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.
More evidence that proves my personal unscientific but common sense theory that ocean temps, the Earth's core activity and under ocean venting and volcanoes drive our temps along with the Sun. CO2 in the atmosphere has a minimal to none impact.
" If the ice thins as the climate warms it is thought that volcanic activity in the area could increase." As the climate warms. What if co2 exacerbates the increase of climate warming? What if it accelerates an already natural process. What if it has nothing to do with global warming? Should we continue to pollute and destroy the only planet we have to live on?
I walked past the creek close to our house and watched fish gasping and dying. A big carp was dead and caught on a dead tree. The bottom of the creek had a putrid look to it. Lovely.
Would you rather be able to catch a bass and have it be safe enough to eat, or would you rather look at dead and dying fish in a putrid creek?
Global warming? It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. Common sense would dictate that we learn to live more harmoniously with nature. Man is the most destructive animal on the planet. Think of how pristine and beautiful this planet would be without man.
We could let ego's and big business get in the way of the bottom line and argue all day, but the proof is in the water. Pollution in our water and food supply. I would love an all renewable house for utilities, and an electric car. Decreasing our pollution and co2 footprint translates into a clean planet. What's wrong with that? That's the bottom line. Not who's right or wrong in the debate.
It is unclear whether the Antarctic volcanoes are active, but previous studies have suggested that during warmer periods volcanic activity does occur in the region.
Carbon dioxide has a heavier mass than oxygen...
That's scientifically fact.
Anyone care to explain how a heavier element goes up in the atmosphere?
Or neglect water/moisture humidity playing a factor into global warming...
Like when you run the air conditioning in your car, how the air hits the evaporator, cools, and releases moisture causing a puddle to develop...
I get there's jet streams, and gas mixes much easier than a liquid...
And there's other factors such as pressure, and solar heating, however, not one scientist or speaker on global warming has ever addressed the technical end, and just runs with the simple pander to the dumb, C02 is bad mmkay, that's why the earth is warming...
Ever put a bowl on a table, fill it with water, and drop dry ice in it? The water bubbles violently, a fog develops, and rolls off the table and down to the floor.... it doesn't rise like smoke from a campfire, or fog from a lake when the temperature drops in September...
I say, if I were Trump, and the EPA served a purpose to combat global warming, I'd give them 120 days, to develop an implement to remove C02 (plant food) from the atmosphere. Helium blimp/zeppelin with an ionic device powered via solar to attract high altitude C02 and remove it from the air. If it's shown to actually be effective then go for it. If not, it was a flawed theory.
Look at a grain silo... people collapse from asphyxiation due to no oxygen at lower levels inside a silo and lethal amounts of C02 at lower levels...
Quote from the article: So CO2 mixes, why is this? Pure CO2 is indeed heavier than air and there have even been suffocation deaths caused by volcanic emissions of CO2 many times in human history. The one word answer is wind. The atmosphere is very turbulent (windy) and this turbulence easily dilutes many kinds of gases in the atmosphere and overpowers any small differences in buoyancy.
Now, would anyone care to explain why people post opinions about scientific topics without first making any effort to see what scientists say? In any controversial debate, common sense would suggest that we should see what our opponents have already said on the topic before publicly attacking them. That way, you will know, in advance, what your opponents will say in response to your claim, and you can include this counter-response in your criticism. (And this, of course, helps you to not look like such a goofball when your opponent does, in fact, make the expected response.)
For example:
Climate scientists are stupid because they don't know that CO2 is relatively heavy and will sink in the atmosphere and thus can't cause AGW.
In response to this, scientists will say "The atmosphere is very turbulent and this turbulence easily dilutes many kinds of gases in the atmosphere and overpowers any small differences in buoyancy."
Then you say: But this can't be correct because [fill in the blank with your proactive, well-considered response].
By doing this, you would force the debate immediately to a higher and more appropriate level of discussion (assuming, of course, that you have an answer to the scientific response).
BTW: Another obvious thing to consider is looking at actual atmospheric data. You can find lots of that data here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
So it is not really a mystery why CO2 mixes, but even if it were a mystery, the data would suggest that there must be some explanation for it because the data has been widely verified by many, many measurements around the globe.
Also: A convenient place to look for what climate scientists will say on virtually any criticism of AGW can be found here: https://skepticalscience.com/
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 08-14-2017 at 11:21 AM..
I'm glad you finally read it since you claimed they were not active and the article clearly states it is unclear if they are active or not. It also mentioned the profound impact of underwater volcanoes on the ice caps.
Back about 16 month ago, there was a thread about AGW that I participated in. I'd drag over here all the info that I posted on that thread, but then I'd be back to chasing Russell's teapot around the sun.
The upshot was that for carbon dioxide from undetected underwater volcanoes to match the anthropocentric generated CO2, there would have to be about a thousand such active volcanoes, each about the size of Mount St Helens. You've cited an article that claims that there's 91 volcanoes of of unknown activity and of varying small sizes.
From my view, you've got a lot more and a lot bigger volcanoes to locate before your hypothesis becomes believable.
Quote from the article: So CO2 mixes, why is this? Pure CO2 is indeed heavier than air and there have even been suffocation deaths caused by volcanic emissions of CO2 many times in human history. The one word answer is wind. The atmosphere is very turbulent (windy) and this turbulence easily dilutes many kinds of gases in the atmosphere and overpowers any small differences in buoyancy.
Now, would anyone care to explain why people post opinions about scientific topics without first making any effort to see what scientists say? In any controversial debate, common sense would suggest that we should see what our opponents have already said on the topic before publicly attacking them. That way, you will know, in advance, what your opponents will say in response to your claim, and you can include this counter-response in your criticism. (And this, of course, helps you to not look like such a goofball when your opponent does, in fact, make the expected response.)
For example:
Climate scientists are stupid because they don't know that CO2 is relatively heavy and will sink in the atmosphere and thus can't cause AGW.
In response to this, scientists will say "The atmosphere is very turbulent and this turbulence easily dilutes many kinds of gases in the atmosphere and overpowers any small differences in buoyancy."
Then you say: But this can't be correct because [fill in the blank with your proactive, well-considered response].
By doing this, you would force the debate immediately to a higher and more appropriate level of discussion (assuming, of course, that you have an answer to the scientific response).
BTW: Another obvious thing to consider is looking at actual atmospheric data. You can find lots of that data here: TRENDS: ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
So it is not really a mystery why CO2 mixes, but even if it were a mystery, the data would suggest that there must be some explanation for it because the data has been widely verified by many, many measurements around the globe.
Also: A convenient place to look for what climate scientists will say on virtually any criticism of AGW can be found here: https://skepticalscience.com/
That's fine and all, but it's all talk no walk, impose ridiculous fines/taxes.
Studying for years and yet No attempt at the scientists to combat it, but combat industry to fit a motive...
Wrong way going about it, it's 2017. You can't pee down my back and tell me it's rain... as I have said Repeatedly... IF The epa were about environmental issues, they'd be the ones doing the clean up work not bidding private contractors, or imposing legislation onto industries...
There's no way anyone can tell me with a straight face this is a problem and we don't have a solution other than to impose rule/law. I don't buy it for one minute. Not at all.
More justification to expand a tax dollar wasting bureaucracy to impose stricter regulations and legislation.
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.
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.
