Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

forum for kitesurfers


User avatar
marlboroughman
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2846
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:12 pm
Kiting since: 2005
Style: Oldschool
Gear: Switch
Brand Affiliation: Make Kiting Great Again!
Location: CubaKiteLessons.com
Contact:

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby marlboroughman » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:40 pm

Now, watch Svensmark theory. By the way, the experiment that he made in the movie was replicated at CERN Lab afterwords and it worked.

phpBB [video]

Matteo V
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:42 pm
Kiting since: 2008
Local Beach: US, Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas/Utah/Oregon Coast
Favorite Beaches: Ft. Stevens, North coast of Oregon
Style: Just like school in summertime
Gear: Delta Kites and LF Kitefish QuadMod
Snowboard (Cambered and Rockered)
Foil kites on the snow
Brand Affiliation: NONE F--- the corporate world

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby Matteo V » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:19 am

tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Definitely not my intention to mislead. I think there is not enough detail to say either way. Discussions like these aren't scientific discussions, not even close. In general I can see both of your point of views.
In a non-scientific debate Green could argue that by looking at the overwhelming evidence presented by scientists it is plain to see that we have an impact, and for us who aren't specialists at climatology it makes little sense to discuss details. Obviously part of the issue is that a climatologist does work in details and provide part of the overall picture. If one of those parts fail, it MAY (not necessarily) falsify the model. The most common path is that the model is adjusted as most of these details aren't significant enough to fully invalidate the model.

A model is a simplified version of reality that does a job of predicting. If I say given all the variables the model predicts a future value of 10 and the future value ends up being 9, then it does not mean my model is wrong it means we need to look at how the model was inaccurate, and how we can improve. The way climatology works is that our models improve radically with available data, and maturation of models. This development is has been radical in the last decade.

When that is said, our perception usually is the big picture as the models are refined the predictions improve and our overall big picture becomes more correct. Not sure if that explains how I think you both are right? I do agree with Green makes little sense for us to argue details on the models because neither of us are climatologists, because MM's "evidence" / of points of contention supplied are usually nonsense and really not worth anyone's time. I do agree that a climate scientist would normally not argue just big picture. On the other side one of the first checks you put on a project is face validity which is basically a heuristic sense to see if the model is measuring what it is supposed to measure.

I guess that was a pretty long answer to your question. :-)
Excellent answer and you have avoided checkmate in a manner that I did not expect. Now, I will do my damndest to get your hand off the king and get on with the end of the game.


tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Definitely not my intention to mislead. I think there is not enough detail to say either way. Discussions like these aren't scientific discussions, not even close. In general I can see both of your point of views.
Are you implying that there is no answer to my question of whether science would ignore the details and just look at the big picture?


tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
In a non-scientific debate Green could argue that by looking at the overwhelming evidence presented by scientists it is plain to see that we have an impact, and for us who aren't specialists at climatology it makes little sense to discuss details.
So you believe there is an authority that we should cede all power in decision making, as well as debate and discovery, to, for the reasoning that we cannot possibly understand said issues beyond our own credentialed level of expertise?


tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Obviously part of the issue is that a climatologist does work in details and provide part of the overall picture. If one of those parts fail, it MAY (not necessarily) falsify the model.

What specifically, does one of those parts (or in this case, many) failing indicate to you as a scientist? What would you say about a model that can be given slightly different inputs in unknown (required) fields, to produce any outcome you wish?


tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
The way climatology works is that our models improve radically with available data, and maturation of models. This development is has been radical in the last decade.
As a scientist, would you say that radical development in understanding is most often correlated to being extremely close to infancy in understanding? Yes, I know, not exactly scientific despite the "sciency" words, but you can see the "big picture" as you stated Greenturtle and I are both somewhat right. So what does the big picture say about "radical development" in relation to understanding at the time of said radical development?


tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
When that is said, our perception usually is the big picture as the models are refined the predictions improve and our overall big picture becomes more correct.
Now when you say "more correct", are you referring to achieving proof of your desired outcome? If so, this is the least "sciency" thing-a-ma-bob you could use as a narrative of how science works. THERE IS NO "MORE CORRECT!" There can be more accurate. There can be more complete. There can be more detailed. The answer exists to be discovered, what ever it is. It is only correct once we find out what the answer is, and then put its question on a test for someone to get "correct". Unfortunately at this point in our understanding, we cannot say what the answer is beyond a shadow of a doubt.


tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
I do agree with Green makes little sense for us to argue details on the models because neither of us are climatologists, because MM's "evidence" / of points of contention supplied are usually nonsense and really not worth anyone's time.
"Usually nonsense" would indicate you have knowledge of at least an instance or two where M&M has actually been correct in his cited evidence against negatively impactful anthropogenic global climate change. Would you care to tell which ones, or would that lead us away from a "more correct" model?


tautologies wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:07 pm
I do agree that a climate scientist would normally not argue just big picture. On the other side one of the first checks you put on a project is face validity which is basically a heuristic sense to see if the model is measuring what it is supposed to measure.

And your hand comes off the king after you moved but........you try to put it right back on. Still I'm gonna claim checkmate, if I may?


And on top of it all, we seemed to have lost M&M in this discussion. Ironically, the discussion is mostly about him, and those religiously opposed to his views as much as he is to theirs.

Pemba
Medium Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2003
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Ozone C4, Brokite Hybrid
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby Pemba » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:37 am

marlboroughman wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:22 pm
Chew on this one a little bit.
The oceans have 99.9% of the earths thermal energy, So how is a source .07% ( air) which only has .04% of co2 forcing the oceans to warm?
I think anything resembling a scientist has left this discussion a long time ago, if not the other academic discussion. I am not a scientist at all and I might have misunderstood your question but surely it must be a very basic one that was answered a long long time ago. I suspect it might have to do with the sun's radiation. How do you expain the functioning of solar panels ? Why is the temperature higher in the sun than it is in the shade ? They use 1000W/m2 (hitting the earths surface) as a reference for solar panels, multiply that with the surface of the earth, it's a lot... The storage of thermal energy I think would be, as you indicated, hardly relevant. If I did misunderstand your question, I'm sure you'll set me straight.

User avatar
marlboroughman
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2846
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:12 pm
Kiting since: 2005
Style: Oldschool
Gear: Switch
Brand Affiliation: Make Kiting Great Again!
Location: CubaKiteLessons.com
Contact:

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby marlboroughman » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:55 am

Pemba wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:37 am
marlboroughman wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:22 pm
Chew on this one a little bit.
The oceans have 99.9% of the earths thermal energy, So how is a source .07% ( air) which only has .04% of co2 forcing the oceans to warm?
I think anything resembling a scientist has left this discussion a long time ago, if not the other academic discussion. I am not a scientist at all and I might have misunderstood your question but surely it must be a very basic one that was answered a long long time ago. I suspect it might have to do with the sun's radiation. How do you expain the functioning of solar panels ? Why is the temperature higher in the sun than it is in the shade ? They use 1000W/m2 (hitting the earths surface) as a reference for solar panels, multiply that with the surface of the earth, it's a lot... The storage of thermal energy I think would be, as you indicated, hardly relevant. If I did misunderstand your question, I'm sure you'll set me straight.
you are making the case for me, it's not CO2 it't the Sun. Case closed then.

Pemba
Medium Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2003
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Ozone C4, Brokite Hybrid
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby Pemba » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:08 am

The CO2 influences/absorbs sunlight maybe ? Like shade ? I don't think that between you and me we will be closing any cases.

Greenturtle
Medium Poster
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 6:51 pm
Kiting since: 2002
Local Beach: Presque Isle, Erie PA
Gear: Turbine 17, RRD Emotion 17, OR Flite 12, Solo 9 & 6.5
Tons of boards for water, land, and snow
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby Greenturtle » Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:37 pm

Wow. Are you kidding me people?

Lets review the basics:

Sunlight shines on the earth.
Some of it is absorbed, heating the planet.
Some of it gets reflected back out towards space, and some of it makes it back out there.
But some of it hits gasses in the atmosphere that relfect the light back down towards the earths surface again!
This is normal.
But when the composition of the atmosphere is changed by belching smoke all over the planet, more gasses are present that reflect the light back down on us instead of allowing it back out into space.

The supposed culprits are co2 and water vapor, but I would also personally add the toxic vaporized heavy metals to the list just to remind everyone what is coming down on us in raindrops and making almost every fish dangerous to eat for pregnant women among many other things etc etc etc etc etc

iriejohn
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1135
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:04 pm
Kiting since: 0
Local Beach: West Sussex
Gear: this 'n that
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: South coast, UK

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby iriejohn » Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:03 pm

Greenturtle wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:37 pm
Wow. Are you kidding me people?

Lets review the basics:

Sunlight shines on the earth.
Some of it is absorbed, heating the planet.
Some of it gets reflected back out towards space, and some of it makes it back out there.
But some of it hits gasses in the atmosphere that relfect the light back down towards the earths surface again!
This is normal.
But when the composition of the atmosphere is changed by belching smoke all over the planet, more gasses are present that reflect the light back down on us instead of allowing it back out into space.

The supposed culprits are co2 and water vapor, but I would also personally add the toxic vaporized heavy metals to the list just to remind everyone what is coming down on us in raindrops and making almost every fish dangerous to eat for pregnant women among many other things etc etc etc etc etc
Would you provide links that provide proof that "almost every fish [is] dangerous to eat for pregnant women"?

Thanks.

Matteo V
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:42 pm
Kiting since: 2008
Local Beach: US, Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas/Utah/Oregon Coast
Favorite Beaches: Ft. Stevens, North coast of Oregon
Style: Just like school in summertime
Gear: Delta Kites and LF Kitefish QuadMod
Snowboard (Cambered and Rockered)
Foil kites on the snow
Brand Affiliation: NONE F--- the corporate world

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby Matteo V » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:17 pm

iriejohn wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:03 pm

Would you provide links that provide proof that "almost every fish [is] dangerous to eat for pregnant women"?

Thanks.
Bam! I can. There is some danger in every single exposure to a toxin. Ooops, let me make that more clear. There is some STATISTICAL danger in every single exposure to a toxin. That danger to the amount could be "lottery chances", but still exists. A good way to understand this is to find out what LD50 vs LD100 vs LD20 means as far as toxins goes.

Greenturtle's statement is not false. But common understanding of that statement is very likely to be misinterpreted with respect to it's value.

Matteo V
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:42 pm
Kiting since: 2008
Local Beach: US, Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas/Utah/Oregon Coast
Favorite Beaches: Ft. Stevens, North coast of Oregon
Style: Just like school in summertime
Gear: Delta Kites and LF Kitefish QuadMod
Snowboard (Cambered and Rockered)
Foil kites on the snow
Brand Affiliation: NONE F--- the corporate world

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby Matteo V » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:55 pm

Pemba wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:08 am
The CO2 influences/absorbs sunlight maybe ? Like shade ? I don't think that between you and me we will be closing any cases.
Close, but the science is in the details, not the big picture.

Sunlight comes through the atmosphere at a shorter wavelength (UV), passing right through "greenhouse" gasses. But when it hits the earth, it is changed to a longer wavelength (more toward the IR) that is actually reflected/scattered (not allowed to pass through) "greenhouse gasses".

So CO2 does not absorb the sunlight, at least not to the degree that absorbs what is changed to and then reflected back up from the ground.

This is the founding principle of the greenhouse effect - changing wave lengths upon reflection or absorption/re-emission.

User avatar
marlboroughman
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2846
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:12 pm
Kiting since: 2005
Style: Oldschool
Gear: Switch
Brand Affiliation: Make Kiting Great Again!
Location: CubaKiteLessons.com
Contact:

Re: Is anyone else buying carbon credits to offset CO2 from travel?

Postby marlboroughman » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:00 pm

Sunlight energy doesn't last very long on land, go to Sahara you will notice. If CO2 was so potent it would keep the desert warm at night but it doesn't. Ocean stores energy much longer but still temp is droping like a rock only a year after El Nino. Where is CO2?

Image

This not a scientific problem anymore. It is psychological problem. Over 1000 scientific studies over the last four years point to the Sun. This year is no different except lots of them actually confirming Svensmark theory. Yet, few computer modelers, who can't even replicate the present never mind predict the future, get everybody attention. The evidence is the front of your face and you can't see it. Until your snot freezes to the pavement and even then I am not sure if you admit a failure.


Return to “Kitesurfing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Macster, SaltWaterDog and 21 guests

cron