his quote: > The idea of man-made climate change is silly. Here are a few reasons why: The Gulf of Mexico sends more CO2 (the hobgoblin of choice for climate alarmists) into the atmosphere on its own every year than all of human civilization. If you consider how much of the planet is covered by oceans and compare that CO2 output to our own on a pie graph, our contribution would look like a straight line drawn with a very fine-tipped pen. The world's ecosystem consumes as much CO2 as it can touch. More CO2 means trees grow larger and faster, therefore expanding their capability to process it. Also, trees are capable of processing far more CO2 than they currently have access to, so it would require a massive increase from current levels for the existing forests of the world to notice a change. The earth underwent periods of warming and cooling in ancient times, well before human civilization had developed, and some of those periods were more severe than any we've seen in modern times. The earth's climate is driven by energy, not the kinds of molecules we have floating around us. All of the planet's energy originally came from the sun. It provides heat. It nourishes plant life. It infuses matter with energy, allowing it to exist in fluid and gaseous states. The sun fluctuates, and every time it does, we feel it in our weather. Climate science is used as a political tool, and therefore cannot be trusted, especially after UN researchers were caught red-handed falsifying data. I'm in the southern US, near the edge of the temperate zone where winters are usually somewhat mild. This year, winter weather for my area ended in April and began again in November. If the planet is warming, I sure can't tell.on-climate-change
Does the gulf of mexico really have an output of co2 that is greater than all of human civilization?
Yes. Your average blogger knows more about climate science than actual climate scientists.
Cameron Ward
This is satire, right?
Matthew Roberts
>HUUR WHAT IS A EQUILIBRIUM Please fuck off and don't return.
Evan Thomas
>The world's ecosystem consumes as much CO2 as it can touch. If this is true then why have CO2 levels in the atmosphere risen so much? and so rapidly?
Ian Williams
>Does the gulf of mexico really have an output of co2 that is greater than all of human civilization?
Not true. See pic related for the amount of ocean atmosphere CO2 flux. Some part of the ocean is net source to the atmosphere and some are net sink to the atmosphere. The atmosphere ocean exchange of CO2 is governed by Henry's Law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
In places where ocean productivity is high, like the equatorial pacific there's a lot of DIC (dissolved organic carbon) and the ocean is supersaturated with C with respect to the atmosphere, hence it'll offgas CO2 into the atmosphere.
In places where ocean is cold (cold water hold more gas, just like cold coke is fizzy while warm coke is flat) and not a lot of productivity like the Arctic ocean and Southern Ocean, CO2 dissolves into the ocean because the atmosphere is supersaturated in CO2 with respect to the ocean.
(CONT'D)
Nolan Johnson
The claim that gulf of mexico really have an output of co2 that is greater than all of human civilization is absolutely not true. Gulf of mexico as you can see is not even the hotspot for CO2 outgassing.
Looking at one particular area of the ocean is dumb because the ocean is interconnected system. Overall, the ocean has been NET SINK of CO2. We pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the atmosphere is supersaturated in CO2 with respect to the ocean, so the ocean will equilibrate by taking more CO2. When you take more dissolved CO2, you form bicarbonate (just like carbonated drinks) and you reduce the pH of the ocean, hence the term "ocean acidification."
Finally, the amount of ocean flux is nowhere near the amount of anthropogenic flux. We pump ~240 Petagram C per year to the atmosphere where the ocean TAKES (not release) about 2.3 Pg C.
Bronyguy is a moron
Isaac Russell
Did you read your own picture? it says the total from fossil fuels is 7.8+/-0.6 and the total from respiration and fire is 118.7
This would imply that fires and breathing contribute over 100x more CO2 to the atmosphere than human factories and fossil fuels do.
Blake Butler
Its only counting the factories that report their CO2 output dumbass. There could be thousands of kg of carbon that aren't being reported but still released into the atmosphere.
Jace Wright
>The idea of man-made climate change is silly
no
Henry Wood
And just where are all these clandestine factories?
Jayden Brown
That's an oversimplification.
Over the long term, phytoplankton is needed to absorb CO2 - and they need other minerals to survive. They are essentially the microscopic trees of the sea, at the bottom of the food chain.
Matthew King
The reason the midlatitudes are such good sinks of CO2 is because of the upwelling that occurs there.
Minerals are brought up - and combined with energy from the sun and co2 it creates organic matter, which then sinks.
The large source of co2 at the equatorial pacific, is also because of upwelling of dead organic matter along the coast. But the minerals are used up in the biologically productive zone off the coast of Equador before it drifts too far east. What left is waters rich with decaying organic compounds that give off co2.
Or something along those lines. I haven't studied this stuff in a long time.
Jace Barnes
First of all, respiration is not breathing. Respiration is the chemical reaction that turns glucose and oxygen into energy, CO2 and water. All living cells respirate. Breathing is associated with respiration because animals breath in to acquire the reactant oxygen. Plants respirate but do not breath, and the vast majority of respiration on earth is from plantlife. But wait, how can plants be using up oxygen and producing CO2 when everyone knows that plants "eat" CO2 and produces oxygen? Because on the whole, plants are absorbing more CO2 (for photosynthesis in order to produce glucose) than they are producing by respiring. Even though many plants release the carbon they have absorbed when they are engulfed by fire, this does not overcome the net effect of plantlife absorbing CO2.
So saying that plants release more CO2 than humans is very misleading, since it ignores that plants absorb even more CO2 than they release. Humans on the other hand, do not.
According to the guy in video a country with a few billions to spare and basic infrastructure (even some countries in Africa could do it, Nigeria for example) can, in theory, reduce the global temperature by a few degrees. Not to mention Pakistan and India who have nukes as mentioned hereCan they really do it? They can certainly attempt to do it if things get bad for them - if successful(likely the idea will work as far as temperature is concerned) what would that mean?
How much can they reduce the temperature and for how long really? Any scientific data on that?
Are literal climate conflicts possible?
I know there's at least a couple posters actually informed about this sort of thing and I need answers.
Grayson Brown
I'm the guy who posted twice above regarding phytoplankton/organic matter in reply to the guy who brought up Henry's law.
IMO, geoengineering is a dangerous concept because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The earth is a complex biomechanical heat engine (see carnot cyle), and people have been tweaking its components (not unlike changing the components of an engine, such as the radiator fluid or engine oil). Attempting further modifications to negate previous ones, you risk destroying components not meant to exceed certain design thresholds. The reason I brought the 2nd law up, is because any attempts to "engineer" a change in the system requires energy, and using that energy necessarily changes some components of the system.
Essentially, even though geoengineering may temporarily offset the effects of increasing co2, the chances are high that in the long run unintended consequence may be much worse and they would be in addition to the effects of initial increases in co2.
Or something along those lines...
Andrew Gomez
>The Gulf of Mexico sends more CO2 (the hobgoblin of choice for climate alarmists) into the atmosphere on its own every year than all of the human civilization. If you consider how much of the planet is covered by oceans and compare that CO2 output to our own on a pie graph, our contribution will look like a straight line drawn with a very fine-tipped pen. Yeah, but that little sliver of our input is billions of parts of CO2, which is more than our planet can regulate. There's an equilibrium that we're breaking.
>The world's ecosystem consumes as much CO2 as it can touch. More CO2 means trees grow larger and faster, therefore expanding their capability to process it. Also, trees are capable of processing far more CO2 than they currently have access to, so it would require a massive increase from current levels for the existing forests of the world to notice a change. Yes, but not in the span of 150 years! It takes plants and animals time to adapt to significant changes in CO2.
>The earth underwent periods of warming and cooling in ancient times, well before human civilization had developed, and some of those periods were more severe than any we've seen in modern times. NOT IN 150 YEARS.
>The earth's climate is driven by energy, not the kinds of molecules we have floating around us. All of the planet's energy originally came from the sun. It provides heat. It nourishes plant life. It infuses matter with energy, allowing it to exist in fluid and gaseous states. The sun fluctuates, and every time it does, we feel it in our weather. This is downright autistic nonsense.
Nathaniel Gray
>The idea of man-made climate change is silly stopped reading right there. Obvious scientific illiterate.
>Does the gulf of mexico really have an output of co2 that is greater than all of human civilization? No.
Ryan Hill
Really makes me think...
Gavin Campbell
Fucking brainlet.
Carter Harris
I mean, it's completely possible that it does. And that's fine if so; the point is that man disrupts the CO2 equilibrium.
Ian Reyes
Brainlet detected.
Jace Lee
Niglet detected. Possibly some brainlet contamination as well.
Matthew Long
-EVEN IF- climate change doesn't have any negative effects, I'd still be worried about the future breathability of Earth's atmosphere. when the CO2 ppm goes over 600, outside will start to feel like inside.
We all know what crowded places feel like. You'll want to open a window eventually. This is due to CO2 build up. Problem is, when outside CO2 level is terrible, opening windows doesn't do jack anymore. Earth entire atmosphere will feel stuffy/cramped (like crowded places).
Grayson Smith
This chart would be pretty much flat without human interaction. The wobblyness are all the plants.
It really bothers me people can still deny this shit.
Also Oxygen levels are going down equally. But there's fucktons of it so fuckit.
Oliver Nelson
>Is this brony correct? short answer: no long answer: nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Jacob Bailey
>bronies deny man-made global warming Well, if that's not a compelling reason not to be a a denier, I don't know what to tell you.
Jonathan Rogers
>Problem is, when outside CO2 level is terrible, opening windows doesn't do jack anymore.
I think most of that is to do with temperature (and humidity to some extent as people respire). You can feel the radiant energy from all the bodies around you that are at 37.8*C, as opposed to outside when you feel the radiant energy of air/ground/sky at 10-20*C on a nice day.
You might be able to feel the difference between 1000ppm and 300ppm, all other variables constant, but I don't think it significant.
That said, air becomes toxic to humans around 60,000ppm, and presumably there would be significant adverse effects for long term exposure well below that level.
