Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Would the chemical change of the oceans have anything to do with the millions of tons of lava spewing into it?
Only if the acidification rates are higher next to active volcanoes. Nobody has found evidence of that. And we know the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide should be driving down the pH of the ocean.
It's pretty basic science. The partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above the water grows. More gas dissolves into the liquid. All the more telling, considering that the oceans are warming, which means the solubility of the gas is reduced, gas should be escaping back to the atmosphere, however. The magnitude of the change in partial pressure is greater than the magnitude in change of solubility, so the water absorbs more gas.
So we have this, carbon dioxide plus water gives you carbonic acid:
CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3
The carbonic acid also exists in a equilibrium, with the protons freely dissociating from the carbonic acid molecule to yield a proton and a molecule of bicarbonate:
H2CO3 ⇌ HCO3− + H+
That H+ means the pH goes down.
It's pretty basic science. The partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above the water grows. More gas dissolves into the liquid. All the more telling, considering that the oceans are warming, which means the solubility of the gas is reduced, gas should be escaping back to the atmosphere, however. The magnitude of the change in partial pressure is greater than the magnitude in change of solubility, so the water absorbs more gas.
So we have this, carbon dioxide plus water gives you carbonic acid:
CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3
The carbonic acid also exists in a equilibrium, with the protons freely dissociating from the carbonic acid molecule to yield a proton and a molecule of bicarbonate:
H2CO3 ⇌ HCO3− + H+
That H+ means the pH goes down.
So far, trees are of a lot more benefit to the planet than humans are so that would be perfectly typical for a human to do.
I pointed out that your question is not very relative to the comment I made. I guess you missed the concept again.
Yeah, giving and offering are pretty closely related.
Is your position that the warming and acidifying of the oceans is due to increased levels of CO2 from anthropogenic sources?
.. But, but, but the EPA says that CO2 is bad and evil and trees emit CO2 during the night... Why are you not lobbying for the elimination of this horrendous source of CO2?
You're still ducking the question though.
... But they're still not anywhere close to being the same, are they?
Because trees are carbon neutral? They suck up carbon dioxide to make sugars, and then respire carbon dioxide when they consume oxygen during darkness. It only becomes a source of carbon dioxide when you stress the physiology of the trees.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm wondering if too many people are spending too much time worrying about this crap. I don't mean to demean the importance of it, but at the same time it's no use to worry ourselves sick. Individually in small ways like conserving power, walking to the store, using the outside clothes line, recycling etc. we can do our share to help and I think for sake of mental health we should limit it at that. People are missing the bigger picture- the way we are going by eating junk food, being physically lazy and through inherent greed, the human race is going to be extinct long before the planet is. Mother Nature will not be defeated by the lowly human animal.
I'm simply making a point to Anna regarding the wisdom in the EPA's latest blunder.
If one really wants to split hairs; everything, including oil is carbon neutral.
Funny but we're still here. :lol::lol::lol: I think you obviously under rate Mother Nature. She'll destroy us (if we don't smarten up ) before very much happens to the planet.
That's what I said, she'll destroy us in good time, whenever she likes. Getting back to metered power via lessening dependence on hydro carbons we can see that the great unfortunate accidental spill in the gulf does have a silver lining. It must be seen as the final warning to mankind that could morally compel the vital broader adherence to deeper ecological awareness very much necessary for proper cost effective planetary management. It is a good thing that we've had this final warning. Greenwashing has never had a finer hour prepared for it by god herself, it would seem. I expect the climate councils meetings, later this year, to be a maximally hydro carbon lubricated awareness event to realize optimal social efficiency, as regards our beloved planet.
CO2 kills brain cells
Last edited:
C02 causes magic fairies to appear and dance around creating climate change hoaxes to sell documentaries to the naive and silly.
Abstract
A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as volcanic CO2 is isotopically identical. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 is isotopically identical to industrially emitted CO2, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.
YearVolcanoMean Sulphurous OutputSourceEst. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption 1883ADKrakatoa38 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)26.14 MtCpa 1815ADTambora70 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)48.16 MtCpa
1783ADLaki130 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)89.44 MtCpa 1600ADHuaynaputina48 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)33.02 MtCpa 1452ADKuwae150 MtH2SO4paWitter & Self (2007)67.40 MtCpa 934ADEldja110 MtSO2Shinohara (2008)75.68 MtCpa 1645BCMinoa125 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)86.00 MtCpa circa 71,000BPToba1100 MtH2SO4paZielenski et al. (1996)494.24 MtCpa Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Even the Morner & Etiope (2002) subaerial estimate (163 MtCpa) is shaken by most of these figures and dwarfed by one. If this is not enough eviden
Volcanic Carbon Dioxide
A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as volcanic CO2 is isotopically identical. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 is isotopically identical to industrially emitted CO2, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.
YearVolcanoMean Sulphurous OutputSourceEst. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption 1883ADKrakatoa38 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)26.14 MtCpa 1815ADTambora70 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)48.16 MtCpa
1783ADLaki130 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)89.44 MtCpa 1600ADHuaynaputina48 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)33.02 MtCpa 1452ADKuwae150 MtH2SO4paWitter & Self (2007)67.40 MtCpa 934ADEldja110 MtSO2Shinohara (2008)75.68 MtCpa 1645BCMinoa125 MtSO2paShinohara (2008)86.00 MtCpa circa 71,000BPToba1100 MtH2SO4paZielenski et al. (1996)494.24 MtCpa Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Even the Morner & Etiope (2002) subaerial estimate (163 MtCpa) is shaken by most of these figures and dwarfed by one. If this is not enough eviden
Volcanic Carbon Dioxide
You sure can be obtuse sometimes. You see no difference between a tree's natural life processes and a human's driving down to the corner store for a pack of smokes?
Yup, because it is irrelevant.
In your POV, perhaps. But it's irrelevant to the topic so I cannot see why you want to keep harping on it. All I did was make a little comment and you want to "mountainise" it.
- Status