Maybe we can tax the oceans?
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/carboncycle.htm
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… energywise on What’s At Stake? Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end…
These infographics are meaningless without error bars. And the error bars for the ocean’s fluxes, I suspect, are bigger than the total of human emissions.
Maybe we can tax the oceans?
No, you just drain them. We do that, and get rid of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere too, we can dust off our hands because we’re done, we’ve solved all the environmental problems. It’s that easy.
ever heard of the bp disaster in the gulf ? its still leaking and the cover up experts say it natural seeps now. seeps that happened when bp tried the top shot then when they caped it it quit building presure so its found a new way out though the shaddered mantel and the gulf is conected to all the oceans so iventualy they all suffer and we lose anoughter food supply
The oceans and seas have naturally occurring “seeps” of both oil and gas all over the world.
Fer real! Also, “The ocean stores 50 times more carbon dioxide than does the atmosphere” and Much more carbon flows through the ocean than the amount produced by burning fossil fuels
Interesting site.
The oceans make up 70%+ of the earths surface and more than 90% of the earths biological living space, and produce/store/release most of the atmospheric CO2.
Ahem, fossil fuel may be a misnomer:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
The diagram shows the ocean to be a net sink of CO2, not a source of it. You did notice the arrow pointed into the ocean, market 92, adjacent to the one pointed up, marked 90, did you not?
90 – 92 = -2
While AGW may be a sham, posting this does nothing to prove that point.
30,000 cars commute to work every day in my city, and 30,000 cars also commute home. According to your logic, there was no commuting.
I think a better example would be I give you 90 dollars then I take away 92 dollars. How much money do you have left?
The term is a misnomer….for “Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” posted at Canada Free Press. Also the ocean CO2 is one of the ‘elemental’ gases produced from Earths internal fission decay. For more on this read “Motive Force for All Climate Change” posted at ClimateRealists.com. Victory over the climate FRAUD, or V-AGW Day, occured on Jan 29, 2011 when an online debate PROVED that Climatology is the modern Alchemy. These charlatans know NOTHING of Thermodynamics or of Electro-magnetic Radiation. Read more at ClimateChangeDispatch.com in:
“OMG…Maximum CO2 Will Warm Earth for 20 Milliseconds”
“Climate Follies Encore” & “Two Year On, Why Is the Obvious A Mystery”
Your common sense will thank you ! (and be sure to share with others)
Annually, all the chlorophyll based life on Earth (the Earth’s sole source of “free” oxygen) produces an estimated four billion tons of O2. Currently, between six and twelve billion tons of carbon fuels (petroleum, natural gas, COAL) are incinerated every year for human energy-production purposes (this is besides whatever billions-of-tons of O2 annually is-and-has-been — for many millions of years — been oxidized from the atmosphere by other, more natural circumstances). For every carbon atom successfully burned as fuel, two oxygen atoms are commonly locked away within the atmosphere as a gaseous oxide compound. Up to one quarter of all petroleum being burned is consumed in the STRATOSPHERE. This has been going on full-blown and over-the-top for at least half a century.
While the Earth’s atmosphere is extensive, humanity’s penchant for jet aircraft travel IS still consistently depleting it of stratospheric ozone, leaving behind only CO2 and other more exotic chemicals. In the meantime, as previously mentioned, the oceans are not a producer of CO2, they’re merely a sink. The more this heavier-than-oxygen gas is produced in the troposphere, the more gravity’s weight dissolves it into the waters.
The Earth simply cannot sustain humanity at its current population levels before the Earth’s atmospheric sunscreen is severely depleted. But then, the lack of an ozone layer will — in short order — correct humanity’s overpopulation problem. Devoid of a nuclear amageddon, life will continue to go on.
Do the math.
DanD
In my city, 30,000 cars drive to work every morning and 30,000 cars drive home. Using your logic, that means that there is no driving in my city. Taxing coal will certainly teach those evil planes a lesson.
I think a better example would be I give you 92 dollars then I take away 94 dollars. How much money do you have left?
Ahh, a Malthusian to come by and pay us a visit! The sink and out-gasing of the oceans fluctuate greatly. I think we’ll be ok for a while. To steal from Crichton, you know NYC had a great problem and started to consider drastic measures to fix the problem. It was literally horse shit. They started being really concerned about it at the turn of the century prior. I can just imagine how it was back then, sanitation, space, the smell, it must have been horrible…………. do you really believe trans continental and trans-ocean mass transportation will remain the same as it is today? Why can’t you guys learn from history? People have been spewing this rhetoric since well before Malthus, guess what? Nothing ever happens. We don’t all starve, we don’t run out of room, nothing………except the continual progress of mankind. Turns out, it isn’t anything to worry about, because as Romm points out, we’re at peak oil…………..again. So, its a self correcting problem at worst. At best, its just some more misanthropy or autophobia.
We all ready TAX the ocean with all the dumping crap we do in it. . . .
I didn’t see any pretty graphic depicting the amount of co-2 spewed into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. It’s hardly a guess to think that margin of error exceeds the amount generously estimated to human based outputs. In short, you pathetic dupes ,thinking that your responsible for killing the planet, have been convinced that it’s your duty to clean up after the banker pigs that rape our resources @ will.
The beauty of scientific research is the ability to pick and choose that which supports one’s own theory. If you’ve a point to make, why would you look into research which discredits your point. … I’ve never seen Al Gore’s presentation, but do assume from what little I do know of it that it is an exaggeration, as is what folk do when of want to ‘drive the point home‘. To say there is No truth to mankind driving global warming … I personally wouldn’t go that far.
A couple bits I feel deserve merit, and of which I‘ve found in a few related pages:
“The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.”
“… consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Temperatures are below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C
You need a bar graph, or really any type of graph for this information to be useful.
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.
Reblogged this on Climatism.
these natural flows have a high degree of uncertainty and the effect of fossil fuel emissions on the carbon cannot be detected in the context of these uncertainties
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191
on the carbon budget
sorry