Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
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)?
|
No, what I imply and have explicitly stated elsewhere is that spending money to bury charcoal or any such carbon sequestration or reduction plan is money not spent toward any remedial action. By all accounts this is about the effect on people. We need to find energy sources other than fossil fuels because they're finite, they add particulates, carbon monoxide, sulphur compound, etcetera, bad stuff to who laid the chunk. How much less carbon in the air if Gore had them mail his trophy from Norway? Inconvenient truth indeed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Freezter
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.
|
So your whole rebuttal is laying on an assumption based on facts not in evidence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Freezenheim
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...
 |
Speaking of heat on the frigid bottom, and volcanoes aside, how many hydrothermal vents are on the ocean floor and what is their contribution to heating & chemical compounds directly? What of their newly discovered ecosystems? How many tons of carbon in these cycles now & historically?
All of these rebuttals don't deny the Sun's role, volcanoes' roles, hydrothermal vent's roles, they just marginalize and minimize them with rhetoric. The models are only as good as the data going in, and incomplete data is as good as bad data. In mathematical terms, this is a 'complex system', as in 'complex system theory' previously know as 'chaos theory'. Claiming it's all about CO2 is like looking at the bulbous black outline of the Mandelbrot set and saying you know what it looks like.
Here's more heresy:
>>
Ocean: Hydrothermal
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NASA
The hydrothermal processes had been predicted. What was unpredicted and created quite the scientific stir was the existence of thriving communities of lifeforms at these sites.
...
Chemosynthesis
What is happening is that hydrogen sulfide is oxidized, so oxygen is necessary for this process, and the energy released from this oxidation of this hydrogen sulfide molecule is used to power, the fixation of carbon dioxide into small organic compounds. So this cycle ... is the same metabolic pathway that is utilized by plants in photosynthesis ... takes inorganic carbon dioxide and fixes it into organic compounds that are then food. But, the difference here, the critical difference, is that rather than using sunlight, these animals and bacteria are completely independent of sunlight. They utilize chemical energy to power that reaction.
|
