|
heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/13/2017 10:31:39 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Underwater volcanic hot spots release CO2 and carbon into the water which bind and produce carbonic acid. This acid then releases the CO2, into the atmosphere - see Lake Nyos, where a volcanic fed body of water is effectively producing CO2 rather then having a natural cycle of absorption and release, which has become highly saturated with CO2 that stays suspended at it's bottom.
geological events in the past which disturbed water balance and allowed the carbonic acid to bubble to the surface release massive amount of CO2 to release which has suffocated thousands in the surrounding area.
I don't get why you've jumped to the conclusion that the CO2 from however many years of these undersea volcanic eruptions (which may or may not be occurring) causes climate change, but human-produced CO2 (which we know has been occurring) over 150 years doesn't.
So how much CO2 are the volcanoes producing and how does it compare to 150 plus years of CO2 emissions from human activity?
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
And what, humans existed a few million years ago? the 300-400 ppm is just a number based on an observation, not a symbol of impending catastrophe, nor a sign of our influence.
No, humans didn't exist a few million years ago... why is that relevant? CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter how it gets into the atmosphere.
And 400 ppm is a milestone which is especially alarming since it's the highest that CO2 levels have been for millions of years, and it's going to climb higher in the future.
quote:
Tidal Waves are symbolic of increased geological activity that occurs under water... meaning that it could potentially be a sign that volcanic activity might be ramping up of underwater thermal hot spots. While you have focused almost entirely on human based CO2 emissions in the argument of global warming - you have ignored the one thing which has proven to directly influence the climate time and time again - the planet.
'Symbolic'? Don't you mean 'indicative'?
Where have I indicated that I've ignored anything?
I just think it's really suspicious that after millions of years of CO2 levels being reliably around the 300 ppm mark, industrialization happens, leading to massive amounts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions... and then after 150 years of 'harmless' CO2-producing human activity, some volcanoes under the ocean are responsible for putting CO2 levels above that level.
It's possible of course, but does it seem likely that they're the main factor here? Apparently the NOAA doesn't think so:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/undersea-volcanoes-erupt-with-gravity-shifting-earth-s-climate/
quote:
Baker of NOAA cautioned that this does not mean that present-day climate change is not driven by human activity, because humans far outstrip the fractional contribution of prehistorical volcanoes to global warming.
"It's important to keep in mind that, even on a 1,000-year time scale, human emissions of CO2 will continue to dominate climate change," he said. "That is, we cannot blame seafloor eruptions for the ongoing increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations."
quote:
Increased volcanic activity could easily dwarf what humans contribute to the atmosphere, and considering that a majority of volcanoes on the planet are found under water... their activity could be ramping up significantly and very few would know it. The 2 things which we tend to use as a litmus test to identify increased underwater volcanic activity is an Increase in the acidity of ocean water, and the increase of ocean based disasters like Tidal Waves.
Both of which have been on the rise, but are brushed off by climate change advocates because it isn't apparently apart of the 'atmosphere'... They don't think it is relevant and simply ignore it. As you just admitted.
I really don't think that climate change 'advocates' are 'brushing off' underwater volcanoes, but since I have no idea who you're actually talking about, I guess it's possible.
Why do you think that the notion that underwater volcanoes are currently emitting enough CO2 to drive climate change contradicts the idea that humans have for 150 years been emitting enough CO2 to drive climate change? It is impossible to accept that both could be occurring?
As I said before, if it is the volcanoes, it seems like an amazing coincidence considering that we're talking about a very special 100 year period that stands out among millions of years of stable CO2 levels.
Has this happened before?
Who are these 'advocates' anyways? You mean, like, random people on the internet?
quote:
The evidence has changed, it is constantly change. The problem you're having is that you've come to a conclusion and are now twisting the facts and evidence to fit that conclusion rather then the conclusion to fit the facts and evidence.
How am I doing that? So you're saying humans haven't been emitting CO2 for 150 years, especially since the 1950s and 60s? This isn't a fact? It isn't a fact that CO2 drives warming? Which facts am I twisting? At this point I keep repeating myself over and over, and you just keep ignoring me.
This is how I see your argument:
1. Millions of years of stable CO2 levels.
2. Industrialization leads to massive amounts of CO2 being dumped in the atmosphere.
3. CO2 levels go up to 400ppm about 150 years later.
4. Therefore, it's a series of prehistoric volcanoes at the ocean floor that have, after millions of years, decided to fuck up the planet for reasons unknown.
It seems to me you're just resorting to default 'I hate liberals' comments without actually considering whether or not they apply.
You give unwavering support to unproven theories like 'it's the volcanoes', but refuse to accept that AGW theory could be anything but liberal hysteria... why?
Can you honestly claim that your own political biases have nothing to do with your baffling rejection of a perfectly good theory?
quote:
Increase in Ocean temp, increase in ocean acidity, increase in ocean based disasters, increase in ocean based weather events...
So could the cause be the ocean or ocean based activity?
Nope - according to you and other Climate Change enthusiasts none of that has anything to do with the ocean or what happens beneath it - it is Human CO2 production which has caused all those things, in spite of the fact that in the bigger picture of things our CO2 production is rather insignificant in comparison to the vast size of the ocean...
And if you really press the issue
"The ocean is not the atmosphere" is the most common go to reply... which you've actually used.
The ocean itself causes climate change???
Maybe the increasing acidity is due to excess atmospheric CO2 being absorbed into carbon sinks, and the increasing temperature is due to the excess CO2 warming the planet. This doesn't seem plausible to you?
The reason I pointed out that the ocean isn't the atmosphere is that there are more carbon sinks at the bottom of the ocean that would absorb most of the CO2 from underwater eruptions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X
Of course, if these carbon sinks are no longer functioning as they should be, possibly because they've been absorbing the human-added CO2 from the atmosphere (which is also far more than volcanic activity has ever produced in any given year for millions of years), then it is cause for alarm.
quote:
Solar and wind based energy plants require the displacement or some times result in the destruction of keystone species which, when removed, cause a catastrophic ripple through out the ecosystem - reducing the livability of surrounding ecosystems to near zero.
For instance the Ivanpah Solar Generating System cooked enough birds that passed through it's focusing ray and required the complete displacement of a desert tortoise that the ecosystem had been so damaged that the environmentalists believe that in a few years time, the surrounding area will be barren and completely devoid of life all together.
Climate Change which has a medium latency of 800 years before events produce a noticeably impact to the existing environment vs the complete obliteration of life in large tracts of land in less then 10....
Are you so sure?
Where did you get the idea that it will take 800 years before the environment is affected??
There are heaps of articles in reputable science journals declaring that we are in the middle of a mass extinction event and that climate change is having countless impacts on the global ecosystem RIGHT NOW.
You might be able to provide instances where green energy didn't work as it was supposed to, but the idea that the entire industry is a threat to the environment and we would all be better off with fossil fuels is absurd.
quote:
A lot less then it is to try and stop it.
and considering that it could very well be a natural occurring event - trying to stop it may very well be a waste of money.
the afformentioned - You may as well be trying to glue the San Andreas Fault together to prevent an earth quake.
First you need to come up with a convincing argument from actual reputable sources (eg: NOT the dailymail).
quote:
Hollywood science?
That is the literal science that Climate Change Advocates are basically promoting.
Hell when LBJ first blamed humans for global warming back in the mid 60's, his solution then was to seed the oceans with reflective material. So this sci-fi Hollywood science is 50 years in the making.
I meant that you just told me that you were afraid of geoengineering because of a MOVIE.
That's not something I can identify with.
quote:
of course you did evade the important question:
What is the solution then?
Because if you don't have a solution - then all you're doing is fear mongering.
It's fear mongering to point out the facts?
There might not be a solution at this point, but the answer definitely isn't to deny that it exists. Cutting fossil fuel emissions and not ducking our heads in the sand would improve our general outlook and give us time to figure out the problem.
|
|
|
|
