Originally Posted By: benjamming
how are we going to stop the volcanoes?
Large nuclear weapons.
how are we going to stop the volcanoes?
Large nuclear weapons.
track the world's wealthiest
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I always thought the first A-bomb, dropped right into Mt. Fuji, would have had additional benefits in terms of R&D.
Originally Posted By: benjamming
how are we going to stop the volcanoes?
I wouldn't worry about them too much, I think Los Angeles alone produces more CO2 than the average year for volcano emissions world wide...
Kind of scary if you think about it!
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Quote:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
how are we going to stop the volcanoes?
I wouldn't worry about them too much, I think Los Angeles alone produces more CO2 than the average year for volcano emissions world wide...
Kind of scary if you think about it!
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Quote:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
Last edited:
Quote:
Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes
And yet "we" have only raised concentration 60 ppm. And it's not like there was a sharp 250 year trend upward or anything...
Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes
And yet "we" have only raised concentration 60 ppm. And it's not like there was a sharp 250 year trend upward or anything...
Looks like 70 ppm in the last 60 years and accelerating...
Last edited:
Kestas
Staff member
They could graph it starting from 0 ppm, so it won't look so scary.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
They could graph it starting from 0 ppm, so it won't look so scary.
I could graph the pH of my blood and start the graph at zero but if the pH goes over 7.8 or below 6.8 I'm dead, so I might as well use the range of 6 to 8. It shows how important a small change is...
They could graph it starting from 0 ppm, so it won't look so scary.
I could graph the pH of my blood and start the graph at zero but if the pH goes over 7.8 or below 6.8 I'm dead, so I might as well use the range of 6 to 8. It shows how important a small change is...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Looks like 70 ppm in the last 60 years and accelerating...
That graph looks real scary.
But we can also say that carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 380 ppm today. That is an increase of .00038.
Suddenly that doesn't look so scary.
Looks like 70 ppm in the last 60 years and accelerating...
That graph looks real scary.
But we can also say that carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 380 ppm today. That is an increase of .00038.
Suddenly that doesn't look so scary.
Last edited:
Deccaying soil humus probably releases way more than humans.
Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Looks like 70 ppm in the last 60 years and accelerating...
That graph looks real scary.
But we can also say that carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 380 ppm today. That is an increase of .00038.
Suddenly that doesn't look so scary.
Or put another way, since 1750 the concentration of CO2 has risen by 380-280=100, 100/280=.357 or 35.7%
And everyone is so fond of exponential growth that you can see the curve starting to go vertical even in the brief period of time the Mauna Loa Observatory has been open...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Looks like 70 ppm in the last 60 years and accelerating...
That graph looks real scary.
But we can also say that carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 380 ppm today. That is an increase of .00038.
Suddenly that doesn't look so scary.
Or put another way, since 1750 the concentration of CO2 has risen by 380-280=100, 100/280=.357 or 35.7%
And everyone is so fond of exponential growth that you can see the curve starting to go vertical even in the brief period of time the Mauna Loa Observatory has been open...
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Deccaying soil humus probably releases way more than humans.
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?
Deccaying soil humus probably releases way more than humans.
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?
We alter that, a lot.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
We alter that, a lot.
I agree with that, forests and grasslands tend to be carbon sinks though and all the fossil fuels we use now were plants or animals a while ago.
We are making the rise of CO2 concentrations faster due to paving over huge areas every year and desertification of land not suitable for farming, which reduces the amount of carbon that can be put into soil as a sink
We alter that, a lot.
I agree with that, forests and grasslands tend to be carbon sinks though and all the fossil fuels we use now were plants or animals a while ago.
We are making the rise of CO2 concentrations faster due to paving over huge areas every year and desertification of land not suitable for farming, which reduces the amount of carbon that can be put into soil as a sink
Kestas
Staff member
Do I get points for all the trees and bushes I've planted in my yard, rather than the prairie lawn that most people have?
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Do I get points for all the trees and bushes I've planted in my yard, rather than the prairie lawn that most people have?
If you planted a deciduous tree to block the summer sun on the house you should save some on your energy bills... Worth a few points I think.
Do I get points for all the trees and bushes I've planted in my yard, rather than the prairie lawn that most people have?
If you planted a deciduous tree to block the summer sun on the house you should save some on your energy bills... Worth a few points I think.
Kestas
Staff member
Yup, and I've spent good money to keep the trees properly trimmed. I find that most people don't want to deal with the litter that comes from a good shade tree.
I've also recovered my roof with the lightest color I could find. I use the a/c only a handful of days during the summer.
Of course, none of this counts for anything with the incentives being formulated in Washington. I'll never see any of my tax monies slated for the developing incentive programs.
I've also recovered my roof with the lightest color I could find. I use the a/c only a handful of days during the summer.
Of course, none of this counts for anything with the incentives being formulated in Washington. I'll never see any of my tax monies slated for the developing incentive programs.
Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Looks like 70 ppm in the last 60 years and accelerating...
That graph looks real scary.
But we can also say that carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 380 ppm today. That is an increase of .00038.
Suddenly that doesn't look so scary.
Don't be so sure... a little CO2 goes a long way...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Looks like 70 ppm in the last 60 years and accelerating...
That graph looks real scary.
But we can also say that carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 380 ppm today. That is an increase of .00038.
Suddenly that doesn't look so scary.
Don't be so sure... a little CO2 goes a long way...
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Yup, and I've spent good money to keep the trees properly trimmed. I find that most people don't want to deal with the litter that comes from a good shade tree.
I've also recovered my roof with the lightest color I could find. I use the a/c only a handful of days during the summer.
Of course, none of this counts for anything with the incentives being formulated in Washington. I'll never see any of my tax monies slated for the developing incentive programs.
I guess they never legislate common sense eh! When the price of energy doubles then good sense will become popular again...
Most people and builders try to ignore the facts of nature when they design a house, design flaws like huge south facing windows with no shade are easily solved with another ton or two of AC capacity...
Honestly I think Canada and the US could cut energy use and CO2 production by 1/3 if people pulled their heads out of the butts when they design vehicles and buildings...
Yup, and I've spent good money to keep the trees properly trimmed. I find that most people don't want to deal with the litter that comes from a good shade tree.
I've also recovered my roof with the lightest color I could find. I use the a/c only a handful of days during the summer.
Of course, none of this counts for anything with the incentives being formulated in Washington. I'll never see any of my tax monies slated for the developing incentive programs.
I guess they never legislate common sense eh! When the price of energy doubles then good sense will become popular again...
Most people and builders try to ignore the facts of nature when they design a house, design flaws like huge south facing windows with no shade are easily solved with another ton or two of AC capacity...
Honestly I think Canada and the US could cut energy use and CO2 production by 1/3 if people pulled their heads out of the butts when they design vehicles and buildings...
We could cut energy use by 80% if we could suddenly rebuild everything, including city plans, with energy savings in mind.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Honestly I think Canada and the US could cut energy use and CO2 production by 1/3 if people pulled their heads out of the butts when they design vehicles and buildings...
It is not when they design it or not. People want wasteful building and vehicles because they are luxurious and people in general don't think that far into the future. Hey, what's another $100 a month in energy bill? Until 10 years later and realized the $100 grow into $1000 and they would whine about the liberals and environmentalists causing energy cost to rise.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
We could cut energy use by 80% if we could suddenly rebuild everything, including city plans, with energy savings in mind.
Or we could cut energy use by 50% if we reduce wastes (insulation, energy efficient appliances and lighting, etc).
Honestly I think Canada and the US could cut energy use and CO2 production by 1/3 if people pulled their heads out of the butts when they design vehicles and buildings...
It is not when they design it or not. People want wasteful building and vehicles because they are luxurious and people in general don't think that far into the future. Hey, what's another $100 a month in energy bill? Until 10 years later and realized the $100 grow into $1000 and they would whine about the liberals and environmentalists causing energy cost to rise.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
We could cut energy use by 80% if we could suddenly rebuild everything, including city plans, with energy savings in mind.
Or we could cut energy use by 50% if we reduce wastes (insulation, energy efficient appliances and lighting, etc).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked