Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinesearching
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/08/11
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 6 months, 23 days
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: koods] * 1
    #24095135 - 02/16/17 11:29 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

There's really not much to debate.

We know from the discoveries and experiments of Joseph Fourier that some gasses convert infrared radiation into heat at different rates. Fill a glass box with oxygen and another one with carbon dioxide and put them outside on a sunny day. The box with carbon dioxide will be warmer.

Couple that knowledge with the fact that each year man pumps over 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and now you have a prediction that man will cause the earth to become warmer. Those predictions are proving to be true with the measured global temperatures.

Now can anyone give a theory or some evidence why releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide WON'T cause the earth to become warmer?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching]
    #24095203 - 02/16/17 12:06 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I dunno, just something I googled. Here, have a look. What do you think? There's references and shit at the bottom.

Could be true or false. You decide.



Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective

Comparison of Atmospheric Temperature with CO2
Over The Last 400,000 Years
|| Temperature -vs- CO2 || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||


For more than 2 million years our earth has cycled in and out of Ice Ages, accompanied by massive ice sheets accumulating over polar landmasses and a cold, desert-like global climate. Although the tropics during the Ice Age were still tropical, the temperate regions and sub-tropical regions were markedly different than they are today. There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time.

Historically, glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Changes in both temperatures and CO2 are considerable and generally synchronized, according to data analysis from ice and air samples collected over the last half century from permanent glaciers in Antarctica and other places. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago.

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!




NOTE: All charts were plotted directly from composite data sets using Lotus 1-2-3.
  CO2 Graph Sources:
Temperature Graph Sources:
2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data
1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica
1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica
2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data 2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data
1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data
1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data
|| Temperature -vs- CO2 || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||
References:

Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core
The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers from France, Russia, and the U.S.A.

1) Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,00 years).
Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987.
Nature 329:403-8.
2) Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period.
Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou, and P. Yiou. 1993.
Nature 364:407-12.
3) Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records.
Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit, M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.
Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.
4) Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.
Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.
Nature 399: 429-436.

End quote.

There are some graphs and stuff that didn't copy, but you get the idea.

The climate is, and will always be changing. Human influences or not.


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesearching
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/08/11
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 6 months, 23 days
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: HamHead]
    #24095218 - 02/16/17 12:17 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

It's true that the earth's climate is always changing. But what were debating here is does man have a significant impact on that change? My answer is yes because we're releasing 38 billions tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

Basically I haven't heard any arguments why this wouldn't affect the temperature. All I've heard is "yeah but the earth climate changes anyway so who cares if we warm it up some?"

Let me just ask again. Why do you think releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere will NOT warm the earth?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching]
    #24095251 - 02/16/17 12:33 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Dont forget about deforestation on top of that too, theres a lot that we do that influences it

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 11 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott] * 1
    #24095829 - 02/16/17 04:16 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

what I've seen here is people posting data and others calling it fake for whatever reason. notice how not a single denier has actually posted any evidence to support their ideas? the irony of shutting down science calling it unreliable with a device that science made possible is not only hilarious but it's a huge slap in the face to any and all progress humanity has made


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 11 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate *DELETED* [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24095835 - 02/16/17 04:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Post deleted by tryptkaloids

Reason for deletion: bad link



--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 11 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #24095839 - 02/16/17 04:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #24096029 - 02/16/17 05:27 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

tryptkaloids said:
what I've seen here is people posting data and others calling it fake for whatever reason. notice how not a single denier has actually posted any evidence to support their ideas? the irony of shutting down science calling it unreliable with a device that science made possible is not only hilarious but it's a huge slap in the face to any and all progress humanity has made






we posted sources links, videos, news articles etc...

i even mega dumped links. with citations and links to articles.....i dont know what your going on about other than people choose not to believe them, and so choose to call them fake.

climate changers bring up : the science is in, more people believe in it than not, therefore it is true.


just like the news video i posted about al gore starting this shit for monetary purposes. what a fucking gold mine it has become.

not too bad of 2nd job for someone who was planning on being president and lost. and suddenly came into the global warming scene.

why would someone need to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches on global warming if he was trying to save the planet?

you are perpetuating a climate ponzi scheme which inevitably fail. be it through dumb ass EPA regulations like you see, to charging taxes on carbon output....

If liberal politicians want to tax it, something the fuck is up.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Edited by keyser_soze (02/16/17 05:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24096077 - 02/16/17 05:45 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
Quote:

tryptkaloids said:
what I've seen here is people posting data and others calling it fake for whatever reason. notice how not a single denier has actually posted any evidence to support their ideas? the irony of shutting down science calling it unreliable with a device that science made possible is not only hilarious but it's a huge slap in the face to any and all progress humanity has made






we posted sources links, videos, news articles etc...

i even mega dumped links. with citations and links to articles
.




You posted links that contradicted other links you posted and none of them had any citations, references, or sources of the studies done to show what they claimed. All you did was contradict your own position using only opinion and claim based articles that you yourself probably didnt read as shown by the fact some of them back what I've said and also contradict other shit you posted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24096294 - 02/16/17 07:20 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

my point remains the same.


--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24096578 - 02/16/17 09:20 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

And what is that point exactly? That you have an opinion you'll hold regardless of any evidence presented and will google and post anything that might support what you already believe without even reading it even if it supports my view or contradicts your own?

If you, Pris, or anyone else jumps in with actual evidence that provides a different argument, I'd be more than willing to look at it and consider it and even change my view based on it, the only thing you've presented is that you couldn't care less what's true as long as it fits whatever you already think is true and will provide literally anything as proof even if it lacks any basic form of evidence to support it. Simply stating your point remains the same despite anything shown to you just proves you couldn't care less what's actually true and what's not even though you're the one calling us brainwashed.

All you keep harping on is that "more people believe it than not", that doesn't matter, more people who are experts in the field of climate believe it than not, public opinion is irrelevant here because they're not the ones studying it. Or Al Gore, someone who literally no one gives a shit about and has even been mocked by climate experts themselves. Don't show me news, don't show me opinions, and don't show me claims, unless those claims are backed by something to verify their claims in which case I'd be more than willing to consider...as I've said at least 10 times by this point.

And just to prove my point because I'm done responding to you after this post, I'll use your own posts to show what I mean.

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

there's an article.

more importantly, it relates to the magical fucking 150 years you get your boners over.




First link you posted in the thread and what it claims, keep in mind that once again it doesn't provide a single source to a study or any type of evidence to what it claims. "To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer"

So sunspots increasing in number is the cause of earths increasing temparture, according to the link you posted. You know what one of the other links provides as proof? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm a news website...rather than evidence. Which also has no studies, references, or citations.


Quote:

keyser_soze said:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html




From this link, one of the next two you posted.

"Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet" YOUR links proof of this http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest So apparently it's the complete opposite of the first link you provided, so which one is it? It also provides no studies to show what it claims. The same link also claims that the arctic is gaining ice, which is pretty much all but gone at this point. This entire link you provided as proof is literally nothing more than a ten minute read and any link it provides takes you to a news website that doesn't provide any links whatsoever to any studies done to show what it's claiming

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
i rarely quote wikipedia, but since some of your arguments came from a user based and anonymously editable internet encyclopedia, i will too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming




"This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint."

"The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[4]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[5]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[6] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[7]"

This is the literally the very beginning of the third out of three links you posted. You want to say I'm not willing to read or consider counter arguments because I'm brainwashed yet you're posting a link that almost completely agrees with me? You clearly aren't reading what your using as proof and using it as proof anyway.

Quote:

keyser_soze said:
we posted sources links, videos, news articles etc...

i even mega dumped links. with citations and links to articles




So once again, no you haven't, and until you do there's no reason to take anything you say seriously. Unless you think articles and citations to news websites that don't provide anything to back their claims is proof of anything.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekeyser_soze
Truth Bomber
Registered: 03/04/16
Posts: 1,417
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24097063 - 02/17/17 05:45 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

my point, if you read it, still remains the same. it's still in this thread...so i dont know why you keep asking.


again, my point remains the same.

and you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

that wikipedia article i posted is about scientists that disagree with climate change believers. they are the dissidents. that paragraph is merely background information for the list of scientists that DISAGREE WITH THAT PARAGRAPH. you quoted it like 3 times trying to prove a point, but failed to realize the shit went over your head every time.

but i see your argument is still going strong, " more people believe it that not, so it must be true", otherwise you wouldn't keep pointing to a paragraph that has nothing to do with the scientists that disagree with it.


seriously, it's like you stop at the first thing that agrees with your stance, without further reading. #officialcherrypicker LOL fucking hilarious.

you dumb motherfuckers don't realize you are getting hyped up over like 1000 years of data for a planet that is billions of years old. there is a book out there about you guys and the main point of that one is that the sky is falling, read it.



--------------------
People in my Fan Club: Masked (President), Ballsalsa (VP), The Ecstatic*don't waste your time "debating" with him, he uses 3rd grader tactics (Director of Bullshit), Koods (Fake News Anchorman), Falcon - Devout Communist

*Word your posts carefully if they contain right wing values. The moderators here like to keep it left leaning, they will use every excuse to ban you but not the others. You've been warned.

Edited by keyser_soze (02/17/17 06:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesearching
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/08/11
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 6 months, 23 days
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze] * 1
    #24097105 - 02/17/17 06:47 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I've made a valid argument and no one has replied to it. It seems like you're ignoring it.

Tell me why carbon dioxide won't increase the earth's temperature. Humans have doubled the ppm of c02 in the atmosphere.

Or maybe you tell us why Venus is hotter than mercury even though mercury is closer to the sun.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: keyser_soze]
    #24097106 - 02/17/17 06:48 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

I honestly think you must be retarded at this point, my reading comprehension needs work? More evidence (some of which ive posted btw) claims its true..., not people, for the last time, you have not posted evidence for me to consider...for the last time.

Official cherry picker? You took an article that says 97% percent of scientists agree but you're convinced its not true because of the 3% in it that arent. Of course theres scientist who dont agree, according to YOUR article its only 3% of them so seriously explain to me why i should agree with 3% over 97%? Oh thats right, because youre cherry picking because youre desperately looking for something to hold on to.

Notice how in these ones it links something directly related to everything it claims so that you can verify what it's saying? If you actually took the time to read them they collected large numbers of peer reviewed studies on this topic from various groups and provide the statistics for how many reach the same conclusions. Rather than going off what people believe like you keep trying to cling to.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

This is like talking to a wall lol Have a good one dude, you clearly dont care to have an actual conversation about it and just go to insults when you cant back up your own stance. :cheers:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 11 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: SirShroomsAlott]
    #24097369 - 02/17/17 09:52 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

they collected large numbers of peer reviewed studies


these guys don't trust peer review.. it's basic we have majorly disrupted the carbon cycle. it's supposed to stay in the ground and in the life, not the air and water...


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching]
    #24097383 - 02/17/17 10:00 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

searching said:
It's true that the earth's climate is always changing.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation


Quote:

Let me just ask again. Why do you think releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere will NOT warm the earth?





shouldnt you be asking if it contributes since the earth was already warming, man
and his CO2 production didnt bring us out of an ice age. while you said earlier
there isnt much for debate, clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenothing exists
master of fire

Registered: 12/15/10
Posts: 289
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24097458 - 02/17/17 10:30 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

nothing exists said:
Quote:

We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.

If the 117 unsampled peaks follow a similar trend, then the research community's current projection might stand. But looking through such a small window, there's no way of knowing if what we have seen until now is typical or not. It's like shining a light on a darkened globe: randomly, you might hit Australia, and think you’d seen it all – while on the edge of your beam, unnoticed, would be Asia. Our planet's isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two; and with a bit of exploration, our estimate of volcanic CO2 output could rise even higher.

You'd think that would be enough. That might be my fault — I tend to save the weird stuff until the end. Recently, an enigmatic source of volcanic carbon has come to light that isn't involved with lava — or even craters. It now seems that not only is there CO2 we can't get to, there's some we can't even see.

Carbon dioxide is always invisible, but its presence can be inferred in volcanic plumes — betrayed by the billowing clouds of water vapour released alongside it. Without the water, though, it's a different story. The new poster-child of planetary degassing is diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.

Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still 'erupt' gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

If these additional 'carbon-active' volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we've measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.




http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html




--------------------
i like you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,650
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 2 days, 11 hours
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #24097483 - 02/17/17 10:41 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

searching said:
It's true that the earth's climate is always changing.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation


Quote:

Let me just ask again. Why do you think releasing 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere will NOT warm the earth?





shouldnt you be asking if it contributes since the earth was already warming, man
and his CO2 production didnt bring us out of an ice age. while you said earlier
there isnt much for debate, clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man



not a single person here said it was 100% man made. however the massive shift in the carbon cycle has been caused mainly by man. go head, disprove decades of peer reviewed studies


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSirShroomsAlott
Howdy
I'm a teapot


Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 6,945
Loc: United States Flag
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: nothing exists]
    #24097485 - 02/17/17 10:42 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

That article also states

Quote:

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years




They're just stating that their findings have been underestimated for a long time and that we have no idea how much volcanoes as a whole produce but that it's also pretty much constant even if our numbers of how much were off.

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:


clearly there is since you believe this is completely
made by man




Where did he even imply that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,166
Re: Global Warming -- A Scientific Debate [Re: searching] * 1
    #24097524 - 02/17/17 10:52 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

searching said:
It's true that the earth's climate is always changing. But what were debating here is does man have a significant impact on that change? My answer is yes because we're releasing 38 billions tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.





I've said many times, and am tired of saying it, that isn't the only thing we do.

We tear down rainforests. Destroy watersheds. Dam rivers. These are much more obvious and tangible examples of how we've been fucking shit up.


What do rainforests do? convert co2 into oxygen

What do watersheds do? clean out pollutants and filter oxygen

What do natural river paths do? they cleanse the land and replenish underground water levels as well as atmospheric water (this is why California isn't getting the rain it used to)


We alter the earth. It is very capable of regulating itself and cleaning out our poison. But we have been destroying it's ability to self regulate at a not only unsustainable but also cycle breaking rate.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Disaster at sea: global warming hits UK birds ekomstop 1,957 18 08/02/04 11:52 AM
by MyInsanityTrip
* Global Warming might cybrbeast 502 2 07/30/04 10:08 AM
by kindkesey
* 104.5 f temperature fee 2,499 12 03/22/04 01:33 PM
by Infrared
* 1st GLOBAL SHROOMERY MEETING idea
( 1 2 3 all )
Sterile 9,197 54 03/04/03 11:46 AM
by Sterile
* What's the temperature of outer space and why?
( 1 2 3 all )
TheHateCamel 4,201 54 04/07/17 05:51 PM
by mca0824
* Global Marijuana March - May 7
( 1 2 3 all )
trendalM 6,409 55 03/23/06 02:09 PM
by trendal
* Debating
( 1 2 all )
MovingTarget 2,192 27 11/28/04 07:55 PM
by MovingTarget
* Keep my face warm?
( 1 2 all )
freddurgan 1,645 23 01/25/05 10:46 AM
by gdman

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
2,805 topic views. 10 members, 38 guests and 51 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.041 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 15 queries.