3 tons
NV.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/13/2009
View Profile
 Offline
|
For the objective minded - Fossilized Redwood tree stumps at the arctic circle suggest an ever changing climatic conditions that pre-date anthropomorphic activities…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020322074547.htm
3 tons
|
RambleOnNW
Pacific Northwest
Senior Member
Joined: 08/06/2010
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
Just imagine for a moment. You fancy having a picnic tomorrow, or you're a farmer needing a dry day to harvest a ripe crop. So naturally, you tune in for a weather-forecast. But what you get is:
“Here is the weather forecast. There will be weather today and tomorrow. Good morning.”
That's a fat lot of use, isn't it? The same applies to, “the climate's changed before”. It's a useless statement. Why? Because it omits details. It doesn't tell you what happened.
Climate has indeed changed in the past with various impacts depending on the speed and type of that change. Such results have included everything from slow changes to ecosystems over millions of years - through to sudden mass-extinctions. Rapid climate change, of the type we're causing through our enormous carbon dioxide emissions, falls into the very dangerous camp. That's because the faster the change, the harder it is for nature to cope. We are part of nature so if it goes down, it takes us with it.
So anyone who dismissively tells you, “the climate has always changed”, either does not know what they are talking about or they are deliberately trying to mislead you.
Past changes in climate, for which hard evidence is preserved throughout the geological record, have had a number of drivers usually acting in combination. Plate tectonics and volcanism, perturbations in Earth's slow carbon cycle and cyclic changes in Earth's orbit have all played their part. The orbital changes, described by the Milankovitch Cycles, are sufficient to initiate the flips from glacials (when ice-sheets spread over much of Northern Europe and the North American continent) to interglacials (conditions like the past few thousand years) and back – but only with assistance from other climate feedbacks.
The key driver that forces the climate from Hothouse to Icehouse and back is instead the slow carbon cycle. The slow carbon cycle can be regarded as Earth's thermostat. It involves the movement of carbon between vast geological reservoirs and Earth's atmosphere. Reservoirs include the fossil fuels (coal/oil/gas) and limestone (made up of calcium carbonate). They can store the carbon safely over tens of millions of years or more. But such storage systems can be disturbed.
Carbon can be released from such geological reservoirs by a variety of processes. If rocks are uplifted to form mountain ranges, erosion occurs and the rocks are broken down. Metamorphism – changes inflicted on rocks due to high temperatures and pressures – causes some minerals to chemically break down. New minerals are formed but the carbon may be released. Plate tectonic movements are also associated with volcanism that releases carbon from deep inside Earth's mantle. Today it is estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey that the world's volcanoes release between 180 and 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year - as opposed to the ~35 billion tonnes we release.
An extreme carbon-releasing mechanism can occur when magma invades a sedimentary basin containing extensive deposits of fossil fuels. Fortunately, this is an infrequent phenomenon. But it has nevertheless happened at times, including an episode 250 million years ago at the end of the Permian Period. In what is now known as Siberia, a vast volcanic plumbing-system became established, within a large sedimentary basin. Strata spanning hundreds of millions of years filled that basin, including many large coal, oil, gas and salt deposits. The copious rising magma encountered these deposits and quite literally cooked them.
Now laden with a heavy payload of gases, boiled out of the fossil fuel deposits, some of the magma carried on up to the surface to be erupted on a massive scale. The eruptions – volcanism on a scale Mankind has never witnessed - produced lavas that cover an area hundreds of kilometres across. Known as the Siberian Traps, because of the distinctive stepped landforms produced by the multiple flows, it has been calculated that the eruptions produced at least three million cubic kilometres of volcanic products. Just for a moment think of Mount St Helens and its cataclysmic May 1980 eruption, captured on film. How many cubic kilometres with that one? Less than ten.
Recently, geologists working in this part of Siberia have found and documented numerous masses of part-combusted coal entrapped in the lavas (Elkins-Tanton et al, 2020). In the same district are abundant mineral deposits formed in large pipes of shattered rock as the boiling waters and gases were driven upwards by the heat from the magma.
It has been calculated that as a consequence of the Siberian Traps eruptions, between ten trillion and one hundred trillion tons of carbon dioxide were released to the atmosphere over just a few tens of thousands of years. The estimated CO2 emission-rate ranges between 500 and 5000 billion tonnes per century. Pollution from the Siberian Traps eruptions caused rapid global warming and the greatest mass-extinction in the fossil record (Burgess et al, 2017). There are multiple lines of hard geological evidence to support that statement.
We simply break into those ancient carbon reservoirs via opencast or underground mines and oil/gas wells. Through such infrastructure, the ancient carbon is extracted and burned. At what rate? Our current carbon dioxide emissions are not dissimilar to the estimated range for the Siberian Traps eruptions, at more than 3,000 billion tons per century. The warning could not be more clear. Those telling you the climate's changed before are omitting the critical bit – the details. And when you look at the details, it's not always a pretty sight.
|
3 tons
NV.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/13/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
Indeed, the climate changes (in my view this self evident) and yes carbon sinks play a role…CO2 levels (a plant fertilizer) were many time higher at a time when majority plant life began to evolve (C3 plant life)… C4 plant life (e.g. corn and sugar cane, et al) is purported to have evolved as a response to what was overtime a considerable lowering of atmospheric CO2 levels (and changes in light and photosynthesis…) from the previous C3 era…Depending on what past era ‘reference point’ one chooses, today’s atmosphere CO2 level might be objectively viewed a drought condition…Whether one views these changes as “not a pretty sight” (imputing, recent modestly increased CO2 levels as a threat to humanity and the first cause alarm for planetary warming…) or merely a somewhat benign process that contributes to greening and earth cooling (i.e. biosphere regulated) is the real question that’s open to objective cogent debate, rather than the apparatus of a supposed ‘settled science’…
On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that CO2 emissions (however unfashionable…) will be reduced by the transition to EV vehicles - when one considers how much ore is mined to arrive at an ounce of precious metal, consider how much CO2 is released by strip mining the planet for precious lithium - if CO2 is a real threat, are we to simply dismiss this activity as mere unbridled fear mongering??…Can’t have it both ways…
3 tons
|
pianotuna
Regina, SK, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 12/18/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
MDKMDK wrote:
If there's any good news, then, it's that fossil fuel (including our beloved diesel) is trending downwards price-wise. Small comfort, but I'm also not likely to be around when it all falls apart, either.
Also, CO2 is good for the planet, as it's a main component in the photosynthesis bio-reaction, that produces most of our O2, which we breathe. But, you all probably knew this?
Happy (ICE) motoring, and camping, everyone. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/cool.gif "cool")
MDKMDK,
No.
"Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers."
from:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic........experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
If that's not a good source, then:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp-hours of Telcom jars, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.
|
MDKMDK
Free(er), for now, until the next "variant"
Senior Member
Joined: 10/15/2008
View Profile
|
pianotuna wrote:MDKMDK wrote:
If there's any good news, then, it's that fossil fuel (including our beloved diesel) is trending downwards price-wise. Small comfort, but I'm also not likely to be around when it all falls apart, either.
Also, CO2 is good for the planet, as it's a main component in the photosynthesis bio-reaction, that produces most of our O2, which we breathe. But, you all probably knew this?
Happy (ICE) motoring, and camping, everyone.
MDKMDK,
No.
"Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers."
from:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic........experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
If that's not a good source, then:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
You can find supporting evidence for just about anything these days, if you're willing to look for it on the 'net, eh Don? Think covid vaccines.
I'd rather have O2 to breathe, and to make that happen, you need CO2. I didn't say how much CO2, just that it's (also) essential to life on the planet.
Adieu.
Mike. Comments are anecdotal or personal opinions, and worth what you paid for them.
2018 (2017 Sprinter Cab Chassis) Navion24V + 2016 Wrangler JKU (sold @ ????)
2016 Sunstar 26HE, V10, 3V, 6 Speed (sold @ 4600 miles)
2002 Roadtrek C190P (sold @ 315,000kms)
|
|
|
RambleOnNW
Pacific Northwest
Senior Member
Joined: 08/06/2010
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
“ One reason for the refusal to accept the reality of climate change is what is called “motivated interference,” which occurs when we hold a specific bias to ignore evidence. ”
Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/........the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial
|
RambleOnNW
Pacific Northwest
Senior Member
Joined: 08/06/2010
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
If the shoe fits…LOL.
“motivated interference,” which occurs when we hold a specific bias to ignore evidence. ”
“ I’ve only disputed Carbon dioxide as the insufficiently proven… ”.
|
RambleOnNW
Pacific Northwest
Senior Member
Joined: 08/06/2010
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
There are two separable thoughts there as they are separated by the conjunction “but”.
The second part makes no sense anyway. Acclimation means “physiological adjustment by an organism to environmental change”.
|
3 tons
NV.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/13/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
RambleOnNW wrote:There are two separable thoughts there as they are separated by the conjunction “but”.
The second part makes no sense anyway. Acclimation means “physiological adjustment by an organism to environmental change”.
I’m happy to own up to my thumb error and many thanks for pointing it out (ugg!)…please re-interpret to mean ‘acclamation’ - however, I must admit that until you pointed the error out I would have never had the slightest idea of what that other term even meant - Good catch!! ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/awink.gif "awink")
3 tons
|
3 tons
NV.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/13/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
It is in our posting rules, and the warning has been given so this is the end this thread. If you can't post without flaming others then don't post!
* This post was
last
edited 02/22/23 09:00pm by an administrator/moderator *
View edit history
|
|
|
|
