Is this the answer to atmospheric carbon?

Discussion in 'Science' started by DennisTate, Oct 15, 2018.

?

Is recycling carbon out of the atmosphere the answer?

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
    30.0%
  2. No.... only a carbon tax will do!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. No

    7 vote(s)
    70.0%
  4. I am not sure.... but I think I may watch that video again?!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??

    What tax? Who are you even talking to? How the heck do you equate an individual donation and the power of our country to make a difference?
     
  2. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Too bad you have faith in the politically motivated "scientific" community. In any debate, always follow the Money.

    Are you aware that the Sun is at a grand minimum? Maybe you should check that out.
     
  3. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you're proposing a world wide conspiracy.

    You have NO evidence of that.


    As for the sun, EVERYTHING you know about changes in the quantity of heat coming from the sun came from SCIENCE.

    Proposing that science FORGOT about that is ridiculous.
     
    OldManOnFire likes this.
  6. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??

    The Paris agreement is an attempt to form a rational approach to what science reports.

    Calling THAT a science conspiracy is ridiculous.

    As for the sun, I agree we know something about the sun. YOU were claiming that science FORGOT that - which is clearly nonsensical. You can not possibly show that climate scientists are ignoring the sun.
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??

    The Paris agreement is an attempt to form a rational public policy approach to what science reports.

    Calling THAT a science conspiracy is ridiculous.

    As for the sun, I agree we know something about the sun. YOU were claiming that science FORGOT that - which is clearly nonsensical. You can not possibly show that climate scientists are ignoring the sun.
     
  9. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I didn't say the Paris agreement was a "science conspiracy".
    You mentioned "world wide conspiracies".
    I gave you one.

    Did you look at the web site about the Sun that I referenced?
    If your scientists aren't taking they cycles of the Sun into account with their declaration of "global warming", then they aren't truly Scientists.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Paris could not possilbly be a conspiracy.

    It's totally in the open. It's intent is putlic. There is no harmful objective. It's totally legal.
     
  11. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why not? Many conspiracies are in the open.
    How about the mass immigration - what do you suppose that would do to our country?
    You don't call taxing you extra not harmful? It's legal because they say it is.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes - mass migration due to failiing agriculture or rising water (such as we see starting to happen in Bangladesh) is a serous concern. It's why our military considers climate change to be a national security threat.

    So, there are people who want to reduce that likelihood, limit the numbers, and otherwise prepare.

    No, taxing is ABSOLUTELY not harmful. It's a REQUIREMENT for ALL civilization and always has been.

    In the case of Paris Accords, NO country is being required to increase taxes. Furthermore, any tax increases in the USA are agreed to by us- because we believe there are solutions to various problems that are worthy of our contribution through taxes.

    Highways, killing people in the ME, bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, visiting other planets and moons, doing the basic research that is where new drugs come from, ensuring that few Americans starve to death - all these things warrant taxes from Americans as we the people have decided.
     
  13. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    WillReadmore,
    The mass migration into this country is not due to failing crops. It is for the express purpose of bringing the US down to 3rd world status so the globalists will have their global government. Actually the crops are failing here & in Canada due to flooding & early snow.

    Are you even aware of the problems Mexico is having with people coming from all over the world and then complaining because they do not have 1st class accommodations. There are riots & Mexican citizens are afraid to go out. Businesses are being robbed. For more info on this look up the videos by Oscar el Blue.

    The Taxing you know has nothing to do with any mitigation of so-called global warming - it is for the purpose of distributing the wealth. It will be given to poor countries. Who knows what they will do with it.

    Are you aware that the US gives $10 million a day to Israel? They have free medical care and free college there - thanks for your contribution.

    What do new drugs have to do with people starving? Do you agree that the Israelis should bulldoze the homes of Palestinians? Do you think they should be killing people in Gaza? And Why? Are you even aware that they have been shooting, shelling, & bombing these people?
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These paragraphs make no sense. I didn't state a reason for those comming here. You statement of why they come here is just plain ridiculous, as it proposes some sort of major conspiracy for which there is no evidence. And, your comments on US agriculure are not in opposition to what science projects for climate change.
    The primary point of taxing carbon is to make conservation and non-carbon forms of energy more attractive. These taxes would (should) go toward reducing other taxes. This method can be fully effective WITHOUT increasing federal revenue.

    As a separate issue, there are ideas concerning warming where the US and other countries could slow world carbon emissions by funding projects in those countries. For example, India with its billion+ people will be coming into the first world, which means they could dramatically increase their carbon output.

    I pointed to many reasons WE CHOOSE to tax ourselves, beause you implied taxes aren't the choice of the people. And, those I listed are cases where private enterprise can not be the decision making force,.
     
  15. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you understood how desperate the Globalists are to implement their
    New World Order you would not think it is so ridiculous. Research George Soros. Are you even aware that there are some 12,000+ people from not only South & Central America, but Africa, the Mideast & India & other areas of the world that have descended on Mexico & expecting to get "Asylum" in the US. Don't you wonder who is funding them?
    Are you in favor of the US giving up its sovereignty?

    So the tax is to discourage us from using our cars - meanwhile those that are proposing the tax Jet around the world in their private aircraft, & are Chauffeured around town in their big cars.

    India coming into the first world - they sure are - they are coming to the US displacing American workers.

    I really don't think we CHOSE to Tax ourselves. I do understand the need for taxation, but I think it is grossly misspent.
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're not really investigating this issue.

    - the number of undocumented aliens in the US hasn't grown since 2009.
    - undocumented aliens have no path to citizenship, thus have no way of voting.
    - we don't allow people in who aren't escaping immediate and serious threats in their homeland.

    Yes, people with a bunch of money can do things that you can't do. That's life under capitalism - as well as pretty much every other system that involves a significant population.

    There is NO WAY for this to lead to the US losing its sovereignty. Studies show that those coming here integrate with our society and become Americans (regardless of paperwork). Numerous DACA kids have been accepted to our universities and are being successful - even though they work under the cloud of deportation to countries they have never even VISITED!

    Soros, Trump and others certainly have used foreign labor. In fact, Trump has clearly used illegal foreign labor, and Soros may have as well. These are aberrations, not the rule. However, on the whole there is NO American constituency that is in favor of open borders, and the bipartisan immigration bill of 2013 is proof - it passed the Senate and would have passed the House had not the Republican House Speaker Boehner not prevented it from coming to a vote.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2019
  17. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    WillReadmore,
    With arrival of 4th caravan, there are now 12,000 migrants in Mexico

    Another 4,000 waded across the Suchiate river from Guatemala yesterday
    https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/there-are-now-12000-migrants-in-mexico/

    Unlike the Irish, Latinos can’t assimilate, says Heritage immigration study co-author
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/unlike-the-irish-latinos-cant-assimilate-s

    Obama: America Must Surrender Sovereignty, Embrace One World Government
    https://www.activistpost.com/2016/0...sovereignty-embrace-one-world-government.html

    George Soros Is Providing Migrants With Prepaid Debit Cards To Fund Illegal Journeys
    https://thetruthrevolution.net/geog...prepaid-debit-cards-to-fund-illegal-journeys/

    Soros Running Ads In Central America Telling Migrants They Will Get Free Stuff In The USA
    https://www.newswars.com/soros-runn...migrants-they-will-get-free-stuff-in-the-usa/

     
    DennisTate likes this.
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, the Sun is not at a grand minimum right now. It is at the minimum of the 11yr cycle, but that is different than the grand cycles.

    Second, the energy imbalance on the planet is still at least +0.6 W/m^2. Even assuming that a grand minimum is imminent it would only subtract off about 0.2 W/m^2 of that force at most.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    DennisTate likes this.
  19. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't want to pay any tax. But I understand that taxes are necessary to solve various tragedy of the commons problems. The only thing I ask of a tax is that it is implemented fairly and that all parties abide by the same rules. A tax that is assessed in proportion to the amount of damage you cause to the environment is about as fair as it gets. I think what I'm hearing you say is that you want me to pay for the damage I cause plus the damage you cause as well. Is that a fair assessment of your position here?
     
  20. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is all nonsense. As long as the human population continues to increase all these so called palliative measures will not reverse the climate trends. There really is only one honest solution to AGW and that is massive human population reduction.
     
  21. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you honestly believe that will help, YES!

    However, you do know don't you that in no way is your contribution going to do anything to mitigate the so-called global warming. It is going to be given to "poor countries" as a distribution of the wealth program. So, if you don't believe in this "distribution of the wealth", then you should be fighting tooth and nail to just stop the foolishness and let those "poor countries" evolve by their own efforts.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All other first world nations have had significant carbon based fuel tax while we have not. In fact that is true for almost all countries - but, not the US.

    That tax goes to general revenue, so that income and other taxes can be lower.

    What we might choose to tax fuel is not tied to what we might decide is needed foreign aid for climate or any other purpose.

    Moving revenue from other tax toward carbon based fuel tax will encourage conservation (the cheapest energy) and moves toward non carbon fuels. Plus, it can be revenue neutral - more revenue is not the objective and is not necessary for such a plan to be effective in reducing carbon emission.

    So, taxing carbon fuel DOES reduce carbon emission and such a plan is entirely independent of foreign aid of any kind.
     
  23. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    WillReadmore,
    There have been times in Earth's history when there was much more carbon in the atmosphere and the Earth was Greener. What your group is proposing would make it very difficult to even grow enough to feed Earth's population. Do you understand that the CO2 ALWAYS follows a warm period, sometimes by over a hundred years? Here's why:

    "First, the ice cores show that in the glacial spring-time the temperature rose before the CO2 levels rose. Therefore the rising CO2 cannot be a cause of the warming – it is a result of CO2 being expelled from the warming oceans.

    Second, at the top of every summer-time in the glacial cycle, the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were totally unable to prevent the cooling into the next cycle of ice. CO2 levels fell later as the cooling oceans absorbed more CO2".
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/cycles_not_carbon_dioxide_control_climate.html
     
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Scientists are fully aware that CO2 was much higher in the past. This is actually an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem.

    And no, CO2 does not always lag the temperature. CO2 is both in a forcing and feedback relationship with the temperature. This means that CO2 can catalyze temperature changes and it responds to temperature changes. That means that CO2 can appear to either lead or lag or the temperature depending on what specifically was the initial catalyzing agent. For the Quanternary Period the catalyzing agent for change was Milankovitch cycles and volcanism. This is why the temperature changed first followed by CO2 which then forces further temperature changes thus amplifying the glacial cycles. But the PETM, ETMx, and other high pulse events CO2 itself was the catalyzing agent for change so it lead the temperature. The fact that CO2 would appear to lag the temperature during the Quanternary Period was actually predicted back in the 1950's and before it was known to have happened.

    And that's correct. CO2 was not the initial cause of the warming during the glacial cycles. But it was the cause of further warming during this time. Like I mentioned above scientists figured this out 70 years ago.

    First, American Thinker is not a reliable or reputable source for scientific information. In fact they are well known for their misinformation.

    Second, the carbon cycle is quite complex. Even though CO2 is in a feedback with the temperature the feedback is not infinite. There is a braking mechanism as a result of biosphere and hydrosphere source and sink processes that tended to cap the amount of airborne CO2. In other words, as more and more CO2 went into the atmosphere it becomes more and more difficult for nature to emit it and easier and easier for nature to absorb it. This is why interglacial periods tend to level out as the Earth awaits for the down phase of the Milankovitch cycle.

    This whole process is actually reasonably well understood. Models do quite well at explaining the CO2 and temperature trajectories over the entire Quaternary Period now even being able to correctly predict the transition from 40k cycles to 100k cycles and the magnitude of these glacial cycles. There's still a lot of details to work out but the general picture of glacial cycles is very well understood and completely consistent with the modern theory climate change.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2019
  25. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not so arrogant and righteous to believe I know more than the collective scientific community...
     
    iamanonman and WillReadmore like this.

Share This Page