Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
I thought that might be where you were heading but since I prefer limiting my assumptions, I thought I'd ask.You lost me there.
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The chart I quoted has a math equation inside of it ... I'm assuming that's the equation the graph is representing ... the equation is in a simple slope/intercept form ... the slope is 0.996, okay ... the y-intercept is -1,954.8 ... what that means that when x=0 (or 1 BC), y= -1,954.8 gigatonnes ... [cute adorable doe-eyed smile] ... just curious is all ...
Bullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
The extra CO2 in our atmosphere bear the tattle-tale signs of recently burnt fossil fuels ... as a waste product of man's activities simply dumped into the environment ... it is pollution ... is it dangerous like Cesium-135, or harmless like Helium? ... either way, it's pollution ...
How can CO2 be pollution when it is a vital part of the carbon cycle?Bullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
The extra CO2 in our atmosphere bear the tattle-tale signs of recently burnt fossil fuels ... as a waste product of man's activities simply dumped into the environment ... it is pollution ... is it dangerous like Cesium-135, or harmless like Helium? ... either way, it's pollution ...
Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Well if you disagree feel free to shut the garage door and cook some bacon on the grill.Bullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
Anything outside of a natural system is pollution. Too much water in a desert ecosystem would also be pollution. I assume you are aware that wearing a mask increases CO2 uptake by restricting emission, it then becomes a pollutant even though the body produced it
Sure and it's a good thing that it does too as the earth would be like 60 deg F cooler if GHG didn't choke back heat on its way to outer space. But temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic, so with regard to CO2, CO2 serves to reinforce climate change rather than drive it. When the climate cools the oceans suck CO2 from the atmosphere thus reinforcing the climate change to colder. When the climate warms, the oceans release CO2 thus reinforcing climate change to warmer. But never in the history of the planet has CO2 driven climate change. The best anyone can say is that CO2 serves as a background condition for climate change; extensive continental glaciation occurs in the southern hemisphere at 600 ppm; and extensive continental glaciation occurs in the northern hemisphere at 280 ppm.Well there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans.
True, but so what?
{...
The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure (pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans.
...}
It is only the CO2 in the atmosphere we care about, since that is what changes the frequency of sunlight and causes heat retention, (aka greenhouse effect).
Anything in excess or out of balance is pollution. But you can close the garage door and barbeque to prove me wrongBullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
The extra CO2 in our atmosphere bear the tattle-tale signs of recently burnt fossil fuels ... as a waste product of man's activities simply dumped into the environment ... it is pollution ... is it dangerous like Cesium-135, or harmless like Helium? ... either way, it's pollution ...
No, it isn't pollution. Pollution is harmful to the environment no matter what. Without CO2 there is no life.
That's not the definition of pollution.Anything in excess or out of balance is pollution. But you can close the garage door and barbeque to prove me wrongBullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
The extra CO2 in our atmosphere bear the tattle-tale signs of recently burnt fossil fuels ... as a waste product of man's activities simply dumped into the environment ... it is pollution ... is it dangerous like Cesium-135, or harmless like Helium? ... either way, it's pollution ...
No, it isn't pollution. Pollution is harmful to the environment no matter what. Without CO2 there is no life.
Not true as CO2 in the oceans is also pollution and if the oceans die so do weWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans.
True, but so what?
{...
The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure (pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans.
...}
It is only the CO2 in the atmosphere we care about, since that is what changes the frequency of sunlight and causes heat retention, (aka greenhouse effect).
Interesting. So can you show me from this historic plot of CO2 at which concentrations of CO2 would be considered pollution?Not true as CO2 in the oceans is also pollution and if the oceans die so do weWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans.
True, but so what?
{...
The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure (pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans.
...}
It is only the CO2 in the atmosphere we care about, since that is what changes the frequency of sunlight and causes heat retention, (aka greenhouse effect).
These are cyclical changes such as la nina and el ninoFreshwater only floats on saltwater in the absence of waves, current and up or down welling.
Yeah ... I think this notion of blocking the Gulf Stream comes from glacial lake outburst events ... millions of cubic miles of fresh water entering the ocean over two or three days ... it might take a couple of months for the ocean currents to resume ... "it happened then, it `could` happen now, therefore it WILL happen"
No, there obviously is no way to "block" an ocean current, and no one suggested that it did.
What is known to be happening is that the Gulf Stream is being sunken beneath the surface.
If the Gulf Stream is subducted deeper under other currents, like the Labrador Current, then Europe will not get any Gulf Stream warming effects any more.
The Gulf Stream will continue towards Europe, but be deep under water instead of on the surface.
The water does not need to stay warm, just alter the deep ocean currentsThe question is why are you arguing with the obvious?
Relationship between Earth’s Magnetic Field and Ocean Currents?
A paper in “New Journal of Physics” titled “Secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow?” (available at ) suggests: Abstract. Secular variatio…cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com
NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | Ocean Tides and Magnetic Fields
Seawater is an electrical conductor, and therefore interacts with the magnetic field. As the tides cycle around the ocean basins, the ocean water essentially tries to pull the geomagnetic field lines along.Because the salty water is a good, but not great, conductor, the interaction is...svs.gsfc.nasa.gov
Magnetic Field Effects On Ocean Currents
Transcript: The most widely disseminated possible consequence of Global Warming is a shift in the course of the Gulf Stream that triggers an Ice Age that sweeps suddenly across the Northern ...www.dailykos.com
Are you one of those government drones that only believes what the zombie orders you to believe
Your first two citations are effectively the same, the first cites the second ... and your third citation is commercial ...
Of the scientific references, neither support your claim ocean currents will reverse with a reversing magnetic field ... indeed they both specfically state they're only looking at the scalar value associated with the magnetic field ... and in part how Neptune effects this ... something astrologers have been claiming for thousands of years ... interesting and does "suggest" some interaction ... but until they finish their calculations, we won't know how much ...
The wind in the primary driver of ocean current like the Gulf Stream ... I'm sure stronger magnetic fields provide a braking action on the currents, one of many frictional forces at play in these types of systems ... but with the magnitude of magnetism dropping, the friction it causes will also be reduced ... thus having less effect on currents ...
The Gulf Stream flows in the direction is does due to cyclonic motion ... reversing the flow would require the Earth to spin the other way on her axis ... CO2 in the atmosphere won't do that ... obviously ...
I am coming into this in middle and don't have time to read the previous context, but ending the Gulf Stream warming of Europe does not require a change in currents or axis spin of the planet.
All it takes is for cold fresh water melt-off from Greenland to force the heavier warmer salt water of the Gulf stream to subduct down beneath the surface, where it is much colder.
That would prevent Gulf Stream warming of Europe, dropping temperatures there by over 10 degrees F. That is one of many ways how global warming can cause local cooling.
Another is by energying polar storms enough to leave their normal latitudes, and get much further towards the equator than they normally are able to.
Global warming means much more energetic weather, which can many more extreme results.
The problem with that theory is warm water rises.
True, but being warm does not make the salty Gulf Stream lighter than the cold fresh water melt off from Greenland.
I have not done the calculations or observations, but that is what the experts tell me.
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Study: Melting Greenland ice sheet is rapidly slowing the Gulf Stream
Study: Melting Greenland ice sheet is rapidly slowing the Gulf Streammashable.com
Emerging impact of Greenland meltwater on deepwater formation in the North Atlantic Ocean | Request PDF
Request PDF | Emerging impact of Greenland meltwater on deepwater formation in the North Atlantic Ocean | The Greenland ice sheet has experienced increasing mass loss since the 1990s. The enhanced freshwater flux due to both surface melt and outlet... | Find, read and cite all the research you...www.researchgate.net
And the experts are telling you that warm water can somehow be magically transported to depth.....where it will somehow, magically, remain warm.
Please explain how that is possible given the physics that govern our universe.
Why so I can wear a circular hat like you?Bullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
The extra CO2 in our atmosphere bear the tattle-tale signs of recently burnt fossil fuels ... as a waste product of man's activities simply dumped into the environment ... it is pollution ... is it dangerous like Cesium-135, or harmless like Helium? ... either way, it's pollution ...
Look up the term "circular reasoning".
Look up the term "false analogy".
CO2 is exhaled by your body, too much in your system will kill you because it is pollution.How can CO2 be pollution when it is a vital part of the carbon cycle?Bullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
The extra CO2 in our atmosphere bear the tattle-tale signs of recently burnt fossil fuels ... as a waste product of man's activities simply dumped into the environment ... it is pollution ... is it dangerous like Cesium-135, or harmless like Helium? ... either way, it's pollution ...
Are you trying to suggest that humans are not natural, that we are all supernatural beings?Anything outside of a natural system is pollution. Too much water in a desert ecosystem would also be pollution. I assume you are aware that wearing a mask increases CO2 uptake by restricting emission, it then becomes a pollutant even though the body produced it
The oceans are also taking up more CO2 which means it is pollutionActually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Well if you disagree feel free to shut the garage door and cook some bacon on the grill.Bullshit.Carbon emissions are pollution
Anything outside of a natural system is pollution. Too much water in a desert ecosystem would also be pollution. I assume you are aware that wearing a mask increases CO2 uptake by restricting emission, it then becomes a pollutant even though the body produced it
No. The definition of pollution is the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
