Impactful individual-level solutions towards carbon footprint reduction

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Impactful individual-level solutions towards carbon footprint reduction

Impactful individual-level solutions towards carbon footprint reduction17-10-2021 05:05
ppradhan ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	I have been curious about this for a while now. There are several articles out there that state how individual contributions aren't enough to even leave a small dent in climate change mitigation. Yet, I wonder how desperate INDIVIDUALS are to find a solution that they can adopt to start seeing some meaningful positive impact. Or are we just waiting for the governments and large corporations to open their eyes one day? What individual-level solutions have you adopted or seen in your own lives that have achieved any meaningful impact? Can we do better?
17-10-2021 05:14
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I don't spend nearly as much money as i used to. It makes me feel better in several ways. Too bad it doesn't make much of a dent in co2 production but if every body did it, it would make a big dent.
17-10-2021 05:19
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Stop breathing
17-10-2021 06:17
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Soon.
17-10-2021 06:50
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	There isn't an actual climate crisis. Most people understand this, even if they aren't willing to say it our load. Which wouldn't be popular, or politically correct. Everybody needs to feel wanted, even Norwegians... It's a political crisis, which will be solved by talk and promises, that don't actually lead to any action, except higher taxes, and ball-crushing control over the submissive masses.

17-10-2021 07:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote:I don't spend nearly as much money as i used to. It makes me feel better in several ways. Too bad it doesn't make much of a dent in co2 production but if every body did it, it would make a big dent. This is absolute, multi-level stupidity for even stupid people. It aspires to one day reach the bottom rung of Down Syndrome-level mentally retarded. I wish you had included some sort of warning because there's no way I can unread your post now. I felt my reading comprehension take a major hit. Thankfully it's only temporary. I have to go into quarantine now until health officials are confident that there is no substantive possibility that I will impulsively regurgitate any of what I had read where there might be other people around. . Attached image:
17-10-2021 09:07
ppradhan ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	I'm not interested in name calling or any political debate here. I'm genuinely interested in learning about what actions people take.
17-10-2021 18:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	ppradhan wrote:I'm not interested in name calling or any political debate here. You aren't interested in discussing anything. You are only interested in preaching Marxism and Global Warming crap. Preaching ... as in one way only. You don't care about any differing perspectives. First of all, you are scientifically illiterate whereas most of this board is not. Are you prepared to be educated and learn in what ways you are mistaken? Are you prepared to learn that there is no Global Warming or Greenhouse Effect? If not, this board is not safe for you and is certainly not approved for your use by those who do your thinking for you. Second, you aren't interested in any sort of constructive conversation. You initial post gives you away. You specifically avoid unambiguously defining any of your key terms because you don't want any answers; you merely want to promote thinking along your political lines. You don't want any political debate, you want political alignment and political submission. If you aren't going to be courteous enough to unambiguously define your terms, all of them, then be prepared to be mocked and ridiculed. You should be taking notes on what those on this board have to say, not pretending that we need you to think for us. . 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
17-10-2021 19:41
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	ppradhan wrote: I'm not interested in name calling or any political debate here. I'm genuinely interested in learning about what actions people take. In America, we use to be free to live our lives anyway we wanted, long as we weren't intentionally offending others. Unfortunately, being offensive is politically correct, for the liberals and progressives. What makes best sense, is to grow food bearing plants and trees. Learning to live less dependent on commercial products, services, government assistance. The 'Climate-Apocalypse' isn't prophesied to happen for a couple centuries, at least... The Economic-Armageddon is happening now. Covid is essentially a cold virus, and won't be going away. The government mandates and regulations will stay in place, forever. Wear your Mask of Compliance, obediently take the Jab of Submission every 6 months. Or, face being banished from society. The ban on Fossil Fuels, will pretty much seal the deal. Individuals will mostly rely on mass transit, since personal vehicles will be crazy expensive, and basically useless, since electricity won't be reliable, and also very expensive. What good is an electric car, if you can afford to charge it, or you live in a blackout prone, low-class area. The wealthy will always get priority service. Of course, mass transit, is a plague-train, wear people share all kinds of nasty things, rob, and grope... We are a very energy dependent society. We depend on energy to transport ourselves, as well as goods and services. Everything will be expensive, hard to obtain regularly, predictably. Employment will be limited to what's available close to home, and only pay, what the government determines 'enough' to survive on. The 'living-wage', 'minimum-wage', will of course be more than what most businesses can afford to pay. They will need to comply with government dictates, to receive subsidies and handouts. Embrace the socialist take over, or prepare to survive independently.
17-10-2021 21:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	ppradhan wrote: I have been curious about this for a while now. There are several articles out there that state how individual contributions aren't enough to even leave a small dent in climate change mitigation. You're gonna have to define 'climate change'. ppradhan wrote: Yet, I wonder how desperate INDIVIDUALS are to find a solution that they can adopt to start seeing some meaningful positive impact. Solution to what? Define The Problem. Define 'climate change'. ppradhan wrote: Or are we just waiting for the governments and large corporations to open their eyes one day? To what? Define The Problem. Define 'climate change. ppradhan wrote: What individual-level solutions have you adopted or seen in your own lives that have achieved any meaningful impact? Can we do better? Impacting what you can't define is no impact at all. Spending your life on this is a worthless life. 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
17-10-2021 21:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: I don't spend nearly as much money as i used to. It makes me feel better in several ways. Too bad it doesn't make much of a dent in co2 production but if every body did it, it would make a big dent. So you choose living like a pauper. I know a few Christian and Buddhist monks that feel the same way. Why bother to limit CO2? It has no capability to warm anything, and it is a necessary gas for life on Earth to even exist. It has important industrial uses as well. 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
17-10-2021 21:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	ppradhan wrote: I'm not interested in name calling or any political debate here. I'm genuinely interested in learning about what actions people take. You will have to define 'climate change' first. Define The Problem. Otherwise you are just talking in a void, chanting buzzwords that have no meaning. 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
17-10-2021 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	For the newbies here: The basic argument is made that CO2 somehow warms the Earth. This is usually followed by claims of knowing the temperature of the Earth to within fractions of degrees, and claims of knowing how much CO2 is in the atmosphere of Earth to within parts per million. It is also usually claimed that it's proven by science. Let's just address the science here for a moment. Science has no proofs. It does not use consensus. It is not a government agency, university, study, research, degree, license, prize, sanctification, scientist, or any group of scientist, book, pamphlet, website, or newspaper. It is not even people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The first law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. This equation applies to any closed system (one in which you choose the boundary, that boundary must be consistent). In other words, for any chosen system, you can't create energy out of nothing. You have to put work into it. If you consider the Earth that system, the presence if CO2 has no ability to create energy out of nothing. Energy is required to increase the temperature of Earth. Therefore, CO2 by itself has no ability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has this capability. The second law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of the system), and 't' is time. In other words, for any given system, whether it's Earth by itself or the Earth-Sun-space system, you cannot decrease entropy...ever. Since the claim is made that CO2 has some kind of magick ability to trap energy and thus warm the Earth, this necessarily reduces entropy. This is simply not possible. No gas or vapor has the ability to reduce entropy...ever. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states; E = C * e * t^4 where 'E' is energy in the form of light, 'C' is a universal constant that serves to convert to relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is emissivity, a measured constant. This is a value showing how reflective a radiating surface is, expressed as a percentage between a perfect absorber (the so-called ideal black body), and the perfect reflector (the so-called ideal white body). 't' is temperature in deg K. In other words, this relation describes the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy simply as a function of the temperature. As temperature increases, more energy is converted. Conversion into electromagnetic energy cools the radiating surface. This equation has no component for frequency. ALL frequencies of light are considered combined. This means that it is not possible to trap light. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. Like current in a river, you can't trap it. You can only increase or reduce it. If there is no flow of thermal energy, there is no heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. No gas or vapor, including CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. is capable of warming the Earth at all. You can't create energy out of nothing, you can't trap heat, light, or thermal energy, and you can't stop Earth from radiating more energy if it did somehow warm up, cooling the Earth right back down. The belief that CO2 or any other gas has these magickal properties is a religion. I call it the Church of Global Warming. It is a fundamentalist style religion. It considers itself it's own proof. This, in and of itself, is a circular argument fallacy. It is using a conclusion as a predicate as proof of that conclusion. Look at any website, book, or class supporting 'global warming' (whatever that actually IS!), and you will see that this is so. I will not go into the denial of mathematics here that the Church of Global Warming makes, but it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth (or even the temperature of your home, much less a city). That thermostat on your wall measures only a single point in your home. It knows nothing about the cold bedroom with the window open or the hot spot on the rug where the sun is shining in a window. 100 thermometers in Seattle tells you nothing about Issaquah, only 10 miles away. There are simply not enough thermometers to determine the temperature of Earth. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content in the atmosphere either. The few stations even capable of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere are not enough. CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. For a different reason, it is not possible to measure the global sea level. There simply is no valid reference point. Anyone claiming to know the temperature of the Earth, the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, or the global sea level is making shit up. Yup. The government is making shit up. NASA and NOAA are both making shit up. So is the IPCC (part of the UN). Making up numbers and calling them data is a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy. A number made up like this is a random number of type randU. It is the pseudo-random number. It is number thought up in someone's head, or an algorithm thought up in someone's head. ALL computer climate modelling programs are just random number generators. They generate the numbers that are 'supposed' to be there, even though there is no baseline to compare them to. The Church of Global Warming denies both science and mathematics. It so far has not been able to even define what 'global warming' actually means, or what 'climate change' actually means. They have never been able to define The Problem. You're welcome to take shot at it. You cannot use any Holy Link or website. Define it yourself, here and now. Until then, vacuous arguments and meaningless buzzwords is all you have.
18-10-2021 02:24
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	With you on the bulk of that however.Fremantle and fort denison in Sydney harbour have tidal records for 168 years and that can tell the sea levels over history.There is no recorded rise.The 8 inches NASA claim would show up and it has not.CO2 does deflect certain spectrums of UV light however it is based on the 140 temperature measuring devices in U.K.and however many are in North America showing an increasing trend in warming but it Iis not the whole planet and it paused around 2000 and has now gone down .5C as part of the Earth cycles.The American organisations need funding and will support any agenda to obtain that funding.The whole theory is basd on CO2 increasing out of control which it is not.The fun part is alarmist claim the deniers are cherry picking when the complete opposite is true and if we have a warm day or bushfire its game on.I love the protesters over East demanding the Government do something about the runaway warming and bushfires and it rained all day and in the footage they are all wearing plastic raincoats and guess what.There were no bushfires that day.We have a bushfire season but it is not hard to protect your property but they dont and up she goes Edited on 18-10-2021 02:27
18-10-2021 03:51
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Cleaner energy and recycling are the main issues. At one time lead batteries used in cars were toxic waste. Today they're 100% recycled. Over 90% of the metal used to make a car is recycled. Innovation which allows for an economy will determine the future. At the same time mass consumerism can lead to Independence Day. That's a movie where all aliens were concerned about were resources to maintain their sheltered lives. The Movie Matrix was about us having destroyed our ecosystems and people being happy to enjoy a virtual reality. And then there was Avatar where destruction of a planet meant resources. It's not about our carbon footprint. That's simply being narrow minded like these guys are.

18-10-2021 04:41
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	duncan61 wrote: With you on the bulk of that however.Fremantle and fort denison in Sydney harbour have tidal records for 168 years and that can tell the sea levels over history.There is no recorded rise.The 8 inches NASA claim would show up and it has not.CO2 does deflect certain spectrums of UV light however it is based on the 140 temperature measuring devices in U.K.and however many are in North America showing an increasing trend in warming but it Iis not the whole planet and it paused around 2000 and has now gone down .5C as part of the Earth cycles.The American organisations need funding and will support any agenda to obtain that funding.The whole theory is basd on CO2 increasing out of control which it is not.The fun part is alarmist claim the deniers are cherry picking when the complete opposite is true and if we have a warm day or bushfire its game on.I love the protesters over East demanding the Government do something about the runaway warming and bushfires and it rained all day and in the footage they are all wearing plastic raincoats and guess what.There were no bushfires that day.We have a bushfire season but it is not hard to protect your property but they dont and up she goes Before insurance, and government disaster relief hand outs... People use to clean up the dry underbrush, and other burnable crap littering their property. They cleared off a wide perimeter around house, barn, and anything else they couldn't afford to let burn, as a fire break. Not to mention, wild critters, like Norway rats, tend to avoid open spaces. Also made it easier to shoot predators, and uninvited guests. But, it's labor intensive. All that cleared, unused space, and wildfires don't hit the same place every year. After a few years, and no fire, why bother. Besides, insurance, and the government will fix it for you, better than what burned. The 'scientists' must know that thermal runaway isn't going to happen, an never happened in the past. We have a whole lot of water, which transfers thermal energy pretty good. Thermal energy is what makes water change from solid, liquid, and vapor (gaseous) states. Thick clouds prevent the Sun's energy from reaching the surface, and solar panels. God wrote in Genesis, that he wasn't going to do the 40 days, and 40 nights of torrential rain again. The planet isn't going to burn up, but there are likely going to be a lot of people who will burn in hell...
18-10-2021 06:32
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Thats exactly it Harvey its called mitigation.When I lived in the country I was involved in back burning and when Yarloop went up as a kid started a fire it stopped exactly where we had backburned.No fuel no fire.
18-10-2021 17:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	All, please forgive me momentarily hijacking this lovely thread that was started by a climate-lemming who wanted to hijack our thinking and do it for us ... Harvey, I wanted to take a moment and ask you how my Harvey-friendly animated headers are working out. You should see a noticeable difference in download times as well as noticeably less real estate consumed on the page. I hope they fit the bill.
18-10-2021 18:11
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	IBdaMann wrote: All, please forgive me momentarily hijacking this lovely thread that was started by a climate-lemming who wanted to hijack our thinking and do it for us ... Harvey, I wanted to take a moment and ask you how my Harvey-friendly animated headers are working out. You should see a noticeable difference in download times as well as noticeably less real estate consumed on the page. I hope they fit the bill. Most seem to work out well enough. Didn't have to change, since I'm the one who chooses to stay with slow internet. Don't think I really miss much, maybe a few hockey-stick graphs, or James's teen girl pictures, or worse. I'll still stop loading, when the page is jumping around too much to read. It's just a habit I've gotten into. Most websites use a lot of graphics these days, and can't even get to the login, before it times out. I get an error, instead of access.
18-10-2021 20:08
ppradhan ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen and acting superior by name calling or half-assed scientific explanations. Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, because that is not why I raised my question the first time. Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem (this is my definition of climate change)? I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. It is clear that you guys are passionate about that topic, so let's put that on the side for now. Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. If you believe in consumerism, you can treat this as smart consumerism. If you believe in capitalism, you can treat this as saving money without compromising quality of life. Who in the right mind wouldn't want that?
18-10-2021 21:11
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	ppradhan wrote: I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen and acting superior by name calling or half-assed scientific explanations. Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, because that is not why I raised my question the first time. Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem (this is my definition of climate change)? I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. It is clear that you guys are passionate about that topic, so let's put that on the side for now. Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. If you believe in consumerism, you can treat this as smart consumerism. If you believe in capitalism, you can treat this as saving money without compromising quality of life. Who in the right mind wouldn't want that? Climate change is real. Past couple of days, it's just gotten barely over 80 F here in Florida. Gets much cooler, I'll need to wear long pants. Our winter climate begins... Hopefully, it won't be as bad as some climate changes, where I actually had to dig through the closet, for a light jacket. There even a winter so cold, I had to put a second blanket on my bed... It's a dynamic world we live on. Constantly in motion, constantly changing. We are just along for the ride. We don't control the speed or direction. We can't go back to pre-industrial times, we can only move forward. If you want deal with a perceive climate catastrophe, you should prepare and adapt. As we have, since we first took to walking on our hind legs. You can also join a cult, which will tell you what you will, and will not do, in exchange for salvation. Well, at least for your great-great grandchildren. Though, likely no one will remember, or care, about all the sacrifices you made. Mostly, people will just roll along, whatever potholes this planet runs through, and survive just fine, enjoying the few decades we are blessed with.
18-10-2021 22:03
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	ppradhan wrote: I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. What immaturity? ppradhan wrote: I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen and acting superior by name calling or half-assed scientific explanations. What was "half-assed" about the explanations? ppradhan wrote: Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, because that is not why I raised my question the first time. In order to have a discussion about "climate change", the word must first be unambiguously defined. Define "climate change". What IS it? How exactly does climate "change"? ppradhan wrote: Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem (this is my definition of climate change)? Your definition is not acceptable, since it is not unambiguous. What are these "sizable disruptions"? How are humans causing them? Please describe the mechanism by which this occurs so that I can better understand what you are referring to and can thus "join the cause" and work with you to save our planet. ppradhan wrote: I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. It is clear that you guys are passionate about that topic, so let's put that on the side for now. Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. If you believe in consumerism, you can treat this as smart consumerism. If you believe in capitalism, you can treat this as saving money without compromising quality of life. Who in the right mind wouldn't want that? I believe in capitalism. This <referring to the dogma of the churches of Global Warming, Green Energy, and Karl Marx (as they are all related to each other)> is mandating the most expensive forms of energy [thus not saving money] that yield piddle power in comparison to hydrocarbons [thus compromising quality of life]. Who in their right mind would want that?
18-10-2021 23:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: With you on the bulk of that however.Fremantle and fort denison in Sydney harbour have tidal records for 168 years and that can tell the sea levels over history. Nope. They can't. They can only compare it to the land at Sidney Harbor. Land moves. duncan61 wrote: There is no recorded rise.The 8 inches NASA claim would show up and it has not. Impossible to tell. As far as Sidney Harbor is concerned, they don't need to make any changes to the harbor...that's all. duncan61 wrote: CO2 does deflect certain spectrums of UV light Deflection or reflection is not absorption. CO2 does contribute some to Raleigh scattering though. duncan61 wrote: however it is based on the 140 temperature measuring devices in U.K.and however many are in North America showing an increasing trend in warming It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Base rate fallacy. duncan61 wrote: but it Iis not the whole planet and it paused around 2000 and has now gone down .5C as part of the Earth cycles. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. duncan61 wrote: The American organisations need funding and will support any agenda to obtain that funding. Not just America. Researchers of this sort are primarily funded by government. duncan61 wrote: The whole theory is basd on CO2 increasing out of control which it is not. Define 'out of control'. duncan61 wrote: The fun part is alarmist claim the deniers are cherry picking when the complete opposite is true and if we have a warm day or bushfire its game on. Very true. Warm days and bushfires, of course, have nothing to do with CO2 (other than producing some). duncan61 wrote: I love the protesters over East demanding the Government do something about the runaway warming and bushfires and it rained all day and in the footage they are all wearing plastic raincoats and guess what.There were no bushfires that day.We have a bushfire season but it is not hard to protect your property but they dont and up she goes Let the SOTC know. They seem to have forgotten the cost of not keeping brush cleared away from your house these days. 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
18-10-2021 23:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Cleaner energy and recycling are the main issues. At one time lead batteries used in cars were toxic waste. Today they're 100% recycled. Over 90% of the metal used to make a car is recycled. Lead is not toxic waste. Lead oxides exists in small quantities in soil everywhere you go. It's a normal part of any soil. The reason we recycle batteries is because it's cheaper than mining and refining the lead. The sulfuric acid in a car battery is not recycled. It is dumped into a holding pond and allowed to salt out. It typically combines with stuff to make calcium sulfates, lead sulfates, or sodium sulfates. All are naturally occurring sulfates. James___ wrote: Innovation which allows for an economy will determine the future. Yet you do not like capitalism. Which is it, dude? James___ wrote: At the same time mass consumerism can lead to Independence Day. That's a movie where all aliens were concerned about were resources to maintain their sheltered lives. The Movie Matrix was about us having destroyed our ecosystems and people being happy to enjoy a virtual reality. And then there was Avatar where destruction of a planet meant resources. It's not about our carbon footprint. That's simply being narrow minded like these guys are. Life ain't the movies, 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
18-10-2021 23:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: duncan61 wrote: With you on the bulk of that however.Fremantle and fort denison in Sydney harbour have tidal records for 168 years and that can tell the sea levels over history.There is no recorded rise.The 8 inches NASA claim would show up and it has not.CO2 does deflect certain spectrums of UV light however it is based on the 140 temperature measuring devices in U.K.and however many are in North America showing an increasing trend in warming but it Iis not the whole planet and it paused around 2000 and has now gone down .5C as part of the Earth cycles.The American organisations need funding and will support any agenda to obtain that funding.The whole theory is basd on CO2 increasing out of control which it is not.The fun part is alarmist claim the deniers are cherry picking when the complete opposite is true and if we have a warm day or bushfire its game on.I love the protesters over East demanding the Government do something about the runaway warming and bushfires and it rained all day and in the footage they are all wearing plastic raincoats and guess what.There were no bushfires that day.We have a bushfire season but it is not hard to protect your property but they dont and up she goes Before insurance, and government disaster relief hand outs... People use to clean up the dry underbrush, and other burnable crap littering their property. They cleared off a wide perimeter around house, barn, and anything else they couldn't afford to let burn, as a fire break. Not to mention, wild critters, like Norway rats, tend to avoid open spaces. Also made it easier to shoot predators, and uninvited guests. But, it's labor intensive. All that cleared, unused space, and wildfires don't hit the same place every year. After a few years, and no fire, why bother. Besides, insurance, and the government will fix it for you, better than what burned. The 'scientists' must know that thermal runaway isn't going to happen, an never happened in the past. We have a whole lot of water, which transfers thermal energy pretty good. Thermal energy is what makes water change from solid, liquid, and vapor (gaseous) states. Thick clouds prevent the Sun's energy from reaching the surface, and solar panels. God wrote in Genesis, that he wasn't going to do the 40 days, and 40 nights of torrential rain again. The planet isn't going to burn up, but there are likely going to be a lot of people who will burn in hell... Thermal runaway is not science. You can't create energy out of nothing. It's actually pretty easy to clear away brush. Just drive your tractor through it with the bucket down. Don't have a tractor? Your community does. Oh...that's right...tractors are going to illegal in a few years. 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 18-10-2021 23:17
18-10-2021 23:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: All, please forgive me momentarily hijacking this lovely thread that was started by a climate-lemming who wanted to hijack our thinking and do it for us ... Harvey, I wanted to take a moment and ask you how my Harvey-friendly animated headers are working out. You should see a noticeable difference in download times as well as noticeably less real estate consumed on the page. I hope they fit the bill. Most seem to work out well enough. Didn't have to change, since I'm the one who chooses to stay with slow internet. Don't think I really miss much, maybe a few hockey-stick graphs, or James's teen girl pictures, or worse. I'll still stop loading, when the page is jumping around too much to read. It's just a habit I've gotten into. Most websites use a lot of graphics these days, and can't even get to the login, before it times out. I get an error, instead of access. Heck...I get that jumping around even on the internal network. That's a badly designed website, not just the graphics. 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
18-10-2021 23:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	ppradhan wrote: I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen and acting superior by name calling or half-assed scientific explanations. Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, because that is not why I raised my question the first time. You're gonna have to define 'climate change', dude. ppradhan wrote: Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem (this is my definition of climate change)? Define 'inefficient use of resources', 'sizable disruption', and 'earth ecosystem'. Also please explain how this has anything to do with climate. ppradhan wrote: I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. Actually, you were. If you want to avoid that subject now, fine. ppradhan wrote: It is clear that you guys are passionate about that topic, so let's put that on the side for now. Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. Smog has largely been dealt with, thanks to capitalism. Simple and cheap systems like EGR and FADEC have reduced smog to incredibly low levels. Our landfills become parks and golf courses after they are filled. They also become a source of methane, which can be tapped and used to heat homes, typically what we do now. ppradhan wrote: Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? You don't like parks and golf courses? You don't like 'free' methane? ppradhan wrote: Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? Define 'resource utilization efficiency'. ppradhan wrote: Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. Yes it does. You are now preaching the scripture from the Church of Green. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green. They both stem from the Church of Karl Marx. ppradhan wrote: If you believe in consumerism, you can treat this as smart consumerism. Define 'smart consumerism'. ppradhan wrote: If you believe in capitalism, you can treat this as saving money without compromising quality of life. Who in the right mind wouldn't want that? What compromise? Are you miserable? 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
18-10-2021 23:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: ppradhan wrote: I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen and acting superior by name calling or half-assed scientific explanations. Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, because that is not why I raised my question the first time. Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem (this is my definition of climate change)? I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. It is clear that you guys are passionate about that topic, so let's put that on the side for now. Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. If you believe in consumerism, you can treat this as smart consumerism. If you believe in capitalism, you can treat this as saving money without compromising quality of life. Who in the right mind wouldn't want that? Climate change is real. Define 'climate change'. Define 'real'. Buzzword fallacies. HarveyH55 wrote: Past couple of days, it's just gotten barely over 80 F here in Florida. Gets much cooler, I'll need to wear long pants. Our winter climate begins... Hopefully, it won't be as bad as some climate changes, where I actually had to dig through the closet, for a light jacket. There even a winter so cold, I had to put a second blanket on my bed... Climate has no value associated with it. You are describing temperatures...a value. You are describing seasonal changes. HarveyH55 wrote: It's a dynamic world we live on. Constantly in motion, constantly changing. We are just along for the ride. We don't control the speed or direction. We can't go back to pre-industrial times, we can only move forward. If you want deal with a perceive climate catastrophe, you should prepare and adapt. As we have, since we first took to walking on our hind legs. He can't even define what 'climate catastrophe' even means! HarveyH55 wrote: You can also join a cult, which will tell you what you will, and will not do, in exchange for salvation. The Church of Karl Marx offers no salvation. HarveyH55 wrote: Well, at least for your great-great grandchildren. Though, likely no one will remember, or care, about all the sacrifices you made. If they have to live under a dictatorship or oligarchy, they will figure out pretty fast how much it sucks. HarveyH55 wrote: Mostly, people will just roll along, whatever potholes this planet runs through, and survive just fine, enjoying the few decades we are blessed with. Space has potholes??? 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
19-10-2021 02:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	ppradhan wrote:I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. So you aren't going to define your terms? ppradhan wrote: I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen [defining my terms] Well then, I guess we're done. ppradhan wrote: ... or half-assed scientific explanations. You haven't offered any science whatsoever. Science is definitely not your strong suit yet you didn't come here to learn any. ppradhan wrote: Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, How can we know whether we agree or disagree when you won't unambiguously define your terms? It's like you are begging to be ignored. ppradhan wrote: Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) Great. Define your terms. ppradhan wrote: - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem No, we cannot agree on this point. Why should any rational adult believe this, as worded? ppradhan wrote: (this is my definition of climate change)? You apparently don't know what a definition is. Define "sizeable." Define "disruption." Delimit earth's ecosystem so anyone can look at anything and know whether or not it is included in "earth's ecosystem" or not. What resources are not available to us? Who are you including in the pronoun "us." What level of inefficiency with resources is sufficient to qualify for inclusion in "Climate Change"? Your definitions need to be unambiguous, not totally ambiguous and exceedingly unclear ... and then all thrown together into one big bogus semantics bomb. ppradhan wrote:I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. Please make this the last time that you tell us what you are not talking about or what you are not saying. Please limit yourself to what you are talking about and what you are saying. ppradhan wrote:Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. As rational adults we can all agree that none of this has anything to do with any Global Climate. Would you please stay on topic instead of trying to bounce around like a pinball. First, define the global Climate ... unambiguously. You might not get it right on your first shot so anticipate some follow-up questions. ppradhan wrote: Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? Your memory isn't very good. This is not what you asked the first time. As rational adults I think we can all agree that we can live better lives by learning from our past mistakes and by making better business/banking/financial decisions and making more money. ppradhan wrote: Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? The answer to that question is yes, and we should look first at those options that maximize profits because within those possibilities are those solutions that optimize efficiency with resources. ppradhan wrote:Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. How long do you believe you can keep Marxism out of this discussion? Let's see. The most obvious answer to your question is to abandon low-producing alternative energy investments and expand on use of existing coal and hydrocarbon infrastructure. There's your top answer. . 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
19-10-2021 19:32
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: All, please forgive me momentarily hijacking this lovely thread that was started by a climate-lemming who wanted to hijack our thinking and do it for us ... Harvey, I wanted to take a moment and ask you how my Harvey-friendly animated headers are working out. You should see a noticeable difference in download times as well as noticeably less real estate consumed on the page. I hope they fit the bill. Most seem to work out well enough. Didn't have to change, since I'm the one who chooses to stay with slow internet. Don't think I really miss much, maybe a few hockey-stick graphs, or James's teen girl pictures, or worse. I'll still stop loading, when the page is jumping around too much to read. It's just a habit I've gotten into. Most websites use a lot of graphics these days, and can't even get to the login, before it times out. I get an error, instead of access. Heck...I get that jumping around even on the internal network. That's a badly designed website, not just the graphics. But here, the jumps often require me to scroll to find the post I was reading, often mid-sentence. It's not a on time deal either, happens several times, specially if it's a longer post. It's pretty easy to see when all the text for a page has loaded, then I just stop loading.

19-10-2021 19:40
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: ppradhan wrote: I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen and acting superior by name calling or half-assed scientific explanations. Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, because that is not why I raised my question the first time. Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem (this is my definition of climate change)? I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. It is clear that you guys are passionate about that topic, so let's put that on the side for now. Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. If you believe in consumerism, you can treat this as smart consumerism. If you believe in capitalism, you can treat this as saving money without compromising quality of life. Who in the right mind wouldn't want that? Climate change is real. Define 'climate change'. Define 'real'. Buzzword fallacies. HarveyH55 wrote: Past couple of days, it's just gotten barely over 80 F here in Florida. Gets much cooler, I'll need to wear long pants. Our winter climate begins... Hopefully, it won't be as bad as some climate changes, where I actually had to dig through the closet, for a light jacket. There even a winter so cold, I had to put a second blanket on my bed... Climate has no value associated with it. You are describing temperatures...a value. You are describing seasonal changes. HarveyH55 wrote: It's a dynamic world we live on. Constantly in motion, constantly changing. We are just along for the ride. We don't control the speed or direction. We can't go back to pre-industrial times, we can only move forward. If you want deal with a perceive climate catastrophe, you should prepare and adapt. As we have, since we first took to walking on our hind legs. He can't even define what 'climate catastrophe' even means! HarveyH55 wrote: You can also join a cult, which will tell you what you will, and will not do, in exchange for salvation. The Church of Karl Marx offers no salvation. HarveyH55 wrote: Well, at least for your great-great grandchildren. Though, likely no one will remember, or care, about all the sacrifices you made. If they have to live under a dictatorship or oligarchy, they will figure out pretty fast how much it sucks. HarveyH55 wrote: Mostly, people will just roll along, whatever potholes this planet runs through, and survive just fine, enjoying the few decades we are blessed with. Space has potholes??? Should have put potholes in quotes, as it was meant metaphorically. We will always hit a few 'bumps' in the road, sometimes spill hot coffee all over the place, but we'll get over it, clean up the mess, eventually.
19-10-2021 22:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: ppradhan wrote: I am going to ignore the immaturity in the comments above. I have no time or any inclination towards staying behind a computer screen and acting superior by name calling or half-assed scientific explanations. Let's just agree as adults to disagree on how real climate change is, because that is not why I raised my question the first time. Let me attempt to unite us here (we clearly don't do this enough) - regardless of our differences, can we agree that we humans have been inefficient in the use of resources available to us and so are causing sizable disruptions to the earth's ecosystem (this is my definition of climate change)? I am not talking about CO2 emissions, per se. It is clear that you guys are passionate about that topic, so let's put that on the side for now. Smog in cities or miles-wide landfill sites on the Pacific are examples of "real" stuff we can agree that they exist because of us. Now back to my question again - are there ways for us to become better at how we live our lives? Can we, as individuals, do something that can have a bigger impact on overall resource utilization efficiency? Note that this has nothing to do with any religion or political ideology. If you believe in consumerism, you can treat this as smart consumerism. If you believe in capitalism, you can treat this as saving money without compromising quality of life. Who in the right mind wouldn't want that? Climate change is real. Define 'climate change'. Define 'real'. Buzzword fallacies. HarveyH55 wrote: Past couple of days, it's just gotten barely over 80 F here in Florida. Gets much cooler, I'll need to wear long pants. Our winter climate begins... Hopefully, it won't be as bad as some climate changes, where I actually had to dig through the closet, for a light jacket. There even a winter so cold, I had to put a second blanket on my bed... Climate has no value associated with it. You are describing temperatures...a value. You are describing seasonal changes. HarveyH55 wrote: It's a dynamic world we live on. Constantly in motion, constantly changing. We are just along for the ride. We don't control the speed or direction. We can't go back to pre-industrial times, we can only move forward. If you want deal with a perceive climate catastrophe, you should prepare and adapt. As we have, since we first took to walking on our hind legs. He can't even define what 'climate catastrophe' even means! HarveyH55 wrote: You can also join a cult, which will tell you what you will, and will not do, in exchange for salvation. The Church of Karl Marx offers no salvation. HarveyH55 wrote: Well, at least for your great-great grandchildren. Though, likely no one will remember, or care, about all the sacrifices you made. If they have to live under a dictatorship or oligarchy, they will figure out pretty fast how much it sucks. HarveyH55 wrote: Mostly, people will just roll along, whatever potholes this planet runs through, and survive just fine, enjoying the few decades we are blessed with. Space has potholes??? Should have put potholes in quotes, as it was meant metaphorically. We will always hit a few 'bumps' in the road, sometimes spill hot coffee all over the place, but we'll get over it, clean up the mess, eventually. I know it was meant metaphorically. That's why the . 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

Join the debate Impactful individual-level solutions towards carbon footprint reduction:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	827	09-02-2024 03:41
Physicists 'entangle' individual molecules for the first time, bringing about a new platform for	17	21-12-2023 13:02
Optical tweezers building qubits out of individual molecules, this is the first step toward	0	08-12-2023 03:08
Top Entities Only Want To Steal New Ideas Solutions, Do Not Want To Buy It	2	03-12-2023 21:07
The Lake Mead water level is still rising in August, when it is ALWAYS falling. So snow melt is not the	155	16-09-2023 13:46