COMMENTS: 50
Thanks to Our Fossil Fuel Addiction, We May Be Setting Ourselves Up for a Catastrophic Natural Event
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
What is hydrogen sulfide? It smells like farts and rotten eggs. You can find it in swamps, sewers, landfills, volcanic and natural gases, and pretty much everywhere there is a petroleum refinery. Unfortunately, you can also usually find it whenever and wherever you've got mass extinctions.
In fact, it is hydrogen sulfide, rather than killer asteroids or some other interstellar death-bringer, that has possibly become the go-to kill-shot of most mass extinctions in Earth's history.
"It doesn't take much hydrogen sulfide to kill off anything," Gerry Dickens, professor of earth science and paleoceanography at Rice University, explained to AlterNet by phone.
He should know: It was Dickens' work with methane hydrates that completed the puzzle of the Permian-Triassic extinction event, more aptly known as the Great Dying, in the 2002 BBC Horizon documentary The Day the Earth Nearly Died.
During the Great Dying, over 250 million years ago, flood basalts in the Siberian and Emeishan traps unleashed hell on Earth, spewing titanic walls of lava, ash, debris and greenhouse gases into the sky, blotting out the sun and surrounding hundreds of thousands of miles in a biblical inferno for which there is no contemporary analogue, at least in reality.
But even that wasn't enough to wipe out the 96 percent of Earth's marine, terrestrial and plant species claimed by the Great Dying. A growing scientific consensus explains that the death stroke was probably delivered from Earth's anoxic oceans, whose resultant out-of-whack pH balance, once literally defined as the "power of hydrogen," released catastrophic stores of either methane hydrate or hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere.
Whichever one it was, hydrogen had the power to bring Earth to its knees. And it could happen again.
"It's unannounced stealth nastiness," Peter Ward, professor of biology and paleontology at the University of Washington, declared by phone to AlterNet. "My new book ends with a hydrogen sulfide extinction."
That book, The Medea Hypothesis, posits not one but five hydrogen sulfide extinction events, including the Great Dying, throughout Earth's history. Going further, it flips the Gaia hypothesis on its head by suggesting -- with increasing persuasion, given our current climate crisis of too much carbon dioxide in the air and too little oxygen in the oceans -- that Earth is not seeking an optimal physical and chemical environment for its life.
In fact, Ward argues, its multicellular life is actually suicidal in nature, whose doom will eventually return Earth to the microbes that have dominated most of its history.
Although the truth probably lies somewhere between Gaia and Medea, Ward seems to be right about one thing: Hydrogen sulfide is an unheralded executioner.
"If ancient volcanism raised CO2 and lowered the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and global warming made it more difficult for the remaining oxygen to penetrate the oceans, conditions would have become amenable for the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria to generate massive upwellings of hydrogen sulfide," Ward wrote in a Scientific American clarion call titled "Impact from the Deep."Virtually no form of life on the earth was safe."
Ward -- who has also written the books Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future; Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe; and the forthcoming Our Flooded World -- concludes his Scientific American piece with the obvious question: Could it happen again?
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 3, 2009 11:45 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No comment...
Posted by: Spot
» RE: This is such an important issue...I tried to read the article several times
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: This is such an important issue... totally
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: upstartgreen on Jul 3, 2009 11:53 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Upstartgreen
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ozonehole on Jul 3, 2009 12:23 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Saving the Earth is too expensive
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leemiller38 on Jul 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The planet will survive
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Stop Breeding and exit with dignity
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Stop Breeding and exit with dignity
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caerbannog on Jul 3, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But H2S? Just a tiny whiff (even at a few parts for billion) and you nose says, "head for the hills"!
A likely reason for this is that we have a long evolutionary history of being fumigated by this stuff. Many events in the Earth's past subjected large populations of critters to fumigation by H2S. So there was heavy evolutionary pressure to develop olfactory "H2S alarms" to warn critters away from the stuff.
This is in contrast to our evolutionary history with carbon-monoxide, cyanide gas, etc., where naturally-occuring lethal doses of those gases were extremely rare.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Interesting theory
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Interesting theory
Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Why does H2S *really* stink? An evolutionary explanation.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 3, 2009 2:24 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given that, equilibrium might be restored.
Another (much fainter) hope is that ice melt in the North Atlantic will again disrupt the gulf stream, triggering an ice age - if that is still a possibility.
If a kindly alien offers you and your descendants a ticket to another planet, however, I strongly recommend that you take em up on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Mr Wizard, get me out of here!
Posted by: Spot
» RE: You missed the math
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: You missed the math. Sorry, no. You missed the point.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 3, 2009 5:32 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cahorton on Jul 3, 2009 6:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps this is just too awful for most people to take in, even scientists.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stunned disbelief?
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: Stunned disbelief? Yup. The light at the end of the tunnel
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: u2r1 on Jul 3, 2009 6:20 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» All good stuff - but consumerism has to end as we know it.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Just keep in mind...
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mtcloud on Jul 4, 2009 5:49 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will we benefit from these increased taxes the same way we are benefiting from the "bailout" now? Yes you are all ageeing that these huge new "global warming taxes" are fine.
Look at the double standard.
If you are late for your taxes in anyway at all, you are immediately penalized, fined and harassed endlessly by the local and federal tax "public servants". Yet they can give us "IOU'S" and postponements.
Yet you all trust your "public servants" and want to give them more?
I guess intellect doesn't always guarantee "common sense" and admitting the predatory actions of public servants" happening right in front of you.
Michael
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.globalwarminghype.com
http://freeenterpriseactionfund.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Global Warming Misinformation Continues
Posted by: caerbannog
» RE: Global Warming Misinformation Continues
Posted by: mtcloud
» RE: Global Warming Misinformation Continues
Posted by: Malcolm Calder
» Global Warming Misinformation Continues CAUTION! PETRO SHILL
Posted by: u2r1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caerbannog on Jul 4, 2009 8:56 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By citing a joke propaganda outfit that has produced no legitimate scientific research and furthermore, has a history of promoting pseudoscience on behalf of the tobacco industry (namely, the Heartland Institute) instead of citing legitimate scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, etc. you have further demonstrated that you are not to be taken seriously here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Heartland Institute? What a f***ing joke!
Posted by: Malcolm Calder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HoboHomo on Jul 4, 2009 10:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three cheers for girly-men! They'll save the planet and all its lovely inhabitants. Along with the ladies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Jul 5, 2009 4:49 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What specific scientific study do you rely on for this yet again hysterical report on the beneficial CO2?
When will this insane reliance on computer models that don't factor in many possible drivers for climate change other than CO2 end?
If temperatures dont significantly climb in 10, 20, 30, 100 years, will the IPCC go out of business? Of course not. The money is too darn good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On a little planet a long time ago....
Posted by: caerbannog
» From History Comes A Plan of Action and Justice For Criminals
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» From History Cometh... The Good, The Bad, The Indifferent
Posted by: particle
» The issue is, 'doctor', whether or not the what the mad scientist sees is in fact there.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: The issue is, 'doctor', whether or not the what the mad scientist sees is in fact there.
Posted by: particle
» Now, sir.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: pfft
Posted by: particle
» Artful Dodger
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sex on Jul 6, 2009 2:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
辣妹視訊|美女視訊|視訊交友網|視訊聊天室|視訊交友|視訊美女|免費視訊|免費視訊聊天|視訊交友90739|免費視訊聊天室|成人聊天室|視訊聊天|視訊交友aooyy哈啦聊天室|辣妺視訊|A片|色情A片|視訊|080視訊聊天室|視訊美女34c|視訊情人高雄網|視訊交友高雄網|0204貼圖區|sex520免費影片|情色貼圖|視訊ukiss|視訊ggoo|視訊美女ggoo|
080苗栗人聊天室|080中部人聊天室ut|ut影音視訊聊天室13077|視訊做愛|kk777視訊俱樂部|上班族聊天室|聊天室找一夜|情色交友|情色貼片|小瓢蟲情色論壇|aio交友愛情館|
哈拉聊天室|洪爺影城|kk123視訊俱樂部|6K聊天室
情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣|情趣用品|情趣
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» spammer... remove this
Posted by: Bearzerker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mom'z the word on Jul 8, 2009 10:01 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.
Given the above definition and your theory of what occurs as a result of the on going and certainly undeniable current activity here on earth I find your theory makes a lot of sense and therefore tend to agree with it.
I am wondering. It seems as part of the carbon cycle to keep things in check trees using CO2 to make oxygen through photosynthesis is an important factor also. And the fact that we are cutting down the Rain forest on average 3000 acres an hour deforestation puts more of a burden on the oceans to try and keep up with the oxygen production. And I think what you are saying is it just can't keep up.
Besides all the obvious answers like stop burning fossil fuels, or in general just stop using nonrenewables could we switch? By switch I mean instead would it help if we, just ordinary people and all politics aside, offset the production of nonrenewable CO2, by planting a renewable, like a tree or bush that produces oxygen from existing CO2?
I tend to lose patience with the politic process of change. It takes so darn long. And it doesn't sound like we have a lot of time. Instead planting a tree really does not require a G8 summit meeting to do. I suppose action to prevent the cutting down of trees would be even better. However if that is not always immediately possible planting one is.
My question is would it really make a difference? I would very much like to think it would but that is only a hope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» making a difference
Posted by: chrysalis124812
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avabird on Jul 10, 2009 10:03 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mandiwrite on Jul 13, 2009 10:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 3, 2009 11:45 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No comment...
Posted by: Spot
» RE: This is such an important issue...I tried to read the article several times
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: This is such an important issue... totally
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: upstartgreen on Jul 3, 2009 11:53 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Upstartgreen
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ozonehole on Jul 3, 2009 12:23 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Saving the Earth is too expensive
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leemiller38 on Jul 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The planet will survive
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Stop Breeding and exit with dignity
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Stop Breeding and exit with dignity
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caerbannog on Jul 3, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But H2S? Just a tiny whiff (even at a few parts for billion) and you nose says, "head for the hills"!
A likely reason for this is that we have a long evolutionary history of being fumigated by this stuff. Many events in the Earth's past subjected large populations of critters to fumigation by H2S. So there was heavy evolutionary pressure to develop olfactory "H2S alarms" to warn critters away from the stuff.
This is in contrast to our evolutionary history with carbon-monoxide, cyanide gas, etc., where naturally-occuring lethal doses of those gases were extremely rare.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Interesting theory
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Interesting theory
Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Why does H2S *really* stink? An evolutionary explanation.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 3, 2009 2:24 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given that, equilibrium might be restored.
Another (much fainter) hope is that ice melt in the North Atlantic will again disrupt the gulf stream, triggering an ice age - if that is still a possibility.
If a kindly alien offers you and your descendants a ticket to another planet, however, I strongly recommend that you take em up on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Mr Wizard, get me out of here!
Posted by: Spot
» RE: You missed the math
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: You missed the math. Sorry, no. You missed the point.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 3, 2009 5:32 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cahorton on Jul 3, 2009 6:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps this is just too awful for most people to take in, even scientists.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stunned disbelief?
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: Stunned disbelief? Yup. The light at the end of the tunnel
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: u2r1 on Jul 3, 2009 6:20 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» All good stuff - but consumerism has to end as we know it.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Just keep in mind...
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mtcloud on Jul 4, 2009 5:49 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will we benefit from these increased taxes the same way we are benefiting from the "bailout" now? Yes you are all ageeing that these huge new "global warming taxes" are fine.
Look at the double standard.
If you are late for your taxes in anyway at all, you are immediately penalized, fined and harassed endlessly by the local and federal tax "public servants". Yet they can give us "IOU'S" and postponements.
Yet you all trust your "public servants" and want to give them more?
I guess intellect doesn't always guarantee "common sense" and admitting the predatory actions of public servants" happening right in front of you.
Michael
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.globalwarminghype.com
http://freeenterpriseactionfund.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Global Warming Misinformation Continues
Posted by: caerbannog
» RE: Global Warming Misinformation Continues
Posted by: mtcloud
» RE: Global Warming Misinformation Continues
Posted by: Malcolm Calder
» Global Warming Misinformation Continues CAUTION! PETRO SHILL
Posted by: u2r1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caerbannog on Jul 4, 2009 8:56 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By citing a joke propaganda outfit that has produced no legitimate scientific research and furthermore, has a history of promoting pseudoscience on behalf of the tobacco industry (namely, the Heartland Institute) instead of citing legitimate scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, etc. you have further demonstrated that you are not to be taken seriously here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Heartland Institute? What a f***ing joke!
Posted by: Malcolm Calder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HoboHomo on Jul 4, 2009 10:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three cheers for girly-men! They'll save the planet and all its lovely inhabitants. Along with the ladies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Jul 5, 2009 4:49 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What specific scientific study do you rely on for this yet again hysterical report on the beneficial CO2?
When will this insane reliance on computer models that don't factor in many possible drivers for climate change other than CO2 end?
If temperatures dont significantly climb in 10, 20, 30, 100 years, will the IPCC go out of business? Of course not. The money is too darn good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On a little planet a long time ago....
Posted by: caerbannog
» From History Comes A Plan of Action and Justice For Criminals
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» From History Cometh... The Good, The Bad, The Indifferent
Posted by: particle
» The issue is, 'doctor', whether or not the what the mad scientist sees is in fact there.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: The issue is, 'doctor', whether or not the what the mad scientist sees is in fact there.
Posted by: particle
» Now, sir.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: pfft
Posted by: particle
» Artful Dodger
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sex on Jul 6, 2009 2:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
辣妹視訊|美女視訊|視訊交友網|視訊聊天室|視訊交友|視訊美女|免費視訊|免費視訊聊天|視訊交友90739|免費視訊聊天室|成人聊天室|視訊聊天|視訊交友aooyy哈啦聊天室|辣妺視訊|A片|色情A片|視訊|080視訊聊天室|視訊美女34c|視訊情人高雄網|視訊交友高雄網|0204貼圖區|sex520免費影片|情色貼圖|視訊ukiss|視訊ggoo|視訊美女ggoo|
080苗栗人聊天室|080中部人聊天室ut|ut影音視訊聊天室13077|視訊做愛|kk777視訊俱樂部|上班族聊天室|聊天室找一夜|情色交友|情色貼片|小瓢蟲情色論壇|aio交友愛情館|
哈拉聊天室|洪爺影城|kk123視訊俱樂部|6K聊天室
情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣|情趣用品|情趣
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» spammer... remove this
Posted by: Bearzerker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mom'z the word on Jul 8, 2009 10:01 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.
Given the above definition and your theory of what occurs as a result of the on going and certainly undeniable current activity here on earth I find your theory makes a lot of sense and therefore tend to agree with it.
I am wondering. It seems as part of the carbon cycle to keep things in check trees using CO2 to make oxygen through photosynthesis is an important factor also. And the fact that we are cutting down the Rain forest on average 3000 acres an hour deforestation puts more of a burden on the oceans to try and keep up with the oxygen production. And I think what you are saying is it just can't keep up.
Besides all the obvious answers like stop burning fossil fuels, or in general just stop using nonrenewables could we switch? By switch I mean instead would it help if we, just ordinary people and all politics aside, offset the production of nonrenewable CO2, by planting a renewable, like a tree or bush that produces oxygen from existing CO2?
I tend to lose patience with the politic process of change. It takes so darn long. And it doesn't sound like we have a lot of time. Instead planting a tree really does not require a G8 summit meeting to do. I suppose action to prevent the cutting down of trees would be even better. However if that is not always immediately possible planting one is.
My question is would it really make a difference? I would very much like to think it would but that is only a hope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» making a difference
Posted by: chrysalis124812
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avabird on Jul 10, 2009 10:03 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mandiwrite on Jul 13, 2009 10:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say




