…is an evil beer which people drink to cool down but makes the climate hotter from CO2, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a thought on “Caribou Barbie”
THE AUTHOR
PAGES
Recent Comments
- Dana on Trump Team To Go Back To Maximum Pressure On Iran: “The esteemed Mr Sykes wrote: It is an open question whether Israel’s strike on Iran was a success or an…” Nov 17, 12:16
- drowningpuppies on Trump Team To Go Back To Maximum Pressure On Iran: “Just a Rimjob from another mother. MAGA47” Nov 17, 09:53
- L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! on Trump Team To Go Back To Maximum Pressure On Iran: “You may not know this Sykes but “Trump and the lunatic Zionists who now control the Presidency, the Congress, the…” Nov 17, 09:26
- tctsunami on Trump Team To Go Back To Maximum Pressure On Iran: “Somebody is behind on their meds.” Nov 17, 09:22
gitarcarver: And by what process is the flour removing carbon from the atmosphere?
As the grain grows it absorbs CO2 and fixes carbon. Whether you grind the grain or not, sequestering the grain will sequester the carbon. As long as you continue to grow grain, then sequester it, you will continue to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Alternatively, you could pour beer into cavities in the Earth. This would not only sequester carbon, but act as a national beer reserve in case of emergency. On the other hand, pouring beer into a hole in the ground seems like a waste.
–
“A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period.”
Flour is not a grain.
Try again.
Under what process does the flour remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
gitarcarver: Flour is not a grain.
Flour is grain that has been ground.
gitarcarver: Under what process does the flour remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
The removal of CO2 is done by the living plant. The flour is the reservoir. It’s not that difficult to follow.
Ok. I see where the problem lies. Zachriel does not believe humans are part of the animal kingdom nor part of the biosphere. They believe that man is an “extra”. That any carbon that is moved is out of the ordinary migration of carbon through the cycle. That, without man, carbon’s tendency would be to remain sequestered in sinks.
Which is ironic since liberals love to tell us that we humans ARE just animals and thus can not be held to a higher or moral standard than just mere laws. They claim that we have evolved in this world, but now Zachriel claims that the process was external to the normal evolutionary process.
To normal thinking people, humans are as much a Carbon sink as animals. We even create sinks. Whereas the normal carbon cycle is slow, we help speed it up. But for the most part, we just transfer carbon from one sink to another. But leftists like Zachriel don’t like that we can do that. It is outside of the earthly evolutionary cycle that we humans are not part of.
Therefore, while a rabbit is carbon-neutral, we humans are not. Despite the fact that both animals transfer carbon the same way. When we burn oil or gas from one sink, we transfer that carbon to another sink.
If a carnivore eats a rabbit, it is seen as a carbon cycle. If a human eats a rabbit, it is seen as removing that carbon from the cycle and the expelling of it as CO2 or carbon remains, only ADDS carbon to the environment.
You really can’t make this stuff up with a normal brain. It takes a special psychotic, slanted, thought process. I am glad these people called Zachriel have exposed their lunacy here for all to see.
Flour is not a grain any more than a board is a tree.
Try this experiment…. go plant some grain. Then plant some flour.
Tell us which one grows.
That’s not what you said. Let me remind you of what you did say:
…….then it (the flour) would act as a carbon sink, and the net effect would be to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Were you wrong then in your statement, or are you wrong now?
I agree. So one must wonder your motives for saying one thing earlier and now trying to weasel away from that answer.
Once again, what process causes the flour to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as you asserted?
FFF –
This guy is so out there he once argued that a car was carbon neutral because the gas in the tank came from oil which is from an animal that was “carbon neutral.”
Of course, he later argued later that the car was a major polluter.
When that contradiction of his own words was pointed out to him, he said there was no contradiction at all.
So what he is doing here in this thread is no surprise to me.
Was no surprise to me either, GC. When you suffer from delusions of grandeur, give your soul to a death cult, feed off of psychosis, then you’ll give the voices in your head more weight than reality.
One of the reasons we’ve been trying to point out his fallacies in carbon sinks and the carbon cycle were in the hopes we could have him realize his fallacies.
But, like has been proven time and time again, you can’t fix stupid. And liberalism suffers from an extra large portion of stupid.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: Ok. I see where the problem lies. Zachriel does not believe humans are part of the animal kingdom nor part of the biosphere.
Of course humans are part of the animal kingdom and the biosphere.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: That any carbon that is moved is out of the ordinary migration of carbon through the cycle.
Well, no. Until the advent of modern civilization, humans were part of the natural carbon cycle, including their power sources, primarily animal exertion. Modern humans, though, emit additional carbon into the atmosphere from sources that have been sequestered for millions of years. This has led to an increase in atmospheric carbon.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: Therefore, while a rabbit is carbon-neutral, we humans are not.
Without technology, humans are carbon neutral.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: When we burn oil or gas from one sink, we transfer that carbon to another sink.
The atmosphere.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: If a carnivore eats a rabbit, it is seen as a carbon cycle. If a human eats a rabbit, it is seen as removing that carbon from the cycle and the expelling of it as CO2 or carbon remains, only ADDS carbon to the environment.
That is incorrect. In-and-of-itself, human metabolism is carbon neutral. It’s the burning of fossil fuels that is increasing the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere.
gitarcarver: Flour is not a grain any more than a board is a tree.
We apologize. It’s a common grammatical construction, which might be confusing to someone whose first language isn’t English.
“Flour is grain (or other plants parts) that has been crushed.”
http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/flour
“Flour is grain ground finely.”
http://www.chefhome.com/Baking/Flour.shtml
Just to clarify, flour is the powder resulting from grinding grain.
gitarcarver: Let me remind you of what you did say:…….then it (the flour) would act as a carbon sink, and the net effect would be to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
And we also provided a handy definition of carbon sink, “A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period.â€
The flour is the reservoir. The net effect of growing the grain, grinding it, and sequestering the flour would be to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
gitarcarver: what process causes the flour to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as you asserted?
As we said, the flour doesn’t remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Flour is the reservoir. The process is growing grain, grinding it, then sequestering the flour. The net effect of the process is carbon negative.
gitarcarver: This guy is so out there he once argued that a car was carbon neutral because the gas in the tank came from oil which is from an animal that was “carbon neutral.â€
Um, no. Rather, the vast majority of cars today are carbon positive. However, if the power source were renewable energy, or nuclear, or the carbon compensated elsewhere, then the car’s motive costs would be carbon neutral.
You guys stated unequivocally that cars were carbon neutral. You also stated clearly that humans were not carbon neutral because we breathed out Carbon in the CO2 that was metabolized in part from the rabbit we ate.
So, now you claim humans are part of nature. Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
Ok. let me ask you this.
What is the difference between a human burning a piece of coal, and it burning naturally? Does earth know that a particular CO2 molecule was formed by a man action or by nature action. Remember, man is part of nature now…..
Filthy_Filner_Friday: You guys stated unequivocally that cars were carbon neutral.
Misrepresenting our position is not a valid argument.
Zachriel: No, most cars are not carbon neutral, nor is that what we said.
Zachriel: fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years, so burning fossil fuels results in an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: What is the difference between a human burning a piece of coal, and it burning naturally?
It’s a matter of degree. While the Earth does spew some CO2 into the atmosphere, e.g. volcanoes, the amount is dwarfed by human emissions.
Gerlach, Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 2011.
I agree. Flour is not grain. It is a grain product. Thst is not the same thing as being grain.
The “basic Englush construct” you want to believe says one thing says another.
It is amazing that you make points that actuslly hurt your position and yet think you are right.
And we also provided a handy definition of carbon sink, “A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period.â€
This doesn’t help you. It actually brings forth the question that you refuse to answer: “how does the flour accumulate carbon?”
These are all your definitions and you can’t deal with the idea that they continually show you are wrong.
I know that it is “um, no.”
That is why when you argued the point you were wrong out of the box.
Formatting error. The center section should read:
This doesn’t help you. It actually brings forth the question that you refuse to answer: “how does the flour accumulate carbon?”
These are all your definitions and you can’t deal with the idea that they continually show you are wrong.
gitarcarver: The “basic Englush construct†you want to believe says one thing says another.
It’s a common grammatical construction in English. We provided examples.
“Flour is grain (or other plants parts) that has been crushed.â€
http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/flour
“Flour is grain ground finely.â€
http://www.chefhome.com/Baking/Flour.shtml
There is no ambiguity for most speakers of English, but we clarified for those who might have less facility with the language.
gitarcarver: It actually brings forth the question that you refuse to answer: “how does the flour accumulate carbon?â€
The store of flour accumulates carbon as you add more flour to the store. We explained the process, but will do so again. The flour doesn’t remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Flour is the reservoir. The process is growing grain, grinding it, then sequestering the flour. The net effect of the process is carbon negative. The more flour stored, the more carbon sequestered.
gitarcarver: I know that it is “um, no.â€
That’s right. The motive power of the vast majority of cars is not carbon neutral.
The problem is that you see a product of something being the same as the original.
It was impossible to note that instead of your usual source of Wikipedia, you went to the Wikidictionary as your source.
Flour: Flour is a powder which is made by grinding cereal grains, or other seeds or roots (like Cassava).
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour
But what is a grain?
Grains are small, hard, dry seeds (with or without attached hulls or fruit layers) harvested for human or animal food.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_grain
Since you believe that flour equals grain, the reverse must be true as well.
So tell us all if one can plant flour and get a crop of grain? Does flour consist of “small, hard, dried seeds?” When a recipe calls for a cup of flour, can a cup of grain be substituted?
Dictionary.com defines flour as: ” 1. the finely ground meal of grain, especially the finer meal separated by bolting.”
Grain is not flour. Period.
Finally, for the “English construct” you keep trying to argue, “grain” is not the same thing as “grain that has been ground.” No rational petson would ever argue that which leads to an inescapable conclusion about you.
We are left eondering why you butchered the English language to try and make your point? We also wonder why you abandoned your normal source that disagrees with you in favor of ones that you (wrongly) believe support you?
Your deception has been found out and exposed to the light of day.
That is not what you claimed before.
Clearly you have trouble with keeping your statements lining up with each other.
Good. The we agree when you argued a car was carbon neutral, you were wrong.
I have no more time for someone like you. You seem to think that ypur sloppy science and sloppy writings make you superior to others when in fact you act like a petulant child trying to hide being caught in the cookie jar.
I enjoy good honest debates and discussions. When you are capable of honesty, get back to me.
gitarcarver: The problem is that you see a product of something being the same as the original.
No, we don’t. We provided a clarification above, saying “Just to clarify, flour is the powder resulting from grinding grain.”
Zachriel: Flour is the reservoir.
gitarcarver: That is not what you claimed before.
2013-08-26 19:19:42, The flour is the reservoir.
2013-08-27 08:27:57, The flour is the reservoir.
2013-08-27 11:21:52, Flour is the reservoir.
gitarcarver: The we agree when you argued a car was carbon neutral, you were wrong.
The motive power of a car can be carbon neutral, but the vast majority of cars are not so powers. Most run on fossil fuels.
However, you had said, “This guy is so out there he once argued that a car was carbon neutral because the gas in the tank came from oil which is from an animal that was ‘carbon neutral.'” That is not an accurate reflection of our comments.
Zachriel: No, most cars are not carbon neutral, nor is that what we said.
Zachriel: fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years, so burning fossil fuels results in an increase in atmospheric CO2.