Volcanic Co2

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Well, there is a simple way to approach this. Let's see. A federal law that would require states to charge $10 more per hp after 160 hp for autos, and the same for light trucks and vans past 200 hp. Per year, charged at the time of license renewal.

Start the charges the year after the law is passed.

Or a dollar a gallon tax on fossil fuels, gasoline, diesel, ect. That would leave the market open for cyclic fuels like cellulostic diesel or alcohol.

The name of the game is reducing man caused GHGs. Not particular about how this is done, it just needs to be done ASAP.

 

[ScienceRocks]

LOL. Well, there is a simple way to approach this. Let's see. A federal law that would require states to charge $10 more per hp after 160 hp for autos, and the same for light trucks and vans past 200 hp. Per year, charged at the time of license renewal.

Start the charges the year after the law is passed.

Or a dollar a gallon tax on fossil fuels, gasoline, diesel, ect. That would leave the market open for cyclic fuels like cellulostic diesel or alcohol.

The name of the game is reducing man caused GHGs. Not particular about how this is done, it just needs to be done ASAP.

Lets go back to horses and buggies. Hell they worked for a long time and don't put out the co2 that cars, trucks, buses do. They take no coal, oil, nuclear or any other kind of power supply. They are still used by some people within the northeastern united states we call the Amish.














hehehe

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Have you any idea how many times horses have removed me from their backs in the most undignified manner? Not only no, Hell No!

I think that we will see a more reasonable way to power our vehicles in the near future. As for those that must have 500 hp at their command, let them pay for the privelege of being overage adolescents and putting the rest of us in danger.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why don't the Warmers do their part and stop posting on the Internet?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Well, there is a simple way to approach this. Let's see. A federal law that would require states to charge $10 more per hp after 160 hp for autos, and the same for light trucks and vans past 200 hp. Per year, charged at the time of license renewal.

Start the charges the year after the law is passed.

Or a dollar a gallon tax on fossil fuels, gasoline, diesel, ect. That would leave the market open for cyclic fuels like cellulostic diesel or alcohol.

The name of the game is reducing man caused GHGs. Not particular about how this is done, it just needs to be done ASAP.

Why?

 

[konradv]

Why don't the Warmers do their part and stop posting on the Internet?

Because we have to keep going back to square 1 with people like you. Evidence, your erudite comment in the previous post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why don't the Warmers do their part and stop posting on the Internet?

Because we have to keep going back to square 1 with people like you. Evidence, your erudite comment in the previous post.

How much CO2 does mankind dump annually into Earth atmosphere?

 

[konradv]

Why don't the Warmers do their part and stop posting on the Internet?

Because we have to keep going back to square 1 with people like you. Evidence, your erudite comment in the previous post.

How much CO2 does mankind dump annually into Earth atmosphere?

About 30 billion tons.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

For most of the past 10,000 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been stable, about 280 ppm. CH4 about 700 or 800 ppb. In the last 150 years those amounts have increased to 390 ppm and 1800 ppb.

It has been about 15 million years since there was that much CO2 in the atmosphere. You cannot make that big of a change in such a short time without consequences. Consequences that we are seeing right now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For most of the past 10,000 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been stable, about 280 ppm. CH4 about 700 or 800 ppb. In the last 150 years those amounts have increased to 390 ppm and 1800 ppb.

It has been about 15 million years since there was that much CO2 in the atmosphere. You cannot make that big of a change in such a short time without consequences. Consequences that we are seeing right now.

So you say.

What is Mankinds contribution to the CO2 increase?

 

[Old Rocks]

100%, or 40% of the present 390 ppm

 

[CrusaderFrank]

100%, or 40% of the present 390 ppm

Um, you meant 25%, right?

So, the whole "warmer oceans hold less CO2" does not apply?

There are no longer any natural causes to increasing CO2?

 

[konradv]

100%, or 40% of the present 390 ppm

Um, you meant 25%, right?

So, the whole "warmer oceans hold less CO2" does not apply?

There are no longer any natural causes to increasing CO2?

Well, name them then. You could say volcanoes, but humans emit more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Where else you going to get it, but man?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

100%, or 40% of the present 390 ppm

Um, you meant 25%, right?

So, the whole "warmer oceans hold less CO2" does not apply?

There are no longer any natural causes to increasing CO2?

Well, name them then. You could say volcanoes, but humans emit more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Where else you going to get it, but man?

I try to follow your logic but you keep going serpentine on me.

 

[konradv]

Um, you meant 25%, right?

So, the whole "warmer oceans hold less CO2" does not apply?

There are no longer any natural causes to increasing CO2?

Well, name them then. You could say volcanoes, but humans emit more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Where else you going to get it, but man?

I try to follow your logic but you keep going serpentine on me.

In other words, you don't understand anything, but keep replying because your objection is really political, rather than scientific.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, name them then. You could say volcanoes, but humans emit more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Where else you going to get it, but man?

I try to follow your logic but you keep going serpentine on me.

In other words, you don't understand anything, but keep replying because your objection is really political, rather than scientific.

I'm trying to understand how you can say that warmer oceans release CO2 but then tell me that all of the CO2 increase is from mankind.

If it's really warmer, than means oceans are a net contributor to CO2 in atmosphere, right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I try to follow your logic but you keep going serpentine on me.

In other words, you don't understand anything, but keep replying because your objection is really political, rather than scientific.

I'm trying to understand how you can say that warmer oceans release CO2 but then tell me that all of the CO2 increase is from mankind.

If it's really warmer, than means oceans are a net contributor to CO2 in atmosphere, right?

It is true that a warmer ocean can hold less co2. It is a cycle that feeds in on its self you see. 1# Man adds more co2 into the Atmosphere 2# the temperatures warm 3# oceans ability to hold co2 decreases=more co2 in Atmosphere.

Lets say in the 1850's the oceans could take 100 percent of the co2 of a normal interglacial period, but today they can only take about 95 percent of whats normal. So you get a 5 percent surplus and that adds every fucking year. It is a cycle. One big fucking circle. During the ice ages the colder oceans holded more co2 with the larger ice sheets sucking up some of the co2=less co2. That is why it went down to 160-180 ppm, but you go into a interglacial period in what you get is the opposite with more co2 260-300 ppm within the Atmosphere. Where can you explain the extra 100 or so ppm? After you look at each interglacial period of the past few million years.

That 100 ppm and why the oceans are not able to hold the co2 within the norms of where they always hold it within during the interglacial is the question. The earth has patterns, but we're outside of them.

As we add more co2 into the system and as the oceans become less able of sucking it ot of the Atmosphere. Both man and the oceans lost ability to absorb co2 will increase the rate of increase of the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.

As you can see innerglacial to glacial periods changes with co2 are very well known and we understand that temperature has a effect on its release. BUT it is now outside of what our climate of the past 2-5 million years should be. Tell me why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In other words, you don't understand anything, but keep replying because your objection is really political, rather than scientific.

I'm trying to understand how you can say that warmer oceans release CO2 but then tell me that all of the CO2 increase is from mankind.

If it's really warmer, than means oceans are a net contributor to CO2 in atmosphere, right?

It is true that a warmer ocean can hold less co2. It is a cycle that feeds in on its self you see. 1# Man adds more co2 into the Atmosphere 2# the temperatures warm 3# oceans ability to hold co2 decreases=more co2 in Atmosphere.

Lets say in the 1850's the oceans could take 100 percent of the co2 of a normal interglacial period, but today they can only take about 95 percent of whats normal. So you get a 5 percent surplus and that adds every fucking year. It is a cycle. One big fucking circle. During the ice ages the colder oceans holded more co2 with the larger ice sheets sucking up some of the co2=less co2. That is why it went down to 160-180 ppm, but you go into a interglacial period in what you get is the opposite with more co2 260-300 ppm within the Atmosphere. Where can you explain the extra 100 or so ppm? After you look at each interglacial period of the past few million years.

That 100 ppm and why the oceans are not able to hold the co2 within where they always holded it within during the interglacial is the question. The earth has patterns, but we're outside of them.

As we add more co2 into the system and as the oceans become less able of sucking it ot of the Atmosphere. Both man and the oceans lost ability to absorb co2 will increase the rate of increase of the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.

I thought the oceans were sucking up half (1/2 or 50%) the manmade CO2 output and that why the coral were dying and the oceans were turning into stomach acid?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm trying to understand how you can say that warmer oceans release CO2 but then tell me that all of the CO2 increase is from mankind.

If it's really warmer, than means oceans are a net contributor to CO2 in atmosphere, right?

It is true that a warmer ocean can hold less co2. It is a cycle that feeds in on its self you see. 1# Man adds more co2 into the Atmosphere 2# the temperatures warm 3# oceans ability to hold co2 decreases=more co2 in Atmosphere.

Lets say in the 1850's the oceans could take 100 percent of the co2 of a normal interglacial period, but today they can only take about 95 percent of whats normal. So you get a 5 percent surplus and that adds every fucking year. It is a cycle. One big fucking circle. During the ice ages the colder oceans holded more co2 with the larger ice sheets sucking up some of the co2=less co2. That is why it went down to 160-180 ppm, but you go into a interglacial period in what you get is the opposite with more co2 260-300 ppm within the Atmosphere. Where can you explain the extra 100 or so ppm? After you look at each interglacial period of the past few million years.

That 100 ppm and why the oceans are not able to hold the co2 within where they always holded it within during the interglacial is the question. The earth has patterns, but we're outside of them.

As we add more co2 into the system and as the oceans become less able of sucking it ot of the Atmosphere. Both man and the oceans lost ability to absorb co2 will increase the rate of increase of the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.

I thought the oceans were sucking up half (1/2 or 50%) the manmade CO2 output and that why the coral were dying and the oceans were turning into stomach acid?

True. But the 100 percent is of a normal interglacial period. Your right that the oceans suck up 50% on the norm, but as you increase co2 within the Atmosphere and increase the temperature within the oceans they get to the point where they can't take much more co2 and a small amount less of the full percentage doesn't get sucked. So instead it stays and compounds on its self within the Atmosphere.

The weird thing is why are we higher then any period in the last 5 million years with co2? What is driving the cycle if not for increase of the temperature and the addition of heat into the system. Honestly?

Normally during a interglacial period the oceans suck up what is normal and keep the planet in balance. NOT TODAY.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much CO2 we were even outventing in 1850? 1900? Before electricity was introduced into cities!