Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
Yes, very many. And since no one knows exactly how many volcanoes we have underwater and their pertinent measures, then there is no valid basis to say what part of the hole other contributors make to warming and cooling the Earth.
|
No valid basis?
As far as the thread title goes, we do have a valid basis to say that CO2 concentrations do affect climate and if we can lessen that single "part of the whole" then we can at least help slow/mitigate any additional heating caused by "other contributers".
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that humans have been emitting CO2 at increasing rates. We know that we are in a warming trend (for whatever reasons).
We can't influence solar activity or volcanoes (at least not with current tech). We can influence CO2 concentrations.
The problem I see with your CO2 acquittal argument, Turtle, is that it implies that because we don't know all contributions to the whole, it is silly to assume we have any effect and therefore it is silly to take any action (for climate's sake) until all the facts are in. How long will that take (if ever)?
I don't know much about underwater volcanoes and their differences from terrestrial volcanoes, but I'm going to assume they are similar in approach, if different in deployment.
Let's take a familiar example of a terrestrial volcano that is active, Mount St. Helens. I remember when you made the claim against GW causing glacial recession by noting that the glaciers are actually increasing in the middle of an active vent.
Perhaps we will find similar events happening on the frigid ocean bottom...
Perhaps not...
