How fast do you think the sea is rising? Let's do some math. I have it at 3.2 mm/yr. Same as it has been for 6000 years.
Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}
Maldives - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?
Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
M@LDIVES JANUARY 5, 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments
.
Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu imaldives.net.mv
They may simply be ignorant of the fact the oceans are rising faster and faster.
Or they may only care about what happens in their lifetime, not what happens in 80 years.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Progs will DENY SCIENCE when it comes to record snowfalls, that havent happened like this over 100 years.
- Thread starter Mikeoxenormous
- Start date
Rigby5
Diamond Member
So now that you have been shown why CO2 emissions are accelerating and where CO2 emissions are accelerating. How do you propose to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions and who is going to pay for it?Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.
It is easy to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions.
All we have to do is use more mass transit.
And clearly those profiting from CO2 emissions should pay for it.
A rise in gas tax for example.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
How is it costing anyone money not regulating CO2?Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.
I believe what you really want to do is take money from US taxpayers to pay for green infrastructure in developing nations.
Which wouldn't be so bad if you would just be honest about your intentions.
I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?
Who is we? CO2 emissions in the US and Europe have been declining. Whereas CO2 emissions in China and the rest of the world have been accelerating at 1 billion tons per year per year.So now that you have been shown why CO2 emissions are accelerating and where CO2 emissions are accelerating. How do you propose to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions and who is going to pay for it?Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.
It is easy to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions.
All we have to do is use more mass transit.
And clearly those profiting from CO2 emissions should pay for it.
A rise in gas tax for example.
So where are you going to build this mass transportation?
Who is clearly profiting from CO2 emissions?
That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.How is it costing anyone money not regulating CO2?Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.
I believe what you really want to do is take money from US taxpayers to pay for green infrastructure in developing nations.
Which wouldn't be so bad if you would just be honest about your intentions.
I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?
How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?
How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?
Rigby5
Diamond Member
How fast do you think the sea is rising? Let's do some math. I have it at 3.2 mm/yr. Same as it has been for 6000 years.Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}
Maldives - Wikipedia
Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?
Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments
.Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu i
They may simply be ignorant of the fact the oceans are rising faster and faster.
Or they may only care about what happens in their lifetime, not what happens in 80 years.
No, back around 1880, when they first recorded ocean levels, there was no significant annual ocean rise.
What you are likely being confused by, is that the end of the last ice age, around 20,000 BC, caused a peak in normal ocean levels.
They are supposed to be dropping now, as we are beginning to enter the next cooling phase.
For ocean levels to be rising now, is totally abnormal and inappropriate.
And of course the real problem is that once frozen methane hydrate starts to melt and more water vapor is added to the atmosphere, then warming will greatly accelerate.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Who is we? CO2 emissions in the US and Europe have been declining. Whereas CO2 emissions in China and the rest of the world have been accelerating at 1 billion tons per year per year.So now that you have been shown why CO2 emissions are accelerating and where CO2 emissions are accelerating. How do you propose to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions and who is going to pay for it?Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.
It is easy to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions.
All we have to do is use more mass transit.
And clearly those profiting from CO2 emissions should pay for it.
A rise in gas tax for example.
So where are you going to build this mass transportation?
Who is clearly profiting from CO2 emissions?
China is not a culprit as they cause about a tenth the emissions per capita.
US emissions are NOT at all declining, but constantly increasing.
There was a time we were trying to make cars more fuel efficient, but the SUV craze ended all that.
The emissions rate in China is due to influence by the US.
If the US reduced, then China would also.
I don't know where you are getting your data from.How fast do you think the sea is rising? Let's do some math. I have it at 3.2 mm/yr. Same as it has been for 6000 years.Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}
Maldives - Wikipedia
Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?
Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments
.Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu i
They may simply be ignorant of the fact the oceans are rising faster and faster.
Or they may only care about what happens in their lifetime, not what happens in 80 years.
No, back around 1880, when they first recorded ocean levels, there was no significant annual ocean rise.
What you are likely being confused by, is that the end of the last ice age, around 20,000 BC, caused a peak in normal ocean levels.
They are supposed to be dropping now, as we are beginning to enter the next cooling phase.
For ocean levels to be rising now, is totally abnormal and inappropriate.
Now let's look at the post glacial sea level rise. I don't believe anyone but you is disputing that the sea level has been rising for the past 22,000 years. It flattened out about 6,000 years ago but it been rising at about 3 mm/yr since then. It's not much different today.
Really. So it's ok that they emit twice as much CO2 as the US because their per capita numbers are lower than ours?Who is we? CO2 emissions in the US and Europe have been declining. Whereas CO2 emissions in China and the rest of the world have been accelerating at 1 billion tons per year per year.So now that you have been shown why CO2 emissions are accelerating and where CO2 emissions are accelerating. How do you propose to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions and who is going to pay for it?Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.
It is easy to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions.
All we have to do is use more mass transit.
And clearly those profiting from CO2 emissions should pay for it.
A rise in gas tax for example.
So where are you going to build this mass transportation?
Who is clearly profiting from CO2 emissions?
China is not a culprit as they cause about a tenth the emissions per capita.
US emissions are NOT at all declining, but constantly increasing.
There was a time we were trying to make cars more fuel efficient, but the SUV craze ended all that.
The emissions rate in China is due to influence by the US.
If the US reduced, then China would also.
How about their acceleration of CO2? Is that OK too?
Rigby5
Diamond Member
That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.How is it costing anyone money not regulating CO2?Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.
I believe what you really want to do is take money from US taxpayers to pay for green infrastructure in developing nations.
Which wouldn't be so bad if you would just be honest about your intentions.
I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?
How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?
How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?
You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time
I am paying attention. The developed nations are decreasing their CO2 emissions. China and the rest of the world are increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year per year. That means every 5 years they create another United States worth of new emissions.That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.How is it costing anyone money not regulating CO2?Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.
I believe what you really want to do is take money from US taxpayers to pay for green infrastructure in developing nations.
Which wouldn't be so bad if you would just be honest about your intentions.
I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?
How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?
How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?
You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time
So can you explain to me why the US is the problem?
Rigby5
Diamond Member
I don't know where you are getting your data from.How fast do you think the sea is rising? Let's do some math. I have it at 3.2 mm/yr. Same as it has been for 6000 years.Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}
Maldives - Wikipedia
Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?
Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments
.Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu i
They may simply be ignorant of the fact the oceans are rising faster and faster.
Or they may only care about what happens in their lifetime, not what happens in 80 years.
No, back around 1880, when they first recorded ocean levels, there was no significant annual ocean rise.
What you are likely being confused by, is that the end of the last ice age, around 20,000 BC, caused a peak in normal ocean levels.
They are supposed to be dropping now, as we are beginning to enter the next cooling phase.
For ocean levels to be rising now, is totally abnormal and inappropriate.
View attachment 410449
Now let's look at the post glacial sea level rise. I don't believe anyone but you is disputing that the sea level has been rising for the past 22,000 years. It flattened out about 6,000 years ago but it been rising at about 3 mm/yr since then. It's not much different today.
View attachment 410452
Wrong.
You own graph, Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise, showed that it ended about 4 thousand years ago.
The current rise of 3.3 mm/year has only been in the last 150 years or so, since the industrial revolution.
Since the scale is in meters, it would not be possible to see when it started to drop and then started to increase once again.
But the natural warming after the ice age is supposed to be over, and it is supposed to be cooling now, with oceans dropping.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Really. So it's ok that they emit twice as much CO2 as the US because their per capita numbers are lower than ours?Who is we? CO2 emissions in the US and Europe have been declining. Whereas CO2 emissions in China and the rest of the world have been accelerating at 1 billion tons per year per year.So now that you have been shown why CO2 emissions are accelerating and where CO2 emissions are accelerating. How do you propose to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions and who is going to pay for it?Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.
It is easy to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions.
All we have to do is use more mass transit.
And clearly those profiting from CO2 emissions should pay for it.
A rise in gas tax for example.
So where are you going to build this mass transportation?
Who is clearly profiting from CO2 emissions?
China is not a culprit as they cause about a tenth the emissions per capita.
US emissions are NOT at all declining, but constantly increasing.
There was a time we were trying to make cars more fuel efficient, but the SUV craze ended all that.
The emissions rate in China is due to influence by the US.
If the US reduced, then China would also.
View attachment 410453
How about their acceleration of CO2? Is that OK too?
View attachment 410454
View attachment 410455
Of course it is ok for individuals to seek economic parity.
The people in China have a right to the same quality of life as the US.
If we would reduce our consumption, then the people in China likely would as well.
And the US most definitely is NOT decreasing its CO2 emissions, at all.
Data Highlights - 41: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Down 11 Percent Since 2007 | EPI
www.earth-policy.org
It's been at 3 mm/yr for the last 6,000 years. If you can't see the slope, I can't help you.I don't know where you are getting your data from.How fast do you think the sea is rising? Let's do some math. I have it at 3.2 mm/yr. Same as it has been for 6000 years.Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}
Maldives - Wikipedia
Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?
Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments
.Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu i
They may simply be ignorant of the fact the oceans are rising faster and faster.
Or they may only care about what happens in their lifetime, not what happens in 80 years.
No, back around 1880, when they first recorded ocean levels, there was no significant annual ocean rise.
What you are likely being confused by, is that the end of the last ice age, around 20,000 BC, caused a peak in normal ocean levels.
They are supposed to be dropping now, as we are beginning to enter the next cooling phase.
For ocean levels to be rising now, is totally abnormal and inappropriate.
View attachment 410449
Now let's look at the post glacial sea level rise. I don't believe anyone but you is disputing that the sea level has been rising for the past 22,000 years. It flattened out about 6,000 years ago but it been rising at about 3 mm/yr since then. It's not much different today.
View attachment 410452
Wrong.
You own graph, Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise, showed that it ended about 4 thousand years ago.
The current rise of 3.3 mm/year has only been in the last 150 years or so, since the industrial revolution.
Since the scale is in meters, it would not be possible to see when it started to drop and then started to increase once again.
But the natural warming after the ice age is supposed to be over, and it is supposed to be cooling now, with oceans dropping.
I'm not sure why you think the interglacial period is over but you should thank your lucky stars it's not. For the vast majority of the last 400,000 years the earth has been a much colder place than it is now and the consequences of another glacial cycle would be much more catastrophic for life on this planet than anything you think will happen because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
I am paying attention. The developed nations are decreasing their CO2 emissions. China and the rest of the world are increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year per year. That means every 5 years they create another United States worth of new emissions.That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.How is it costing anyone money not regulating CO2?Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.
I believe what you really want to do is take money from US taxpayers to pay for green infrastructure in developing nations.
Which wouldn't be so bad if you would just be honest about your intentions.
I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?
How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?
How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?
You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time
So can you explain to me why the US is the problem?
The US is the problem because we are NOT reducing emissions as you claimed, and we are the ones forcing the rest of the world to support our unsustainable life style.
You certainly did not complain when China financed the additional $5 trillion that Bush added to the US national debt. In fact, we now owe something like $23 trillion.
You are playing games going back to 1950. Since the year 2000 the US has decreased CO2 emissions by ~50 million tons per year per year.Really. So it's ok that they emit twice as much CO2 as the US because their per capita numbers are lower than ours?Who is we? CO2 emissions in the US and Europe have been declining. Whereas CO2 emissions in China and the rest of the world have been accelerating at 1 billion tons per year per year.So now that you have been shown why CO2 emissions are accelerating and where CO2 emissions are accelerating. How do you propose to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions and who is going to pay for it?Actually he didn't advocate that. You took it there after his factual statement that the overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans which is true.So you are advocating for rainforest depletion? Because rainforest are bad places with mosquitoes and their place in the Carbon cycle is irrelevantThe rainforest sequester large amounts of CO2 and in the process convert sunlight to sugar and Oxygen that enable the food chain and allow you to breath. You have an issue with that?Well they are a major source of Carbon lockup and Oxygen production, the more of both the betterMuch was also released by burning of forest and with that forest cleared the reuptake process there is eliminatedWell there were more rain forest sequestering CO2
Just out of pure curiosity ... why do you think humans were absorbing 1,954.8 billion tons of CO2 at the time Christ was born? ...
The overwhelmingly vast majority of CO2 is hed in the oceans.
Rainforest is important for many many things. Globull warming ain't one of them.
Why are you so interested in keeping CO2 locked away? You don't like life?
You never should have skipped the first grade, as you missed a lot
Actually it's pretty clear that you are an idiot. The rainforest creates comparatively low O2 compared to the algae in the oceans.
Once again you demonstrate an infantile understanding of the earth sciences. Tell you what, graduate from middle school, then get yourself a high school diploma then go to college, and when you actually know something feel free to post again.
We can stop there
You loot a Walmart yet today champ
Where the majority of the CO2 is located is not relevant.
All that is relevant is whether or not excess CO2 being added to the atmosphere is having negative effects. And it is. The rising temperatures can only be due to CO2, and it is harming glaciers used for water, causing coastal flooding, etc.
It is easy to reduce the acceleration of CO2 emissions.
All we have to do is use more mass transit.
And clearly those profiting from CO2 emissions should pay for it.
A rise in gas tax for example.
So where are you going to build this mass transportation?
Who is clearly profiting from CO2 emissions?
China is not a culprit as they cause about a tenth the emissions per capita.
US emissions are NOT at all declining, but constantly increasing.
There was a time we were trying to make cars more fuel efficient, but the SUV craze ended all that.
The emissions rate in China is due to influence by the US.
If the US reduced, then China would also.
View attachment 410453
How about their acceleration of CO2? Is that OK too?
View attachment 410454
View attachment 410455
Of course it is ok for individuals to seek economic parity.
The people in China have a right to the same quality of life as the US.
If we would reduce our consumption, then the people in China likely would as well.
And the US most definitely is NOT decreasing its CO2 emissions, at all.
Data Highlights - 41: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Down 11 Percent Since 2007 | EPI
www.earth-policy.org
It doesn't look like we are the problem to me.I am paying attention. The developed nations are decreasing their CO2 emissions. China and the rest of the world are increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year per year. That means every 5 years they create another United States worth of new emissions.That's exactly who will pay for it. Who do you think ends up buying stuff? If you raise the price of stuff the people buying the stuff will be the ones paying for it.How is it costing anyone money not regulating CO2?Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Not regulating CO2 is costing everyone a lot of money, so then why not regulate it?
If nothing else, wasteful consumption of fossil fuel leaves nothing for future generations.
We should try to make it last as long as possible.
I believe what you really want to do is take money from US taxpayers to pay for green infrastructure in developing nations.
Which wouldn't be so bad if you would just be honest about your intentions.
I do not want to take money from US taxpayers.
Instead I would hope to slow down consumption of fossil fuels, so that they last longer.
But fusion research would also be nice?
How are you going to collect this free money? Who are you going to collect it from? After you collect it who will it get distributed to?
How do you propose slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels?
You clearly are not paying attention.
I prefer conservation of fossil fuels, not increased taxation.
Mass transit is less expensive for everyone, including road maintenance.
And I already said that a gas tax at the pump would be one way.
I think things like Elon Musk's Hyperloop could work to entice users with speed and efficiency, save fossil fuel, and be more aesthetic all at the same time
So can you explain to me why the US is the problem?
The US is the problem because we are NOT reducing emissions as you claimed, and we are the ones forcing the rest of the world to support our unsustainable life style.
You certainly did not complain when China financed the additional $5 trillion that Bush added to the US national debt. In fact, we now owe something like $23 trillion.
Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have been the primary driver of climate change. Much of these emissions have come from China, which has had the world's largest carbon footprint since 2004 and was responsible for 28.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2018.
chinapower.csis.org
.
How is China Managing its Greenhouse Gas Emissions? | ChinaPower Project
As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China faces domestic and international pressure to address environmental concerns while maintaining economic growth.
chinapower.csis.org
Rigby5
Diamond Member
It's been at 3 mm/yr for the last 6,000 years. If you can't see the slope, I can't help you.I don't know where you are getting your data from.How fast do you think the sea is rising? Let's do some math. I have it at 3.2 mm/yr. Same as it has been for 6000 years.Right, but they want to regulate CO2 so there it is. Politics trumping common sense.Poop isn't CO2. It does have carbon locked in it but it has to be broken down to be useful.
CO2 is usable without processing.
I think you have that backwards ... the carbon in CO2 is said to be fully oxidized, see the two oxygens? ... that is it's lowest energy state at environmental temperatures ... poopy carbon is bonded to other carbons, hydrogen, some nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, few other things ... this carbon is said to be reduced, which is a higher energy state ...
Reduced carbon is a precious resource ... 3rd Law of Thermodynamics predicts this higher energy carbon will seek it's oxidized state and lower energy ... and a pile of poop is chuck full of reduced carbon ... we can smell it ... what atmospheric oxygen don't get, the bacteria will ... a pile of poop is a seething mass of microbes ... "One man gathers what another man [poops]" ...
Oxidized carbon must first pass through the photosynthesis pathway ... CO2 + sunlight --> reduced carbon + O2 ... only then is it vital and can be joined to other carbon atoms into proteins ...
Carbon is poop is already unlocked and available for use ... it is CO2 that must be processed to be usable ...
( ... and you don't know shit ... )
Carbon, at ordinary temps, is very unreactive. It's very difficult to oxidize, and is non reactive with acids or alkalies. At high temps it will bond with S to form carbon disulfide, and it will also combine with Si and certain metals to form various oxides. This is all basic chemistry. I don't remember the exact amount but something like 15-20% of the make up of all living things is made up of carbon compounds. Makes sense, it IS the fundamental building block of life. Once again i don't remember the exact amount but there are over 1 million carbon compounds, and new ones are invented or discovered every year. It is quite literally, everywhere.
To declare it a pollutant is wrong. There are certainly compounds of carbon that are highly toxic, HCN, and CCl4 are two examples, but they don't apply to this discussion. Pollution is defined as "the presence in, or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing, that has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 clearly doesn't meet that definition.
Tell that to the Maldivians.
The rising oceans from heat caused by excessive CO2 is wiping them off the map.
{...
Maldives is the lowest country in the world, with maximum and average natural ground levels of only 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in) and 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) above sea level, respectively. In areas where construction exists, however, this has been increased to several metres. More than 80 per cent of the country's land is composed of coral islands which rise less than one metre above sea level.[73] As a result, the Maldives are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels. The UN's environmental panel has warned that, at current rates, sea-level rise would be high enough to make the Maldives uninhabitable by 2100.
...}
Maldives - Wikipedia
Hmmm, you might want to check with them. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build nice spanking new international airports to the country. Now, if what you claim was true I don't think you could get a single moron to spend that kind of money. Now, do you? They are building all kinds of airports, four this year alone. Now, think for a minute. If the claims of them going under were true...who in their right mind would build all of these airports?
Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday.
Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu in Gaaf Dhaal atoll is nearing completion.
Funadhoo airport will come into operation this month, followed by Maavarulu in March, Madivaru in April and Hoarafushi in August, she said.
The airports being developed in Funadhoo, Madivaru and Maavarulu were amongst five new airports scheduled to open last year. However, the projects ran into several difficulties, with only two of the planned five airports opening in 2019.
Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC) was awarded a MVR 50 million (USD 3.23 million) contract in 2018 to reclaim 21 hectares of land off the northwestern end of Funadhoo and build a 1,200-metre runway. The company had completed the runway along with an apron and taxiway in March.
Another MVR 57 million (USD 3.69 million) contract was awarded to the public company in 2018 to develop a 1,200-metre runway, a taxiway, an apron and a jetty at Maavarulu.
MTCC was also contracted in 2018 to reclaim 16 hectares of land from the lagoon of Hoarafushi and the neighbouring uninhabited island of Maafinolhu for the airport development project.
Meanwhile, Madivaru airport is nearing completion.
Kuredu Holdings, which owns and operates several resorts in Lhaviyani atoll, is investing USD 13 million to develop the airport. The project involves reclaiming some three hectares of land from the lagoon of Madivaru, building a 1.2-kilometre runway, and a training academy for aviation officials from flagship carrier Maldivian and seaplane operator Trans Maldivian Airways (TMA).
The company can develop a city hotel to incentivise the airport operation.
Lhaviyani atoll has one of the highest concentrations of tourism activity in the Maldives, with several resorts already operating in the atoll, including Kuredu Resort Maldives, Komandoo Island Resort and Spa, Hurawalhi Maldives, Palm Beach Island Maldives Resort and Spa, Atmosphere Kanifushi, Kanuhura Maldives, Fushifaru Maldives, Cocoon Maldives, Kudadoo Maldives Private Island by Hurawalhi, and Innahura Maldives Resort.
Over 1.5 million tourists from across the globe visit the Indian Ocean island nation every year to holiday in one of the 150 plus resorts and some 500 guesthouses located in all corners of the country. The multi-billion dollar tourism industry, which is the country’s main economic activity, relies heavily on the domestic transport infrastructure, especially air travel.
Maldives, the most dispersed country on the planet with 1,192 islands spread over roughly 90,000 square kilometres, already has 14 airports, including four international airports. The government has contracted both local and international companies to develop additional domestic airports across the archipelago in a bid to boost tourism.
Facebook Comments
.Maldives to open four new airports in 2020
Four new airports will come into operation this year, Maldives government announced Wednesday. Transport minister Aishath Nahula told local media that construction of airports on the islands of Hoarafushi in Haa Alif atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani atoll, Madivaru in Lhaviyani atoll, and Maavarulu i
They may simply be ignorant of the fact the oceans are rising faster and faster.
Or they may only care about what happens in their lifetime, not what happens in 80 years.
No, back around 1880, when they first recorded ocean levels, there was no significant annual ocean rise.
What you are likely being confused by, is that the end of the last ice age, around 20,000 BC, caused a peak in normal ocean levels.
They are supposed to be dropping now, as we are beginning to enter the next cooling phase.
For ocean levels to be rising now, is totally abnormal and inappropriate.
View attachment 410449
Now let's look at the post glacial sea level rise. I don't believe anyone but you is disputing that the sea level has been rising for the past 22,000 years. It flattened out about 6,000 years ago but it been rising at about 3 mm/yr since then. It's not much different today.
View attachment 410452
Wrong.
You own graph, Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise, showed that it ended about 4 thousand years ago.
The current rise of 3.3 mm/year has only been in the last 150 years or so, since the industrial revolution.
Since the scale is in meters, it would not be possible to see when it started to drop and then started to increase once again.
But the natural warming after the ice age is supposed to be over, and it is supposed to be cooling now, with oceans dropping.
I'm not sure why you think the interglacial period is over but you should thank your lucky stars it's not. For the vast majority of the last 400,000 years the earth has been a much colder place than it is now and the consequences of another glacial cycle would be much more catastrophic for life on this planet than anything you think will happen because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Wrong.
The interglacial period is always very short.
Once the plants regrown and absorb the extra CO2 from the plants killed by the cold, then it quickly returns to the normal colder temperatures.
And no, glacial periods are not at all catastrophic because glaciers grow much more slowly than oceans rise. Glaciers also even out winter water abundance and summer drought. They are much better for human survival. Eventually glaciers would for cities to move, but that is 100,000 years away.
Rising oceans will cause cities to have to move in only 200 years.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2017, the United States emitted 5.1 billion metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 32.5 billion metric tons.
www.usgs.gov
How much carbon dioxide does the United States and the World emit each year from energy sources? | U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2019, the United States emitted 5,130 million metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 33,621.5 million metric tons.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 187
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 935
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 266
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 115
- Replies
- 324
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 27
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8304
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-