find me the quantity of natural co2 and the quantity of co2 the earth can naturally absorb.
Global Disaster Map
- Thread starter doofer
- Start date
find me the quantity of natural co2 and the quantity of co2 the earth can naturally absorb.
What? I'm not disputing the massive amount of CO2 released or the effect it will have
Earthquakes and volcanoes (I'm sure you don't need me to tell you) are natural phenomena that contribute to the natural pattern of increasing global warming. He's comparing that to traffic, the Kyoto Protocol, human carbon emissions, which is a modifiable exacerbating factor to global warming.
What? I'm not disputing the massive amount of CO2 released or the effect it will have
Earthquakes and volcanoes (I'm sure you don't need me to tell you) are natural phenomena that contribute to the natural pattern of increasing global warming. He's comparing that to traffic, the Kyoto Protocol, human carbon emissions, which is a modifiable exacerbating factor to global warming.
But all links together. Reducing man made co2 wont reverse the trend, it will merely slow it down. Couple that with no cheap alternatives and it's pointless.
Of course it won't reverse the trend but I'd rather it merely slowing down than speeding up. And I'm sure that cost effective alternatives will be available in the near future.
Anyway my point was that I found it a little ridiculous to think 'oh, well, volcanoes erupt all the time, so we may as well light up too, shrug'.
They release CO2 yes but due to also releasing huge quantities of aerosols in every eruption, volcanoes are understood to have a cooling effect on the global climate.
.
Volcanoes release 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Emissions of CO2 by human activities amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons). Here
Pointless?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,458
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
Indeed, and until someone can tell me that driving my 4.2 to work each day is having a significant impact upon global warming I'll carry on driving it, thanks.
A quick test on a carbon footprint site says I produce 9.5 tons of co2 a year, and most of that is through use of fossil fuels to power my house, and buying produce that has been imported to the local Tescos. The offset site also states that to offset that carbon production I need to plant 13 trees.
(source)There have been 5507 earthquakes/tremors in the south america region alone so far this year (4472 for 2006 and 2639 for 2005, so seemingly increasing then...). One earthquake at 7.4 can produce 3400 tons of co2 in a few seconds, so the old mother earth isn't doing too badly at pumping out the old co2 for herself.
However, despite volcanoes and earthquakes, perhaps governments should concentrate on stopping the major global deforestation that is occuring.
If 13 trees is all it takes to soak up my personal co2 emissions, then what effect does the loss of around 800 million hectares of mature rainforest have upon the planet? What effect does the fact that, Between 1990 and 2005, Nigeria lost 79% of its old-growth forests have upon the consumption of co2 in the atmosphere? Or that in 1960 Central America still had 4/5 of its original forest; now it is left with only 2/5 of it? (source)
Global warming may be real, and it may be happening, and it may be a one way ticket to disaster for this planet, but do you really think that driving a 4x4 has any effect, or that congestion charging has any effect when, in the last 20 years, Afghanistan has lost 70% of it's forests.
Anyway, that we effect global warming through our emissions can be argued to be a political invention formulated by Thatcher in the early 80's.
You driving your car isn't going to have any significant effect, of course
But hundreds of millions of people doing the same is going to contribute.And you talk about the congestion charge... why are you complaining about that in relation to global warming? The point of congestion charging is to reduce... congestion, and pay for public transport services. I never thought that the aim was to benefit the environment.
N. Oreskes analyzed (.pdf) the 928 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1993 and 2003 that contained the key-word 'climate change'. Not one disagreed with the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
There is no scientific disagreement on the human causes of climate change. Yes, the scientists could be wrong, but when there is no significant disagreement within the community, why should conspiracy theories be taken so seriously?
I agree that governments and industry bear much of the responsibility, but as Doohickey says the half a billion cars in the world together have a massive impact, including yours and mine.
Edit: Regarding your comment about earthquakes, 4472 earthquakes x 3400 tons is 15204800 tons. If there were 100000 earthquakes in a year, each releasing 5000 tons, this would add up to half a billion tons a year. I refer you to the 27 billion produced each year by humanity.
There is no scientific disagreement on the human causes of climate change. Yes, the scientists could be wrong, but when there is no significant disagreement within the community, why should conspiracy theories be taken so seriously?
I agree that governments and industry bear much of the responsibility, but as Doohickey says the half a billion cars in the world together have a massive impact, including yours and mine.
Edit: Regarding your comment about earthquakes, 4472 earthquakes x 3400 tons is 15204800 tons. If there were 100000 earthquakes in a year, each releasing 5000 tons, this would add up to half a billion tons a year. I refer you to the 27 billion produced each year by humanity.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,458
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
But that's just volcanoes, there's a lot more to it than that. The web is a constant source of facts and can be made to say whatever we want, it seems. For example:
I'm not saying we shouldn't move to cleaner sources of energy where they are available, and I'm happy to tell the New Zealanders to stuff their lamb and apples. As Tesco says... every little helps. But I think the political spin on this is going the wrong way. We should be looking at reversing deforestation and moving to cleaner sources of energy instead of persecuting the tiny percent of people who drive 4x4's or drive in London.
But political adjenda will always be top of the list while politicians control how we tackle the issues.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,458
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
You driving your car isn't going to have any significant effect, of course
And you talk about the congestion charge... why are you complaining about that in relation to global warming? The point of congestion charging is to reduce... congestion, and pay for public transport services. I never thought that the aim was to benefit the environment.
You don't think that by reducing congestion you are reducing carbon emissions then? So all those cars taken off the roads by congestion charging are sitting at home with the engines ticking over??
As I stated, the vast majority of my carbon footprint is caused by the government still burning fossil fuels to power this country, and the fact that Tesco brings in produce from all over the globe. While I'm happy to stick to local produce where possible, for some reason, the act of bringing it from a local farm to the supermarket seems to cost about three times as much as flying it half way around the world.
Driving my car is a very small portion of my footprint, and, like I said, until someone can prove that giving up my car will have a significant effect, I won't.
There is a huge difference between official websites and peer reviewed papers and most of the rubbish on the internet.
For example from the article you linked to
Well thats helpful then, no peer reviews or even professionals looking over the paper, it even states not to use it in school projects.
If you really want to link from something have a look here. Peer reviewed journels on multiple facets and subjects. Thats a major problem with things like this, people beileve that all information sources are equal, they are not by a large margin. Some are just ramblings by people that have no idea, some written by people with an agenda, some written by people who try to write a proper piece and get it wrong and some that are written by proper scientists which are then read by other scientists in their field, only being released if the results are backed up.
EDIT: And another similar map specifically for earthquakes: http://www.iris.edu/seismon/bigmap/index.phtml
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,458
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
Ummm, that's what I just said, if you look around on the internet you can find a website that will back up almost any position.
It was in reference to the point about volcanoes producing less co2 than humans. They may well do, but that has little actual relevance as I was originally discussing the emissions of all natural disasters in relation specifically to cars.
What is annoying me is that the only solution that seems to be bandied about to global warming is to tax the arse off those with an engine over about 650cc when there is so much more to the problem than that. It is a global issue, with global causes and until those global causes are resolved, my use of a car will make little or no difference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,458
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
EDIT: And another similar map specifically for earthquakes: http://www.iris.edu/seismon/bigmap/index.phtml
That's cool
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,740
- Location
- Delete *.*
I heard its a disease that causes all Sunderland women to have a face like the back of a bus, with bingo wings too
You were trying to disprove the information strudey gave about volcanoes by comparing it to an article from a no name person and inferring that both sources were just as reliable. The fact one was the United States Geological Society and the other was a randomer with no real knowledge seemed beside the point for you. (well that's what it looks like to me).
True, that is annoying but it's because of people like you (and me, and everyone else) that the government have to use tax to stop people doing things. It's an unfortunate fact about people that the only way we will start using our cars less or thinking about changing our lifestyle is if it hurts us financially. We have beeen given plenty of warnings about the damage we are (possibly) causing but we don't care, and carry on doing what we were.
Ok, i'm not that naive that I think the government is not using these taxes to make money but their primary reason is to reduce damage to the environment.
I heard its a disease that causes all Sunderland women to have a face like the back of a bus, with bingo wings too
Raised a smile