Court_Appointed_Hypeman
Valuable Member
Thanks Hypeman, have a good day.
Thank you
I Was Wrong
- Thread starter willy69
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Thank you
I think this sums it up perfectly.
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
Oh, that is really useful. Thanks a bunch...
Court_Appointed_Hypeman
Valuable Member
If you're woried about being right, go look at more data. Idk what your background is, but if you've taken high school chemistry you have the tools in front of you to understand that it isn't nothing. Now please understand that I don't mean that as any sort of insult, everything thrown in front of us as far as this subject goes is not meant to make you understand for the most part, where the issues are with this.
People can talk all day about electric cars and solar pannels being what will save the earth, but it's important to understand on that side as well that there are a lot of caveats in the form of the extraction and production of parts required to maintain and operate, that if done absolutely poorly, will not only result getting no where near the 0 we need to get to, but also cause complete adoption of the technology in the future, globally, to be unachievable.
The green house affect itself is pretty nasty. I know of some rather well educated engineers who leave out simple facts about how something like CO2 concentration increasing, even only slightly, has a large affect on how much energy we get from the sun does not go back out into space. Those molecules release the energy in the form of light off in random directions, causing more of it to stay.
Now clearly carbon gasses are not nearly the only gas that captures and releases radio and heat energy in our atmosphere, but increasing it upsets the balance, and causes even more to release.
Further, a lot of advocates for going green will also put out a lot of easily disproven misinformation about the rain forests, often reffering the south american forests as "the lungs of the earth" which on its face, someone looking to disprove the idea that climate change is an issue, (or carbon related, or man made, or what have you) can lean on a lot of simple facts from the very basic rhetoric of "well actually lungs release CO2 into the atmosphere... not capture it" all the way to the real fact that not burning them down actually doesn't change the net concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, it's an anual cycle with the seasons of die off and reduced photo synthetic activity releasing CO2, back to growth and increased photosynthesis, pulling what it released back. However, burning it down, puts all that carbon out into the world, and the forest burned no longer pulls it back in the form of regrowth when destroyed for something like agricultural purposes.
There is a lot, in the messaging, from the otherside of you, that sometimes is deliberately crafted and deceminated in a way, to allow you to easily dismiss it all as a whole.
And upsetting the slow moving stasis that is our co2 cycle, by industrial production, (which is far far more at fault than you driving a muscle car or truck, or not recycling). Throws it out of wack, causing problems for life as it currently exists.
Now i hope you just keep a more open mind, and get rid of the fear of being wrong. Holding onto that fear, prevents growth. Not just in stupid things individuals will never ever have an affect on, but personally.
I'm not going to lie and say, people who behave like you are in this thread, don't get me a little angry, but I know full well you, much as well as I, don't matter aside from the personal connections we have. (Unless you are someone of extreme prominence, and even then, not many people wield any real power, the system we live under does)
I have a large family, 6 little kids and a teenager, and when people throw baby fits like it hurts them to consider letting other people in the room discuss the idea of how it's affecting us or maybe policy should really change, looks absolutely childish, foolish and reminds me of my kids have to look forward to because of a bunch of dumb baby adults.
It'd be super dope if you would stop intentionally being obtuse right out in the open because you want to be right, and always have been right, on something you feel like personally matters to you while also saying that it doesn't.
I´m not a native English speaker but as I understand it - there is no differences between my standpoint and @bluemon :s - correct me if I´m wrong.
What you saying here is that my recommendation to you in this case
Wiped Out
I fought ich, and ich won. Lost all four fish. I now have an amazing looking 6 month old 25 gallon tank with a ton of inverts and no fish. I have increased temp to 81.5. There are no fish in it, and so I might as well go fallow while I finish my home remodel, which will require me to move the...
www.reef2reef.com
would be that you should add 2 ppm Cu to your 25 gallon in order to kill off the parasite because 2 out of 94640000 is an insignificant delta compared with 0.002 out of 96640000 ?
Sincerely Lasse
Last edited:
Fort Salty
Community Member
I'm curious how the stout defenders of carbon reduction justify the electricity required to operate a marine tank. Even accounting for the possibility of 100% solar, wind, etc, no one seems to deny that these products are not produced in an environmentally friendly way. Running an aquarium is going to be an increased use of energy.
I'm not saying anyone should believe one way or another, but it seems an odd platform to fight over carbon.
Also, I really enjoyed that "ma and pa math" video. Too funny! I disagree with the character slander intended though.
FS
I'm not saying anyone should believe one way or another, but it seems an odd platform to fight over carbon.
Also, I really enjoyed that "ma and pa math" video. Too funny! I disagree with the character slander intended though.
FS
Court_Appointed_Hypeman
Valuable Member
Oh absolutely, but atleast the industry is so dang small you can hardly place bame at it. But you are 100% right.
Any consumption honestly, but I work all the time and I need my dang treats
Fort Salty
Community Member
Reefer Matt
Reef Cave Dweller
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
RGB
Article Contributor
R2R Media Partner
Hospitality Award
R2R Secret Santa 2023
My Tank Thread
My Aquarium Showcase
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
Yes, your viewpoints are aligned.
My post was expressing the same frustration with you guys, that you guys have with me. I don't understand why you can't see through the propaganda and lay your eyes on the truth.
You guys are frustrated that I don't buy what is being sold.
Same same.
And Lasse, I appreciate your polite approach to the discussion.
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
Touche, but add a bunch of zeros to the denominator. 3 trillion cubic tons is just the CO2 in the atmosphere. The atmosphere being approximately 5,500,000,000,000,000 (that's 5.5 quadrillion) cubic tons.
Just a drop of pee in the ocean. Heck, maybe half a drop...
blecki
Well-Known Member
You're back to that. It's not '3 trillion cubic tons'; it's not a drop of pee. It's 421 ppm.
First off; your math is wrong and not even using the correct units.
Second; nobody is arguing about how much 0.04% of the atmosphere is. Yes, we know it's a very small percentage of the atmosphere. Yes, we know adding another 0.04% doesn't feel like it will have an impact. But it does. I honestly don't know how someone can run a reef tank and not understand this. If you really think 400 ppm is so dilute as to not matter lets go ahead and add ONE PPM of something to your reef tank. Why don't we try copper? It will only take 15 drops in a 200 gallon tank to reach 1ppm. But it's so dilute it won't do anything, right? After everything dies, imagine adding 6,000 more drops. That's still only 400 ppm, less than the co2 content of the atmosphere. For goodness sake we measure phosphate and ammonia and a dozen other things in concentrations less than a single ppm and panic.
And if you insist on sticking with the disgusting comparison, that's 6,000 drops of pee in a single 200 gallon tank. You have the tools to measure this in your kitchen - it's 1 and a quarter cups of pee. In a single tank.
So just how much co2 is in the atmosphere? Each ppm represents 7.82 gigatonnes; and as of 2022 the concentration was 421 ppm. That's 3,292 gigatonnes. And a third of that has been added since the mid 1800s alone.
This is propaganda from the corporations doing the polluting. They want you to feel guilty so that you blame yourself instead of them. Remember shows like Captain Planet?
First off; your math is wrong and not even using the correct units.
Second; nobody is arguing about how much 0.04% of the atmosphere is. Yes, we know it's a very small percentage of the atmosphere. Yes, we know adding another 0.04% doesn't feel like it will have an impact. But it does. I honestly don't know how someone can run a reef tank and not understand this. If you really think 400 ppm is so dilute as to not matter lets go ahead and add ONE PPM of something to your reef tank. Why don't we try copper? It will only take 15 drops in a 200 gallon tank to reach 1ppm. But it's so dilute it won't do anything, right? After everything dies, imagine adding 6,000 more drops. That's still only 400 ppm, less than the co2 content of the atmosphere. For goodness sake we measure phosphate and ammonia and a dozen other things in concentrations less than a single ppm and panic.
And if you insist on sticking with the disgusting comparison, that's 6,000 drops of pee in a single 200 gallon tank. You have the tools to measure this in your kitchen - it's 1 and a quarter cups of pee. In a single tank.
So just how much co2 is in the atmosphere? Each ppm represents 7.82 gigatonnes; and as of 2022 the concentration was 421 ppm. That's 3,292 gigatonnes. And a third of that has been added since the mid 1800s alone.
This is propaganda from the corporations doing the polluting. They want you to feel guilty so that you blame yourself instead of them. Remember shows like Captain Planet?
Court_Appointed_Hypeman
Valuable Member
Its because you are wrong, very clearly, to the point that you were relying on the argument drop in the ocean, when not only are we already talking about something larger, on that scale already, but also you are in a hobby that deals with concentrations smaller that make a big difference.
You really are just trying to justify what you want to be right, excluding what doesn't support it.
You should feel bad, honestly.
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
Now we are getting somewhere, I agree with this statement.
- 3,292,000,000 metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere (Total)
- increase in human contribution since 1800 ~140 PPM = 1,170,000,000 metric tons
- 5,500,000,000,000,000 metric tons of total atmosphere
blecki
Well-Known Member
The funny thing about talking about concentrations is that the actual size of the body of water doesn't matter. 1ppm is 1ppm, whether it's a thimble or the pacific. This appears to be a concept you can't grasp.
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
I disagree, when you add enough zeros to the right, it starts to matter.
blecki
Well-Known Member
