It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Politically Motivated Science of Climatology and the Demonization of Carbon

page: 3
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: amazing

That's a fair enough assessment. However, I would mention that it seems that whatever is good for the biosphere is ultimately good for humans. Within reason of course.

More carbon dioxide and more heat mean more plants growing faster. More plants mean more food. I like food.

TheRedneck

I have to wonder just what temperature of the Earth would make Phage and his merry band of misfit scientist's at the UN happy? We just don't see fresh food other than meat, able to survive ice formations.

200 tons of SO2 alone each day from this Hawaii'n volcano during eruptions recorded. That is staggering if ONE power plant emitted that. (146,000,00 #/year SO2)
pubs.usgs.gov...


SO2 instantly attaches via magnetic and geometrical locations on the SO2 molecule to a water molecule that is a perfect fit to the new molecule and becomes H2S04 shedding Hydrogen to make, Sulfuric acid.

ETA
without water present SO2 forms Oleum, SO3 and O2 that then converts to Sulfuric acid when water is present shedding an Oxygen atom so it needs two molecules of SO3 one of H20 to get O2.
edit on 3-6-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: FredT

There is definitely a point of diminishing returns w.r.t. plant growth due to increasing concentrations of CO2


The more significant problem is H2O, and the changes in precipitation which will disrupt existing hydrological infrastructure and expectations for agriculture. Ideal is a high mountain which can get lots of snow during winter which then melts gradually and delivers water to a fertile warm, but not too warm area. That describes growing areas of California and some of Asia. With global warming, it's likely to be strong sudden rain, not snow, in a rainy season more likely to cause destructive floods, followed by drought. Slow and steady is better.

Also, higher night time temperatures can really hurt some important plant crops. And increased greenhouse effect increases night temperatures particularly more than day temperatures.



...the bigger issue is sequestration — trees are the best sequesters of CO2. So it’s a “it depends” discussion.


Yes, they sequester CO2 until they die and then it goes back in the atmosphere. Before humans, this was all in equilibrim.

The best sequester of CO2 is fossilized coal in a mine. Keep it the # there. Back a very very long time ago, when the trees which made the coal and oil were growing, bacteria and fungus didn't have the ability to breakdown certain plant material. Therefore it piled up and was squished and turned into coal. Now, they have evolved that ability, so no matter how many trees you go the carbon will never be sequestered in an inert fossilized form.

We will turn the atmosphere back to that how it was when the coal was created, and then there were crocodiles in the Arctic.

We need to make coal mining & burning a global capital crime.



posted on Jun, 11 2018 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

An accurate description at the moment.
Give it a few years it will be left leaning.



new topics
 
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join