Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 12-07-2011, 07:40 PM
TrevorW
Registered User

TrevorW is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 8,281
Again a heated debate

the public is being fed a lot of bull

by both sides

they both have experts who will support their points of view


the whole issue is confusing to the general public


but they are not fools


we are only a small fish in a large pond
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-07-2011, 11:52 PM
KenGee's Avatar
KenGee (Kenith Gee)
Registered User

KenGee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Laura
Posts: 599
What the

Always amazed by some of the post you read whenever this subject comes up.

Jenchris do you really believe what you posted, have you bother to find out what has been asked of these countries or have you just repeated something you heard a shock jock say?

TrevorW we maybe small fish but we all have to do our bit. It's the first world that has created the problem and we can not expect the third world to anything without us doing something first. As for experts you'll never get 100% (hell, evolution, smoking....) however when the deniers trot out someone like Mockington then you really have to ask yourself what's gone wrong.

In the end the science has been trashed out in the field by scientist. I'm really sad that for some reason Scientist are dismissed and shock jocks and lobbyist are they ones people turn to.

The right's war on science have opened a new front in Australia and they are doing great.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 13-07-2011, 06:30 AM
SkyViking's Avatar
SkyViking (Rolf)
Registered User

SkyViking is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waitakere Ranges, New Zealand
Posts: 2,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous View Post
All this CO2 we and our volcanoes are busy pumping into the air isn't just sittting there, it's being absorbed and re-used and really hasn't made any appreciable impact on the actual percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere (0.04%?).
There was far more, back when you had to fight a T-Rex to get to the office and Life was positively everywhere.
In some 100 years we have managed to increase the CO2 content from the pre-industrial level of around 270ppm to now close to 400ppm. That's almost a 50% increase, in a very short time.
The whole problem of AGW lies in the fact that such large and fast variations will most likely result in equally fast and large changes in habitability of the Earth's various regions. Yes there was more CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago, but those changes were due to imbalances that happened over very long geological time scales, and thus ecosystems had plenty of time to adapt.
The world won't come to an end just because the CO2 content of the atmosphere rises, but with the speed that it is happening now it will probably have very dramatic negative consequences for us humans. We may then be longing back to the days of the early 21st century where we only had to worry about a small global financial crisis
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 13-07-2011, 06:43 AM
frolinmod's Avatar
frolinmod
Registered User

frolinmod is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous View Post
There was far more, back when you had to fight a T-Rex to get to the office and Life was positively everywhere.
Oh sure, "life" was everywhere, but it wasn't human life. Human life requires rather more comfortable conditions. Certainly life of some sort will go on, but if that life includes humans there will be far fewer of them and they'll be a rather miserable lot.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 13-07-2011, 07:01 AM
GrahamL's Avatar
GrahamL
pro lumen

GrahamL is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ballina
Posts: 3,265


anyone for a pretzel ?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 13-07-2011, 08:31 AM
Gem's Avatar
Gem (Grant)
The serenity...

Gem is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 926
As an observer on the sidelines of this debate (ie carbon in the atmosphere - not specifically volcanons)...
Both sides seem to have slightly inflated opinions of their own minds and abilities. Not much listening on either side...
I am generalising, of course, and I am not pointing at anyone on this thread.

Just an observation...

Last edited by Gem; 13-07-2011 at 08:33 AM. Reason: clarifying
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 13-07-2011, 09:20 AM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Highest Observatory in Oz

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem View Post
As an observer on the sidelines of this debate (ie carbon in the atmosphere - not specifically volcanons)...
Both sides seem to have slightly inflated opinions of their own minds and abilities. Not much listening on either side...
I am generalising, of course, and I am not pointing at anyone on this thread.

Just an observation...
I agree so that is why the current carbon pricing opinion polls are certainly not a good guide for what we should actually do. While we have the right to hold them, far too many of these opinions have been forged from suggestions like that made by the subject of this thread, which while very compelling to the average Joe, are actually completely missleading in the dabate.

Reminds me of the late night infomercials about stomach strengtheners that claim to also cause you to lose significant fat off your stomach, the reality of the science is that it will do absolutely zip for fat on your stomach but the average Joe is oblivious to this scientific process so the suggestion makes perfect sense to them

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 13-07-2011, 09:24 AM
OICURMT's Avatar
OICURMT
Oh, I See You Are Empty!

OICURMT is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Laramie, WY - United States of America
Posts: 1,555
The USGS is the best source of information for this....

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Quote:
Originally Posted by From USGS
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13-07-2011, 11:08 AM
bartman's Avatar
bartman (Bart)
1 of 7 of 9

bartman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,968
Thank you OIC! ( and all other inputerer-ers)
( I have just read the two USGS pages and they are very informative)
Its a pitty to see that this thread kinda veered off from my original question.
I was hoping that it wouldn't turn into people pointing the finger at why and what, but alas.
All I wanted to know if that email I received was bogus or had some if not all truth about it.
I had no intention of it becoming a debate, just purely inquisitive about volcanoes and their emissions.
Cheers for all the input, I think I have what I need.
Bartman

Last edited by bartman; 13-07-2011 at 11:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 13-07-2011, 12:07 PM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Highest Observatory in Oz

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartman View Post
Thank you OIC! ( and all other inputerer-ers)
( I have just read the two USGS pages and they are very informative)
Its a pitty to see that this thread kinda veered off from my original question.
I was hoping that it wouldn't turn into people pointing the finger at why and what, but alas.
All I wanted to know if that email I received was bogus or had some if not all truth about it.
I had no intention of it becoming a debate, just purely inquisitive about volcanoes and their emissions.
Cheers for all the input, I think I have what I need.
Bartman
Great to see your original question was answered and so easily and decisively Barto...shame there are so many more out there that have the same question in their mind but will not hear (or look for) the truth ...oh well, that's how it goes I guess .

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 13-07-2011, 05:25 PM
wasyoungonce's Avatar
wasyoungonce (Brendan)
Certified Village Idiot

wasyoungonce is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mexico city (Melb), Australia
Posts: 2,359
Well, the original question regards Volcanoes and pollutant gaseous emissions (and pollutant particular matter) is a very good one and I have also pondered.

But a quick Google search shows volcanic CO2 emission this around less than 1% compared of all CO2 emitted.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 13-07-2011, 05:36 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
It makes sense that volcanoes would be a small fraction. Consider the population of cars and trucks in the world. Then consider how many of them are old and inefficient not so much in Australia where the age of vehicles is probably pretty young but more countries with a lesser standard of living.

I don't know what the population of vehicles is? In Australia alone it must be more than all the people when you add in trucks.

How much does a 4 litre engine pump out doing 1500rpm? (4 litres times 1500 per minute is a lot of air).

Greg.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement