Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2014, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,342,332 times
Reputation: 6541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds View Post
This is what I was getting at......coal is not the ONLY problem! As we see soda drinks that most people drink and plastic bottles to carry all that polluted mineral water is just as bad if not more.
The oceans release ~330 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The burning of fossil fuels releases anywhere from 6 billion to 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, depending on the source. A single volcano (Kilauea in this case) releases between and 3 billion and 11 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Vegetation releases ~220 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year through respiration during the night.

Conversely, humans, animals, and vegetation (during photosynthesis during the day) consume ~220 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the oceans absorb ~338 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year.

The amount of CO2 released by carbonated beverages is negligible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2014, 01:33 PM
 
8,058 posts, read 3,908,692 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Sorry but it's hard to take a blogger seriously, especially one that is funded by right wing organizations.

I stopped at her first paragraph since she offers nothing in the way of external factors like maybe sea ice. She claims to be a scientist right maybe she could offer some research or facts? Sounds like she went straight from theory to conclusion

She did offer research (1972 and 1978 haul outs) - your confirmation bias obviously won't let you process the information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,465 posts, read 17,974,825 times
Reputation: 15474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Some very stunning pictures of the Walrus Herds, lack of Sea Ice is forcing them ashore.



35,000 Walrus Come Ashore in Northwest Alaska - ABC News


Wildlife Officials Warn Pilots to Avoid Massive Walrus Herd - NBC News
Wow, 35 ,000 walrus... environment is fine with that many walruses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,128,573 times
Reputation: 49244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Some very stunning pictures of the Walrus Herds, lack of Sea Ice is forcing them ashore.



35,000 Walrus Come Ashore in Northwest Alaska - ABC News


Wildlife Officials Warn Pilots to Avoid Massive Walrus Herd - NBC News
The wildlife foundation said it: I don't have to hear or see anymore. That is like the Sierra Club said it or maybe PITA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,295,505 times
Reputation: 2249
“Sea ice gone; walruses come ashoreâ€Â, not unusual | wryheat
This is not unusual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 04:54 PM
 
4,571 posts, read 3,502,808 times
Reputation: 3261
What would Paul McCartney say?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 05:16 PM
 
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,620 posts, read 12,680,896 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
Wow, 35 ,000 walrus... environment is fine with that many walruses.

Eskimo with big smile one his face,, kinda like the fat guy at mcdonald's with the picture of a big mac in his head..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,843 posts, read 25,780,212 times
Reputation: 15423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
The oceans release ~330 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The burning of fossil fuels releases anywhere from 6 billion to 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, depending on the source. A single volcano (Kilauea in this case) releases between and 3 billion and 11 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Vegetation releases ~220 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year through respiration during the night.

Conversely, humans, animals, and vegetation (during photosynthesis during the day) consume ~220 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the oceans absorb ~338 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year.

The amount of CO2 released by carbonated beverages is negligible.
Natural emissions and consumption have been in balance for decades, human deforestation and generation of CO2 through fossil fuels is the new player in the world. You cannot make a case that humans balance the system. What is your number for human consumption of CO2 vs generation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,843 posts, read 25,780,212 times
Reputation: 15423
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds View Post
This is what I was getting at......coal is not the ONLY problem! As we see soda drinks that most people drink and plastic bottles to carry all that polluted mineral water is just as bad if not more.
I agree, the energy wasted to create a water bottle, transport it and then recycle is significant, not to mention the garbage created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2014, 06:37 PM
 
1,824 posts, read 1,363,578 times
Reputation: 1569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Sorry but it's hard to take a blogger seriously, especially one that is funded by right wing organizations.

I stopped at her first paragraph since she offers nothing in the way of external factors like maybe sea ice. She claims to be a scientist right maybe she could offer some research or facts? Sounds like she went straight from theory to conclusion
Translation: Anyone who dares to say something that runs counter to the dogma of man-made climate hysteria is either:

A. Funded by right wing organizations
B. Paid off by big oil
C. A lousy scientist
D. Any or all of the above
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top