Wrong.
Volcanos expell mainly particulate matter. As I pointed out the two main culprits are the Greenhouse gasses and the combustion process which is inherently a heating process.
A different take on global warming
- Thread starter Bob Woods
- Start date
- Status
Volcanos expell mainly particulate matter. As I pointed out the two main culprits are the Greenhouse gasses and the combustion process which is inherently a heating process.
wasn't limiting comments to only direct greenhouse gasses but all sources, many of which INdirectly accelerate warming (or change).
Krakatoa's ash cloud lowered the earth's mean daily temperature for a prolonged period of time by several degrees. Less sunlight = less CO2 absorbed. Seveal sights have documented this.
Mt St Helens (a relatively small one) eliminated more CO2 absorbing trees than decades of lumbering operations.
The Tunguska (Siberia) meteor in the early 1900s(?) took out more trees than all the volcanos of the past 2 centuries combined.
And trees are just ONE of many CO2 absorbing devices.
Next we license cow flatulence. It was (and may still be) in the Kyoto document.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_07_02.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Volcanos spew out carbon dioxide.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Volcanos spew out carbon dioxide.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Yes, hiking in the Mount St. Helens area you can barely breathe, the air is so dirty -- unlike in the Bay Area with its protective layer of perpetual smog.
If we assume these figures are correct--and why do they have to be, if other research has different figures?--
it's still ridiculous to say that we have no effect.
We're not as bad as ____, so it's okay.
it's still ridiculous to say that we have no effect.
We're not as bad as ____, so it's okay.
People say we need to control CO2, but I don't think there is (or will be) any economic way of doing that since it is not a pollutant like sulfur, rather it is a byproduct of combustion. The easiest way to reduce CO2 is to go back to nuclear power, but I doubt that it will be acceptable to most people. The other thing I keep reading about is the rate of forest depletion in SA.... When we run out of trees we'll be in trouble.
CO2 is also produced in the life cycle of plants and animals too. Trees can be planted and farmed.
[ February 07, 2005, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Bob Woods ]
[ February 07, 2005, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Bob Woods ]
I think you are exactly right. Oceans are a small source of oxygen compared to trees. Its hard for me to understand why Oxygen levels have not fallen more already.
Strange, but I heard the exact opposite. There is a lot of phytoplankton in the oceans and given the ocean covers (what was the figure, about) 3/4 the earths surface, I would say there is a lot of oxygen production out there besides trees. Maybe that is why the atmospheric "Oxygen levels have not fallen more already." They've fallen? That I had not heard either.
You have got to be kidding. Of course there is a political side to this; actually, there are two.
The ones who poo-pooh the research and the idea of global warming, and human activity's effect on the environment have just a big an agenda as do the folks on the other side. Do yo need to ask what number one on the list is? (Hint: starts with $)
TallPaul,
atmospheric CO2 has increased nearly 30% since pre-industrial times...it's still "only" 360ppm, that's probably consumed an additional 120(?)ppm of oxygen, when oxygen is about 210,000ppm in the first place. i.e. the official figure has not changed.
But the important thing that you need to think about is that CO2 has increased nearly 30%.
That fact in itself shows that we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the ecosystem can deal with...either that, or we've reduced the CO2 absorption process to a point where it can no longer absorb as much as it needs to.
Al is right. We are releasing carbon at a far greater rate than it was stored. We have to be. I don't see any coal forming in the Lithgow district, while we are extracting a volume 100mx100mx3m deep every day. (2/3 of that is burned daily where I work). Nor do we see the process of oil formation taking place in texas or the middle east.
We have affected our environment in the process of what we do...we've increased the CO2 concentration by 30% to start with.
And did they use the same measurement instruments and methods in pre-industrial times? This is a very small change and may not be significant relative to the measurement devices. Additionally, is it significant compared to natural variation in atmospheric CO2 over the long term?
TallPaul,
we've exceeded the highest CO2 levels that have been around in the last 5,000 years.
Nope, the measuring systems that they used 5,000 years ago aren't the same as today.
They use samples and analysis.
I'm not saying that it will lead to global catastrophe, just that we ARE changing the environment.
we've exceeded the highest CO2 levels that have been around in the last 5,000 years.
Nope, the measuring systems that they used 5,000 years ago aren't the same as today.
They use samples and analysis.
I'm not saying that it will lead to global catastrophe, just that we ARE changing the environment.
How do you measure quality of life? I really enjoyed living in Ottawa which was mainly hi-tech. The air quality was quite good and I enjoyed being outside. Now that I'm living in Sudbury (an industrial/mining city) I can smell the polution and the vegetation is quite limited. 50 years ago there wasn't any vegetation, everything was dead except for the people! The lakes were dead, the big game was dead, and the trees were gone. Nothing was left but black rock.
Steve
Steve
Steve,
if you look at Lithgow turn of the century, there were no trees...anywhere.
We were the centre of metallurgy in Oz, having both a copper smelter and a blast furnace in the town (and a coal gas plant). The valley forms a natural inversion.
Now, with the acids gone, the environment has recovered to the point that we have serious bushfire risk.
In the last 10 years along, winter nights have gone from coughing through coal smoke to crystal clear clear night, and you go inside to natural gas heated houses
if you look at Lithgow turn of the century, there were no trees...anywhere.
We were the centre of metallurgy in Oz, having both a copper smelter and a blast furnace in the town (and a coal gas plant). The valley forms a natural inversion.
Now, with the acids gone, the environment has recovered to the point that we have serious bushfire risk.
In the last 10 years along, winter nights have gone from coughing through coal smoke to crystal clear clear night, and you go inside to natural gas heated houses
Assuming the figure is correct, then oxygen is down five hundredths of one percent and that is not significant. The raise in CO2 would be a significant quantity increase, but I don't buy the figure. Trying to dig an atmospheric quantity for CO2 from 5000 years ago out of samples and analysis is very problematic. I assume they sampled something believed to be 5000 years old and then tried to determine what the atmospheric CO2 level was based on information in the sampled object. Pretty shaky data in my book. If CO2 levels are up, then plants should grow better as it was common for greenhouses to artificially increase CO2 levels for that purpose. Yes, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but so are many natural sources and I don't think anyone has sorted out just how much man's industrial/technical activities has contributed. Then, any measured long term climate change (again subject to changes/improvements in measurement method over time) could be part of the natural cycle (there was a one or two hundred year "little ice age" around the 1400s / 1500s where the climate was generally on the cold side) and/or human activity induced. I think the earth's ecosystem is well able to handle the present activity levels. Now, lets check out what happens when all the Chineese start driving cars and hot rodding around town--that would about double the CO2 emissions, eh?
The China car thing should make a dent....
I'm not Kyoto expert, but, what exactly does this world treaty say about China and automobiles?
I'm not Kyoto expert, but, what exactly does this world treaty say about China and automobiles?
Global warming is a theory because there is not enough data available.
I'm not saying it is or is not real.
We just need a few more centuries to make sure envionmental changes are not cyclic.
I do endorse implementing technology and cultural changes to reduce general pollution worldwide.
No one can justify pollution as a good thing.
I'm not saying it is or is not real.
We just need a few more centuries to make sure envionmental changes are not cyclic.
I do endorse implementing technology and cultural changes to reduce general pollution worldwide.
No one can justify pollution as a good thing.
- Status
Similar threads
