Remember me
▼ Content

shrinking



Page 1 of 3123>
shrinking03-06-2019 22:23
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
If and when anthropogenic climate change becomes a more serious problem in the coming years, shrinking the economy to shrink our CO2 footprint will seem more and more reasonable.
03-06-2019 22:44
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(164)
keepit wrote:
If and when anthropogenic climate change becomes a more serious problem in the coming years,

There is no problem.

keepit wrote:
shrinking the economy to shrink our CO2 footprint will seem more and more reasonable.

CO2 forms naturally in the atmosphere; it is not a pollutant. There is nothing to worry about.
03-06-2019 22:54
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
It doesn't matter what you call CO2 (pollutant or non pollutant). Also, i was talking about anthropogenic CO2 which is clearly (no pun intended) increasing the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Some on this website say that CO2 doesn't hold in heat. I don't understand how they dispute that fact.
03-06-2019 23:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
It doesn't matter what you call CO2 (pollutant or non pollutant).

It does to those who are taxed for it's presence.
keepit wrote:
Also, i was talking about anthropogenic CO2 which is clearly (no pun intended) increasing the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content. We don't have enough stations, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
keepit wrote:
Some on this website say that CO2 doesn't hold in heat.
I don't understand how they dispute that fact.

Simple. It's not possible to hold or trap heat.
It is also not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You don't understand? The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann are simple to understand. You just want to deny them.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-06-2019 23:10
03-06-2019 23:41
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(164)
keepit wrote:
It doesn't matter what you call CO2 (pollutant or non pollutant).

It matters to people who are monetarily affected by what it is called.

keepit wrote:
Also, i was talking about anthropogenic CO2 which is clearly (no pun intended)

You seem to have a sense of humor! I like that. Plenty of people seem to take things way too seriously, and get filled by rage rather than joy.

keepit wrote:
increasing the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

We have no idea what the "total CO2" is... We don't have a way of accurately measuring that. We would need many more stations...

keepit wrote:
Some on this website say that CO2 doesn't hold in heat. I don't understand how they dispute that fact.

Nothing holds in heat. Heat cannot be trapped.
03-06-2019 23:49
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
I do have a sense of humor. My ex-wife told me my jokes weren't funny though. She only understood slapstick humor though.
04-06-2019 02:26
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
keepit wrote:
If and when anthropogenic climate change becomes a more serious problem in the coming years, shrinking the economy to shrink our CO2 footprint will seem more and more reasonable.


I've only had 2 years of chemistry, one in high school, the other in college, both more than 30 years ago. I just don't recall there being more than one kind of CO2. I don't remember an special planet-killing properties being mentioned either. Maybe the teachers didn't lean far enough to left...

Energy is energy, it just gets used and passed, neither created or destroyed. With, or without CO2, the same things will happen, or not. It's only 0.04% of the atmosphere, whole lot of other molecules to use that energy, if CO2 isn't there. Doesn't really matter what CO2 is doing with the energy it uses, since it's just a tiny part of the whole system.
04-06-2019 02:39
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Anthropogenic CO2 refers to the source of the CO2, not the type of CO2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to kill the planet, it is just going to make the temp go up, ice melt, and sea level rise. What happens depends on how soon the CO2 level rises. The more anthropogenic CO2 we produce, the sooner the CO2 level goes up, the sooner the devastation begins.
04-06-2019 03:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
It doesn't matter what you call CO2 (pollutant or non pollutant).

I tend to call it a necessity. Without it we die.
Also, i was talking about anthropogenic CO2 which is clearly (no pun intended) increasing the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

Do you know how it is measured? Where it is measured? How many measuring stations around the world? Is CO2 evenly distributed in the atmosphere? What about concentrations with height? Is there ANY way to accurately measure global atmospheric CO2?


Some on this website say that CO2 doesn't hold in heat.

It doesn't...nothing holds heat.
I don't understand how they dispute that fact.

Maybe I can simplify this and boil it down to nearly nothing. If you still dispute, ask away. These guys will help.

Temperatures are always trying to reach equilibrium.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not temperature.
Heat always flows from hot to cold.

Sun heats the Earths surface.
Heat from the warmer surface flows to the cooler atmosphere. (we've just COOLED the surface using CO2!)
From the atmosphere, it can't go back to the surface because the surface is equal or warmer in temperature. It must radiate to something cooler or out to space.

Now, where is it that you disagree with the sequence of events?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 04-06-2019 03:01
04-06-2019 03:08
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
There is so much i disagree with what you say.
I guess the key thing is where you say CO2 doesn't hold in heat.
I'm pretty sure it slows the dissipation of heat into outer space. That's what i mean when i say "holds in heat".
That slowing principle combined with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (you don't have to measure CO2 if you know it is being produced anthropogenically) results in a temperature rise, etc.
Edited on 04-06-2019 03:10
04-06-2019 03:09
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
IBDaMann,
Did it occur to you that most of these guys are the ones that need help understanding global warming.
04-06-2019 03:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
There is so much i disagree with what you say.
I guess the key thing is where you say CO2 doesn't hold in heat.
I'm pretty sure it slows the dissipation of heat into outer space. That's what i mean when i say "holds in heat".
That slowing principle combined with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (you don't have to measure CO2 if you know it is being produced anthropogenically) results i.n a temperature rise,etc.


Here's the problem we have...

You are standing up and asking for my money (and billions of other for their money) to reduce or eliminate man made CO2, yet you won't give any reason for your belief other than "that scientist dude did a study that was propaganda funded and I believe him".

Can you show any science that supports your faith that does not deny the laws of thermodynamics?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
04-06-2019 03:21
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Re: your comment about CO2
Oxygen is a necessity too. Without it we die but with too much for too long we die.
Edited on 04-06-2019 03:22
04-06-2019 03:23
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
Oxygen is a necessity too. Without it we die but with too much for too long we die.


Sure, same with water. No answer to the question?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 04-06-2019 03:24
04-06-2019 03:24
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
My answer is right there, a few posts back up.
Edited on 04-06-2019 03:26
04-06-2019 03:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
My answer is right there, a few posts back up.


I'll ask it one more time.

Can you show any science that supports your faith that does not deny the laws of thermodynamics?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
04-06-2019 03:28
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
I'm not suggesting spending money. I'm suggesting not spending money as a way to reduce our carbon footprint.
By the way, i think you have misapplied the laws of thermodynamics.
CO2 slows the flow of heat. Do you disagree with that?
Edited on 04-06-2019 03:31
04-06-2019 03:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Think about it...I gotta go yo my kids ballgame. I'll drop in later.
04-06-2019 03:32
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Have a good game. Don't believe those little league coaches. Most of them didn't get past little league and took their coaching from others that didn't get past little league.
04-06-2019 03:32
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
I'm not suggesting spending money. I'm suggesting not spending money as a way to reduce our carbon footprint.
By the way, i think you have misapplied the laws of thermodynamics.


Seriously, I've got a 10 minute drive to a game that starts in 2 minutes!!

If I have not interpreted the LoTs then you must tel me how I have done so. If I made a mistake the show me where I'm wrong. I just could be wrong. Where EXACTLY have I made a mistake?

GOT TO GO NOW!!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
04-06-2019 03:34
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
Have a good game. Don't believe those little league coaches. Most of them didn't get past little league and took their coaching from others that didn't get past little league.


Damnit, don't get me started on THAT!!!!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
04-06-2019 03:37
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Drive safe.
I'm a little fuzzy on your thinking about thermodynamics.
It may be that we disagree about local variations in the flow of entropy which are temporarily caused by the input of energy. I hope i'm not slowing your trip to the game.

By the way, i'm not a professional scientist or engineer.
Edited on 04-06-2019 04:09
04-06-2019 03:39
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
When i suggested you drive safe i didn't mean to be sending you driving lessons.
04-06-2019 04:06
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
In the immortal words of Ken Griffey Jr. "Let the kids play."
A very wise coach once told me, "Don't worry about your kids' coaches. If your kid is great, he will shine through a bad coach." It's not always true though.
04-06-2019 06:42
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
Drive safe.
Thanks. I did.

I'm a little fuzzy on your thinking about thermodynamics.
I explained it bare bones simple. What don't you agree with?

It may be that we disagree about local variations in the flow of entropy
How could we disagree we never discussed this.

which are temporarily caused by the input of energy.
input of what energy? The sun is the only energy source we discussed. The sun's output is quite consistent. You're not giving CO2 credit as an energy source are you?
I hope i'm not slowing your trip to the game.

Nope. My choice to be a few minutes late. Poor choice.

By the way, i'm not a professional scientist or engineer.
Neither am I.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 04-06-2019 07:12
04-06-2019 07:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
keepit wrote: It doesn't matter what you call CO2 (pollutant or non pollutant).

It matters greatly. Why don't you refer to CO2 as simply the life-essential compound that it is?

keepit wrote: Also, i was talking about anthropogenic CO2 which is clearly (no pun intended) increasing the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

All additional CO2 increases the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Did your Marxist friends convince you that there is some particular CO2 that doesn't?

All CO2 is identical. There is no such thing as "anthropogenic" CO2 vs. "other" CO2. Did your Marxist friends tell you otherwise?

Your Marxist friends sound like losers to me.

keepit wrote: Some on this website say that CO2 doesn't hold in heat. I don't understand how they dispute that fact.

It's not a fact.

Your Marxist friends taught you to say that, right? They knew that you would never question anything they tell you. They knew that you would never think for yourself. They knew you would regurgitate their religious dogma and would refuse to listen to any logic or reason in response, least of all to any science.

You hate science don't you? You fear anything that requires learning, don't you?

Here's some science for you ... no substance traps heat. That's worth repeating. No substance traps heat.

But wait! You were told otherwise by your loser Marxist friends, right? You were taught that CO2 traps heat and that it is able to violate physics in all sorts of wondrous ways, right? ... except that they don't use the words "violations of physics" ... they tell you to say "forcings" and "feedbacks" and other meaningless words instead. You were taught that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" that is itself able to increase the earth's average global temperature, nevermind that that is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, right? In fact, you don't care that your Marxist friends require you to believe in violations of physics because it's your religion and the mystical magical beauty of your religion is far more important than any science, right?

Why do you believe that CO2 somehow traps heat? Because you were told to believe it? Do you even know what "heat" is? (The answer is "no" right?) Have you learned the Stefan-Boltzmann law yet? (The answer is "no" right?) Stefan-Boltzmann is the closest thing you are going to get to "settled science" and it explains why no substance "traps heat." Thermal energy pours freely out of all substances based on temperature ... proportionally to the substance's temperature raised to the fourth power. For all substances. No substance has any ability to either trap thermal energy or to stop heat.

I just wasted my time explaining that to you, didn't I? Your Marxist friends made you vow to reject science in all its forms, didn't they?

Yeah, I thought as much.


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 08:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
keepit wrote: Anthropogenic CO2 refers to the source of the CO2, not the type of CO2.

... and you have made it clear that you don't care about the source, only about the total quantity. Within any total quantity, all CO2 is identical.

So why are you so desperate to distinguish the "misanthropogenic" CO2 from the "other" CO2?

keepit wrote: Increased CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to kill the planet, it is just going to make the temp go up, ice melt, and sea level rise.

Would you care to explain this egregious violation of physics? How is this miracle going to happen? Any of it! The laws of thermodynamics and black body science say that none of it is possible.

keepit wrote: What happens depends on how soon the CO2 level rises.

Please don't feel obligated to be so specific.

keepit wrote: The more anthropogenic CO2 we produce, the sooner the CO2 level goes up, the sooner the devastation begins.

The devastation? ... as in "Fear! Panic! Hurry and tax the chit out of ourselves! It might already be too late! Form bucket lines and pour our cash onto the government! Someone dial 9-1-1-A-O-C!"

I thought you just finished saying that nothing is going to be killing the planet. How did that change half-way through your post?


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 09:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
Anthropogenic CO2 refers to the source of the CO2, not the type of CO2.
It is not possible to determine the source of CO2.
keepit wrote:
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to kill the planet, it is just going to make the temp go up, ice melt, and sea level rise.
CO2 has no such capability. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
keepit wrote:
What happens depends on how soon the CO2 level rises.
Nothing happens.
keepit wrote:
The more anthropogenic CO2 we produce, the sooner the CO2 level goes up, the sooner the devastation begins.

CO2 doesn't cause devastation.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 09:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
There is so much i disagree with what you say.
That's because you deny science.
keepit wrote:
I guess the key thing is where you say CO2 doesn't hold in heat.
It can't. Nothing holds in heat. Heat is not contained in anything.
keepit wrote:
I'm pretty sure it slows the dissipation of heat into outer space.
It can't. Heat doesn't dissipate. Earth loses thermal energy by converting it to electromagnetic energy, or light.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The makeup of the material radiating light is Irrelevant. The color of light is irrelevant.. All colors of light are combined.

You are denying this equation, known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

keepit wrote:
That's what i mean when i say "holds in heat".

Not possible. You can't hold heat in anything. Heat is not contained in anything.
keepit wrote:
That slowing principle combined with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (you don't have to measure CO2 if you know it is being produced anthropogenically) results in a temperature rise, etc.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-06-2019 09:56
04-06-2019 09:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
IBDaMann,
Did it occur to you that most of these guys are the ones that need help understanding global warming.


You think so? Define 'global warming' then.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 09:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
Re: your comment about CO2
Oxygen is a necessity too. Without it we die but with too much for too long we die.


Irrelevance fallacy. No one is talking about oxygen warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 09:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
My answer is right there, a few posts back up.


So...no answer, eh?


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 10:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
I'm not suggesting spending money. I'm suggesting not spending money as a way to reduce our carbon footprint.

No, you're suggesting shutting down his source of income instead.
keepit wrote:
By the way, i think you have misapplied the laws of thermodynamics.

* You cannot create or destroy energy.
* You cannot make heat flow backwards. You cannot heat a warmer substance, such as the surface, with a colder gas like CO2.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system. Entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system.
* You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.

keepit wrote:
CO2 slows the flow of heat. Do you disagree with that?

No. It is not possible to slow the flow of heat. You can only reduce it or increase it. Heat is not energy.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 10:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
I'm a little fuzzy on your thinking about thermodynamics.

1st law of thermodynamics:
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

2nd law of thermodynamics.
Entropy can never decrease in a closed system, that is, a consistent system that cannot consider any outside energy sources or outside energy sinks.
keepit wrote:
It may be that we disagree about local variations in the flow of entropy which are temporarily caused by the input of energy.

You are trying to introduce a variation without a cause. Homunculus fallacy.
keepit wrote:
By the way, i'm not a professional scientist or engineer.

Irrelevant. Science is not scientists or engineers. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are denying three of these theories, simply because you don't want to believe in them.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 11:05
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
It still keeps going around to 'stop spending', yet I don't see any way for most people to stop spending in any significant way. We need Oxygen, water, and food to stay alive, no avoiding it. We can't go more than a few minutes without breathing, a few days without water, few weeks without food. Oxygen and water are plentiful, natural, not much trouble getting these. Food can be a problem though. It is possible to go weeks without eating, but it's not healthy, nor is it possible to be very active. Can't get by on one meal a month. Need to eat something daily. We use to be able to go out and hunt and forage for our food, but now a days there would be to much competition to have everyone stop shopping, and go out in the wild to do that. It would also be highly seasonal.

In order to buy food, we need money. In order to have money, we need to work. Working is selling labor, goods or services, in exchange for money. The greater diversity of jobs, ensure that there are goods and services, somebody is will to pay money for, so there is a job, where others can earn money.

CO2 is critical in food production. Plants are the base food for every living thing on the planet. Even carnivores depend on plants, since they feed on herbivores. 400 ppm isn't ideal for plant growth, they just do okay, if they get everything else they need, but are kind of sensitive, die easy, poor yield during periods when those needs aren't met regularly. More CO2, and plants grow faster, stronger, and yield more. They are more resistant to adverse conditions, that cause them to shut down, or die. Means longer growing seasons.

How do you figure people are going to get food daily, if everyone reduces their spending? If people reduce there spending to there bare essentials, few people are going to have money to by them. We all can't sell the same goods and services. If you want customers, you have to offer something that other people don't have to sell. We need many stores, because there are only so many customers they can supply goods to, before they run out. Same with health care, doctors can only see so many patients in a day. Free heath care tends to fill their day with people, who don't really need their services, and could have taken care of their problem at home, or wait a few days, and the problem would have fix it self.

You either don't have enough money, and live on a tight budget, or you've never had to work, and earn your money, since you don't seem to understand economics.
04-06-2019 12:14
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
So many misconceptions! I like the one about never having to work.
04-06-2019 13:08
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
The total amount of trash talk plus the total amount of science misconceptions equals multiples of the total amount of sensible talk.
It makes it difficult to learn much about global warming but i guess that is the point - to suppress learning - and the point of that is to sell more gas and oil
Edited on 04-06-2019 13:20
04-06-2019 15:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
keepit wrote: The total amount of trash talk plus the total amount of science misconceptions equals multiples of the total amount of sensible talk.

A self-assessment?

keepit wrote: It makes it difficult to learn much about global warming

Wait a minute. Who wants to learn about Global Warming?

keepit wrote: ... but i guess that is the point - to suppress learning - and the point of that is to sell more gas and oil

Marxists want to suppress learning with the point being to destroy capitalism.


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 15:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
keepit wrote: So many misconceptions! I like the one about never having to work.

Hits close to home?


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 15:58
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
So many misconceptions! I like the one about never having to work.


It was a fair statement. You recently said in order to eliminate CO2 production you would not give up your income but you would give up some of your spending money.

If not from income, then where does your spending money come from?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 04-06-2019 16:20
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate shrinking:

Remember me

▲ 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