Go to FLOTSAM & JETSAM
- Add a comment
- Go to IS IT GLOBAL WARMING?
Cynthia...lower caffeine!
Glad I didn't mention livestock flatus' role in global warming too.
posted by
majroj
on December 16, 2006 at 10:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Maj, it depends on the human, some folks are just masquerading
as humans. Unfortunately, they are the ones running the country.
posted by
Cynthia
on December 15, 2006 at 4:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Would human exhalations be termed natural or artificial? (hehe)
posted by
majroj
on December 13, 2006 at 11:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Wholey Shmoley...Thank you for this Maj...
I can use it to bolster my case on another blog site fight I'm involved in...
posted by
Cynthia
on December 13, 2006 at 4:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Cynthia I was wrong. See these USGS figures:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!".
posted by
majroj
on December 11, 2006 at 11:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Other people's comments to my blog, that is.
posted by
majroj
on December 5, 2006 at 6:33 PM
| link to this | reply
On a purely aesthetic basis!
I rarely used to cut out a too-long comment, delete it, then post it and attribute it...if it was warranted!
posted by
majroj
on December 5, 2006 at 6:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Maj, Your comments are always
thoughtful and considered. I rarely disagree with you I just (sometimes) am not sure what you mean, but delete you? NEVER!
posted by
Cynthia
on December 5, 2006 at 3:34 AM
| link to this | reply
We would need to find a way to survive economically.
Countries using the shortcut of burning petro fuels would have the short-term advantage and could swarm our markets...as they have already with their slave-wage economies. We would need protectionist legislation to bridge us over the next fifty years or so.
Two large parts of such a turnover include changing personal expectations towards energy supply (live with less) and towards spending/saving/taxes (quit squandering money on toys and start spending money on developing recycling technology non-petro energy.
Yeah, I should have posted it instead of eating up your comment space. Sorry, feel free to delete as neeed.
posted by
majroj
on December 3, 2006 at 4:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Whacky, it's more than a thought, it's our new reality.
posted by
Cynthia
on December 3, 2006 at 7:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Maj, Loved the retorical format comment.
You should turn it into a post.
I can think of another reason why we should be taking action inspite of all the other sources of greenhouse gasses you pointed out. The USA USED to be known as a world leader. If we took radical steps to reduce our emmissions it would have a ripple affect world-wide. Instead we have the nay sayers like the conservatives on thw Supreme Court, Scalia, Roberts etc... protecting Cheney and his oil guzzling buddies by striking down anything the EPA trys to do to turn this country around.
posted by
Cynthia
on December 3, 2006 at 7:03 AM
| link to this | reply
It's a scary thought.
posted by
Whacky
on December 2, 2006 at 8:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Yeah it's warming.
Not many people who value truth over wishful thinking believe differently.
Will curtailing U.S. CO2 emissions turn the tide? Probably not. Compared to other natural and artificial sources of CO2, (slash/burn agriculture, wildfires, decomposition, cellular respiration, volcanoes, the rest of the world's industry, energy and vehicles, etc), plus all the other greenhouse gasses, not truly consequential.
Does that make it ok to continue contributing as much CO2 as we do? Hell no.
Would replacing CO2 producing activities that burn petroleum help us away from the quagmire of colonialism/dependence we have with the Middle East, Mexico, Venezuela, etc., and drop the p[rice of petroleum used to make plastics, lubricants, etc.? Hopefully.
Sort of like someone spitting gum on the sidewalk.They know better, one gumwad doesn't push public health and property values past the tipping point, but don't you just feel like grabbing the scruff of their necks and making them clean it up?
posted by
majroj
on December 1, 2006 at 8:32 PM
| link to this | reply