Yup.Is your position that the warming and acidifying of the oceans is due to increased levels of CO2 from anthropogenic sources?
Yup.Is your position that the warming and acidifying of the oceans is due to increased levels of CO2 from anthropogenic sources?
Right, but I thought that'd be too obvious to mention.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.
If it was left where it should be, I agree.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.
Nature won't have to. We can decimate ourselves.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.
CO2 causes testicular cancer
CO2 causes homosexuality
C02 causes magic fairies to appear and dance around creating climate change hoaxes to sell documentaries to the naive and silly.
How very grown up of you two. Your sandbox is beckoning for you.
You carbon monsters killed this bird
it is covered with carbon and died from CO2 poisoning
No-one is claiming that all the CO² emissions are anthropogenic.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.
Not enough evidence of what? Volcanic eruptions causing CO² emissions?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
Yup, because it is irrelevant.
If it was left where it should be, I agree.
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.
better think a little harder about it Anna... The oil of today were organic materials millions of years ago that were inventoried out of the supply for that time. Leaving that "carbon" where it was would represent a carbon deficiency.I told you that this would be splitting hairs, however, people seem to have an ideal version of what they want the Earth to be without regard for reality.
Well, your thought is wrong then.I think it's because you don't like the answer.
Baloney. The Earth got along quite well for millions of years with the oil being where it was to begin with. Since humans piped it out and spread it around, not so good.better think a little harder about it Anna... The oil of today were organic materials millions of years ago that were inventoried out of the supply for that time. Leaving that "carbon" where it was would represent a carbon deficiency.I told you that this would be splitting hairs, however, people seem to have an ideal version of what they want the Earth to be without regard for reality.
You are deliberately being misleading. Oil was not all over North America to begin with, it was in a few places; mostly the plains and around the Gulf of Mexico.Oil spews out of the ground all over the planet naturally, it even spews into the sea all by itsownself. The place where I live was on fire when the white horde came ashore.
Like I said, there were places that oil (and its relatives) existed around, but not to the extent it is now and that is simply because we transport it to places it never existed before.Shale oil was processed in Nova Scotia at least as early as the mid eighteen hundreds. All over the world hydro carbon products such as pitch and lamp oil have long histories. How about tar pits.
Nature won't have to. We can decimate ourselves.
It has no organic signature. It is preposterous to believe that oil is crushed forests complete with millions of tyranosauros rexi.