really cool. Before the northern hemisphere heads towards a full blown Ice Age, usually there is peak warming. Could you imagine if this is the correct scenario https://binged.it/2wDZfU1? And this is from phys.org https://binged.it/2wBKelH.
The good news is that when the northern hemisphere is in an ice age, the southern hemisphere isn't. This means that Mexico is where one day Americans will want to live. I'd say a rough estimate is 300 to 400 years.
06-06-2019 01:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55, you are describing the inevitable hyperinflation if keepit's scenario were realized. In Venezuela today, the cycle of hyperinflation is driven by the printing of additional money which devalues the currency requiring prices to be raised requiring more money to be printed ...



The US is printing additional money with little inflation.

It depends on how fast the economy is expanding. Like I said, capitalism creates wealth. If more wealth is being created than dollars being printed, you will see deflation. If more dollars are being printed than the wealth being created, you will see inflation. The Fed tries to print just enough to match what wealth it thinks is being created, but it does it like a kid blindfolded and trying to hit the pinata.
James___ wrote:
What happened in Venezuela is they they restricted food imports which is what triggered the hyper inflation.

No, wealth was not being created, but they were printing money. Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth. It does not create any wealth.
James___ wrote:
Everyone wanted to eat but food sources in that country were limited.
Guess why.
James___ wrote:
It is odd you should mention that but in most instances of hyperinflation, it was food prices that led the way.
Not quite true. It is food scarcity that tends to cause revolutions.
James___ wrote:
What keepit suggests isn't practical. There is no enticement for pursuing environmentally friendly alternatives if ti requires a loss of income. It seems that neither you nor Harvey can consider any practical solution such as innovation.

Meaningless word salad. Buzzword fallacies.
James___ wrote:
The science illiterate usually avoid innovation because they don't understand the current science or how changing methodologies could improve results while still allowing for an advanced economy.
Redefinition fallacy (science <-> engineering).
James___ wrote:
The simple answer is if it worked a 100 years ago, it will work today.
Socialism doesn't work.
James___ wrote:
History since about 1700 has shown that progress will happen. Yet none of you can consider what you would like it to be.

YOU don't get to dictate what it will be. You are not the dictator or a prophet.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 01:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
Sorry about using platitudes here but "You can do what you have to do".

People ARE quite adaptable. They live everywhere from the equator to the poles, and even survive in space.
keepit wrote:
IF the sea level rises desperate alternatives will be considered.

Where is all that additional energy coming from? Why would floating ice raise the sea level? How would you measure global sea level?
keepit wrote:
Not spending might be feasible.

Nope. YOU don't get to dictate markets. You are not a dictator.
keepit wrote:
I don't think we can spend our way out of global warming.

Define 'global warming'.
keepit wrote:
Every dollar we spend produces CO2 and so is counterproductive in total.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 01:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
As i understand it, CO2 and global warming have gone hand in hand for a long time.

Then you don't understand it. Define 'global warming'.
keepit wrote:
There are other factors as well having an influence.

...such as? Remember, no gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
keepit wrote:
The efficient way to look at it is to see that CO2 impedes the flow of heat allowing temps to rise.

It is not possible to slow or trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything. CO2 does not reduce heat. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
keepit wrote:
That's the most fundamental thing.

Yes. Denying science is the most fundamental thing to the Church of Global Warming. So is denying math, which you're about to do.
keepit wrote:
If the Ross Ice Shelf melts enough to break off the sea level will rise 10 feet in A BIG HURRY.

Floating ice that breaks away from other floating ice doesn't change the sea level, dude.
keepit wrote:
Just think about the destruction that will cause.

None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Ole. Nan. Efes. Ling. There will be no destruction.
keepit wrote:
Another thing - when something causes the CO2 level to increase, that increase stays in place for hundreds to a thousand years.

So, no plants, eh? Have you looked outside recently?


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 01:40
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change. A stagnant is tough to make money. When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.
06-06-2019 01:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Sorry about using platitudes here but "You can do what you have to do".

People ARE quite adaptable. They live everywhere from the equator to the poles, and even survive in space.
keepit wrote:
IF the sea level rises desperate alternatives will be considered.

Where is all that additional energy coming from? Why would floating ice raise the sea level? How would you measure global sea level?
keepit wrote:
Not spending might be feasible.

Nope. YOU don't get to dictate markets. You are not a dictator.
keepit wrote:
I don't think we can spend our way out of global warming.

Define 'global warming'.
keepit wrote:
Every dollar we spend produces CO2 and so is counterproductive in total.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.



Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, I'd say that you suffer from OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder.
Repeated postings saying basically nothing suggests that. Maybe you could see Harvey55's doctor? I know he hasn't done him much good but you never know, he might be able to help you.
06-06-2019 01:47
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Sorry about using platitudes here but "You can do what you have to do".

People ARE quite adaptable. They live everywhere from the equator to the poles, and even survive in space.
OK. But being forced to move inland and rebuild would wreak havoc.
keepit wrote:
IF the sea level rises desperate alternatives will be considered.

Where is all that additional energy coming from? Why would floating ice raise the sea level? How would you measure global sea level?
I didn't say floating ice raises sea level when it melts. Land ice increases sea level when it melts and flows to the ocean. Also, increased ocean temp causes oceans to expand.
keepit wrote:
Not spending might be feasible.

Nope. YOU don't get to dictate markets. You are not a dictator.
Who said anything about me dictating?
keepit wrote:
I don't think we can spend our way out of global warming.

Define 'global warming'.
keepit wrote:
Every dollar we spend produces CO2 and so is counterproductive in total.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.

CO2 is capable of slowing the flow of heat back into outer space, resulting in an increased temperature in the earth system.
06-06-2019 01:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
As i understand it, CO2 and global warming have gone hand in hand for a long time. There are other factors as well having an influence.
The efficient way to look at it is to see that CO2 impedes the flow of heat allowing temps to rise. That's the most fundamental thing. If the Ross Ice Shelf melts enough to break off the sea level will rise 10 feet in A BIG HURRY. Just think about the destruction that will cause.
Another thing - when something causes the CO2 level to increase, that increase stays in place for hundreds to a thousand years.



If you look at this ...deleted Holy Link... from about 1938 to 1980 about all annual temperatures were lower while CO2 was steadily rising.

It is not possible to measure either the temperature of the Earth nor the global atmospheric CO2 content of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
And as you know, these guys don't think that global temperatures are rising.
There is no reason for it to. There is on additional energy, unless it's coming from the Sun.
James___ wrote:
The Little Ice Age ...deleted Holy Link... quite possibly created a rebound effect.
Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
If this is what's happening then this is like really cool. Before the northern hemisphere heads towards a full blown Ice Age, usually there is peak warming.
By definition. Duh.
James___ wrote:
The good news is that when the northern hemisphere is in an ice age, the southern hemisphere isn't.
No. Ice ages are not seasons. Both hemispheres see Ice ages at the same time.
James___ wrote:
This means that Mexico is where one day Americans will want to live.

1) Mexico is in the northern hemisphere.
2) Americans already live there. All Mexicans are Americans. Mexico is on the North American continent.
James___ wrote:
I'd say a rough estimate is 300 to 400 years.


You are not a prophet.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 01:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote: Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, I'd say that you suffer from OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder.
Repeated postings saying basically nothing suggests that. Maybe you could see Harvey55's doctor? I know he hasn't done him much good but you never know, he might be able to help you.

Wow! That really helped me understand "carbon footprint."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-06-2019 01:54
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, Into The Night, I'd say that you suffer from OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder.
Repeated postings saying basically nothing suggests that. Maybe you could see Harvey55's doctor? I know he hasn't done him much good but you never know, he might be able to help you.

Wow! That really helped me understand "carbon footprint."



Since I am 1/2 Scandinavian, if the day comes when I can afford a https://binged.it/2XupI23 I will drive very slowly by your house so you can see my carbon footprint. They use a lot of carbon fibre in their cars and I like to think they make a nice "carbon footprint".



D@mn, I love that one. You Americans are so funny with your aggressive attitudes that you forget to live.

Edited on 06-06-2019 01:56
06-06-2019 01:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 02:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Sorry about using platitudes here but "You can do what you have to do".

People ARE quite adaptable. They live everywhere from the equator to the poles, and even survive in space.
OK. But being forced to move inland and rebuild would wreak havoc.
keepit wrote:
IF the sea level rises desperate alternatives will be considered.

Where is all that additional energy coming from? Why would floating ice raise the sea level? How would you measure global sea level?
I didn't say floating ice raises sea level when it melts. Land ice increases sea level when it melts and flows to the ocean. Also, increased ocean temp causes oceans to expand.
keepit wrote:
Not spending might be feasible.

Nope. YOU don't get to dictate markets. You are not a dictator.
Who said anything about me dictating?
keepit wrote:
I don't think we can spend our way out of global warming.

Define 'global warming'.
keepit wrote:
Every dollar we spend produces CO2 and so is counterproductive in total.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.

CO2 is capable of slowing the flow of heat back into outer space, resulting in an increased temperature in the earth system.

No, it isn't. The Stefan Boltzmann law clearly states:
radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

In other words, electromagnetic energy (the only way energy can leave the Earth) is proportional to temperature. Never inversely proportional.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

You are also attempting to use a colder gas (CO2) to heat the warmer surface. You are trying to make heat flow backwards, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 02:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.



That's similar to what helped cause the Great Recession of 2008. Keep the oil tankers off shore, drive up crude prices. Then people who sold short also profited. Some people got very rich because of that.
06-06-2019 02:07
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
ItN,
I didn't say CO2 stops the flow of heat back into outer space. It slows the flow of heat back into outer space allowing the temp to rise melting the ice.
06-06-2019 02:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.



That's similar to what helped cause the Great Recession of 2008.
The Federal Reserve caused the 2008 crash.
James___ wrote:
Keep the oil tankers off shore, drive up crude prices.
The 2008 crash was a housing bubble. It had nothing to do with oil.
James___ wrote:
Then people who sold short also profited.
The people that sold short were people shorting housing futures. Oil had nothing to do with it.
James___ wrote:
Some people got very rich because of that.

Apparently you have no concept of history even as recent as 2008.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 02:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.



That's similar to what helped cause the Great Recession of 2008.
The Federal Reserve caused the 2008 crash.
James___ wrote:
Keep the oil tankers off shore, drive up crude prices.
The 2008 crash was a housing bubble. It had nothing to do with oil.
James___ wrote:
Then people who sold short also profited.
The people that sold short were people shorting housing futures. Oil had nothing to do with it.
James___ wrote:
Some people got very rich because of that.

Apparently you have no concept of history even as recent as 2008.



I didn't know it was mushroom season in Seattle. What'd you do, go up in the mountains? I like the way you said that. Just like the IPCC would. With assurance and certainty. I guess you learned from your friends.
06-06-2019 02:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
keepit wrote:
ItN,
I didn't say CO2 stops the flow of heat back into outer space. It slows the flow of heat back into outer space allowing the temp to rise melting the ice.


Paradox. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 02:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.



That's similar to what helped cause the Great Recession of 2008.
The Federal Reserve caused the 2008 crash.
James___ wrote:
Keep the oil tankers off shore, drive up crude prices.
The 2008 crash was a housing bubble. It had nothing to do with oil.
James___ wrote:
Then people who sold short also profited.
The people that sold short were people shorting housing futures. Oil had nothing to do with it.
James___ wrote:
Some people got very rich because of that.

Apparently you have no concept of history even as recent as 2008.



I didn't know it was mushroom season in Seattle. What'd you do, go up in the mountains? I like the way you said that. Just like the IPCC would. With assurance and certainty. I guess you learned from your friends.

Back to your insults again I see.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 02:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.



That's similar to what helped cause the Great Recession of 2008.
The Federal Reserve caused the 2008 crash.
James___ wrote:
Keep the oil tankers off shore, drive up crude prices.
The 2008 crash was a housing bubble. It had nothing to do with oil.
James___ wrote:
Then people who sold short also profited.
The people that sold short were people shorting housing futures. Oil had nothing to do with it.
James___ wrote:
Some people got very rich because of that.

Apparently you have no concept of history even as recent as 2008.



I didn't know it was mushroom season in Seattle. What'd you do, go up in the mountains? I like the way you said that. Just like the IPCC would. With assurance and certainty. I guess you learned from your friends.

Back to your insults again I see.



It's not possible for anyone to insult you. I'm sure that overextended credit and $4 a gallon gas wasn't a problem. It's insulting when you can't consider that.
06-06-2019 02:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.



That's similar to what helped cause the Great Recession of 2008.
The Federal Reserve caused the 2008 crash.
James___ wrote:
Keep the oil tankers off shore, drive up crude prices.
The 2008 crash was a housing bubble. It had nothing to do with oil.
James___ wrote:
Then people who sold short also profited.
The people that sold short were people shorting housing futures. Oil had nothing to do with it.
James___ wrote:
Some people got very rich because of that.

Apparently you have no concept of history even as recent as 2008.



I didn't know it was mushroom season in Seattle. What'd you do, go up in the mountains? I like the way you said that. Just like the IPCC would. With assurance and certainty. I guess you learned from your friends.

Back to your insults again I see.



It's not possible for anyone to insult you. I'm sure that overextended credit and $4 a gallon gas wasn't a problem. It's insulting when you can't consider that.

Back to random word salad again I see.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2019 03:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how some people make in incredible amount of money during these crashes, almost like they could predict the future, or at least knew when interest rates were going to change.

They know when to call bullshit. They short everything related to the bubble.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A stagnant is tough to make money.
It's easy. Identify the bubble and short it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When they shake thing up, some people get scared, sell for whatever they can get.

Which is why shorting works. You sell short high, when the bubble is expanding, then buy the shorts back at lower prices after the crash.



That's similar to what helped cause the Great Recession of 2008.
The Federal Reserve caused the 2008 crash.
James___ wrote:
Keep the oil tankers off shore, drive up crude prices.
The 2008 crash was a housing bubble. It had nothing to do with oil.
James___ wrote:
Then people who sold short also profited.
The people that sold short were people shorting housing futures. Oil had nothing to do with it.
James___ wrote:
Some people got very rich because of that.

Apparently you have no concept of history even as recent as 2008.



I didn't know it was mushroom season in Seattle. What'd you do, go up in the mountains? I like the way you said that. Just like the IPCC would. With assurance and certainty. I guess you learned from your friends.

Back to your insults again I see.



It's not possible for anyone to insult you. I'm sure that overextended credit and $4 a gallon gas wasn't a problem. It's insulting when you can't consider that.

Back to random word salad again I see.


And you're Elmer Fudd. So?
06-06-2019 04:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
keepit wrote:
ItN,
I didn't say CO2 stops the flow of heat back into outer space. It slows the flow of heat back into outer space allowing the temp to rise melting the ice.

No, it does not.

I'll teach you some physics. The flow of earth's thermal radiation into space is called its "radiance." The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the earth's radiance and the earth's temperature necessarily move in the same direction.

This should make sense to you. If the temperature increases then the radiance increases. If the temperature decreases then the radiance decreases. Simple. Straightforward. Intuitive.

Yet you would have us believe that the earth's temperature is increasing with a corresponding reduction in radiance. Anyone who understands Black Body science will immediately call BS on you. Either you will have to prove that the current body of science is in error or you will simply become a science denier, specifically of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Also, as Into the Night mentioned, your claims that the earth's temperature is somehow increasing requires you to identify the additional energy that is causing that temperature increase. Here's some more science for you; temperature cannot increase without additional energy. If your answer is "there is no additional energy but there is more greenhouse gas!" then you are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. Now that you know this you either need to explain from where you believe this required additional energy comes or you will simply become a science denier, specifically of the laws of thermodynamics.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-06-2019 04:54
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:
ItN,
I didn't say CO2 stops the flow of heat back into outer space. It slows the flow of heat back into outer space allowing the temp to rise melting the ice.

No, it does not.

I'll teach you some physics. The flow of earth's thermal radiation into space is called its "radiance." The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the earth's radiance and the earth's temperature necessarily move in the same direction.

This should make sense to you. If the temperature increases then the radiance increases. If the temperature decreases then the radiance decreases. Simple. Straightforward. Intuitive.

Yet you would have us believe that the earth's temperature is increasing with a corresponding reduction in radiance. Anyone who understands Black Body science will immediately call BS on you. Either you will have to prove that the current body of science is in error or you will simply become a science denier, specifically of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Also, as Into the Night mentioned, your claims that the earth's temperature is somehow increasing requires you to identify the additional energy that is causing that temperature increase. Here's some more science for you; temperature cannot increase without additional energy. If your answer is "there is no additional energy but there is more greenhouse gas!" then you are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. Now that you know this you either need to explain from where you believe this required additional energy comes or you will simply become a science denier, specifically of the laws of thermodynamics.

OK, let's see. I need to understand this.
Your first paragraph say that radiance and temp move in the same direction and that sounds fine to me.
Your second paragraph throws me. As i see it the temp is going up because the radiance back into outerspace is blocked or slowed by the greenhouse gases. Sure the radiance is going up but it is slowed by the atmospheric CO2. Because the inbound wavelengths (visible and others) aren't slowed by CO2 but the outbound infrared is slowed by the CO2, the buildup of temp occurs.
It's a pretty simple point of disagreement. I bet we can come to an understanding.
Regards.
I forgot to mention that the energy that the CO2 absorbs is partly emitted downward warming the earth and water.
Edited on 06-06-2019 05:24
06-06-2019 05:36
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is incredibly small. There is just not enough of it to have any effect. As you mentioned, CO2 radiates in all directions. It can only radiate energy that was already there to begin with. Any energy CO2 has to radiate, is less energy something else doesn't. The sun radiates fairly consistently. For CO2 to warm anything, it needs more energy that was there already, a lot more. It's really hard to get the immense size of this planet into perspective, and the 300 miles of atmosphere surrounding it, 260 billion cubic miles worth. CO2 is only 0.04%, on a bad day, I'm fairly sure. I don't deal with that many zeros well, but that spreads CO2 real thin. It's not enough to work like an Igloo cooler, or the Domino's pizza bag.
06-06-2019 05:48
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Well, CO2 doesn't hold back all the heat that the sun gives to us, only a small percentage, but enough to cause a gradual increase in temp
Wikipedia's coverage of stephan boltzman talks about greenhouse effect and gives a link to help understand.
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate carbon footprint:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Alberta throne speech followed by bill to repeal provincial carbon tax023-05-2019 09:20
It will be Very Hot and very Wet--We've exceeded 415ppm of Carbon Dioxide for the first Time since th3118-05-2019 19:28
California's Carbon-Tax?117-05-2019 10:16
What does 'Carbon-Pricing' mean?1215-05-2019 22:27
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide506-05-2019 18:35
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact