Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ashotep

850 Billion Tons of Carbon Could Be Released

38 posts in this topic

ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2012) — As much as 44 billion tons of nitrogen and 850 billion tons of carbon stored in arctic permafrost, or frozen ground, could be released into the environment as the region begins to thaw over the next century as a result of a warmer planet, according to a new study led by the U.S. Geological Survey. This nitrogen and carbon are likely to impact ecosystems, the atmosphere, and water resources including rivers and lakes. For context, this is roughly the amount of carbon stored in the atmosphere today. Read More

Doesn't sound good but nothing about global warming is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother Nature finally getting ready to reduce the out of control cancer on Earth?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mother Nature finally getting ready to reduce the out of control cancer on Earth?

There is no out of control cancer on earth :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no out of control cancer on earth :yes:

No, humanity is more like a virus then a cancer.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no out of control cancer on earth :yes:

Humans....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans....

Any volunteers to lighten the load ?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any volunteers to lighten the load ?

All ready said I would not care if I were part of it.

If it means a better place for the grand kids, and their kids, ( meaning every ones ) then so be it...I am not selfish.

Edited by Sakari
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the big risk from permafrost thaw was the release of methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The so-called cancer of overpopulation is not a matter of raw numbers of people, it is a matter of the numbers that aspire to live the industrialized life-style that spews out CO2 as a by-product.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think methane is still a big deal its just this other has become more of a big deal than they first thought.

Even if we kept pollution in check there is still only so much fresh water that is drinkable. I don't think its a matter of space on this planet for people but water and other resources. We will run out of resources before we run out of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't sound good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't sound good...

Nothing about climate change sounds good if you are able to be honest with yourself.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about all the gases that have leaked since the ice melted from the last ice age? It didn't kill the earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about all the gases that have leaked since the ice melted from the last ice age? It didn't kill the earth

That was one of the feedbacks which allowed the Ice age to end. After a certain point it reached an equilibrium where newly exposed soil and its vegetation sequestered as much as was been released and temperatures stabilized.

We are upsetting that equilibrium.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear with me a second here...

Remember back in the day whenever a political candidate with conviction would arise and that candidate could be linked to protestant conservatism? We would all hear- he's on the religious right "HE FORCES HIS RELIGION ON EVERYONE" ?? "They want to take away our civil liberties..."

Well, if I reject the global warming ilk that contends, that man is responsible for the bad weather we're having on a planet that has been around for billions of years and we’ve only been monitoring ozone for a couple. Does that mean I can reject the argument lawfully??

I don't think that’s where this public topic is going. The goverment here to help us.

The global warming bible is about to become the book for the new religion-it's new. It's a good religion though, it's been written by nice people who write their own bible. And by the way I suspect you will not be given the choice to argue against it because this bible will supersede that theory about your God given unalienable rights, which is what came from the original Bible by the way-it's old. As some supreme court justice said recently "The Constitution has little purpose nowadays.

This is about a clever direction for us to all agree that we don't need our freedom here in the US. We would prefer to let the government handle that area. Much nicer people and they have a lot of scientist with no religious agenda-unlike our founding persons.

There's more going on here than meets the eye.

No you say? Prove it!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing scarier that global warming is letting the global warming alarmist make decisions about our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing scarier that global warming is letting the global warming alarmist make decisions about our lives.

Why, would you rather have all the decisions made by people who profit from pollution ??

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, would you rather have all the decisions made by people who profit from pollution ??

Br Cornelius

I would rather have sane people in charge.

The green party in my country have just announced a policy to regulate how much profit a bank can make in a financial year. How is that a sane position? What would a bank do with their money if it looks like they would break the artificial profit number? Burn their money? throw it away?

Banks making profit shows that confidence in the economy is growing and hence people are borrowing money.

Before you destroy a system, you had better make sure that the alternative is a workable solution or it will be a repeat of failed communist policies where everyone has the same amount of goods/property so no-one gets jealous that their neighbour has a bigger TV than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have sane people in charge.

The green party in my country have just announced a policy to regulate how much profit a bank can make in a financial year. How is that a sane position? What would a bank do with their money if it looks like they would break the artificial profit number? Burn their money? throw it away?

Banks making profit shows that confidence in the economy is growing and hence people are borrowing money.

Before you destroy a system, you had better make sure that the alternative is a workable solution or it will be a repeat of failed communist policies where everyone has the same amount of goods/property so no-one gets jealous that their neighbour has a bigger TV than them.

What the Green Party proposes and what scientists propose are entirely different things. Your example is a Red Herring of the most absurd kind. The fact that the banks have all but destroyed the world economy and so obviously require regulation is an important side issue which at least the Greens are thinking about.

Back to, would you have all the decisions about your future determined by people who profit from pollution ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Green Party proposes and what scientists propose are entirely different things. Your example is a Red Herring of the most absurd kind. The fact that the banks have all but destroyed the world economy and so obviously require regulation is an important side issue which at least the Greens are thinking about.

Back to, would you have all the decisions about your future determined by people who profit from pollution ?

Br Cornelius

The green party are the political arm of Greenpeace and other radically loony organizations that have no sense of how the world actually works.

As far as i am aware, no governments "profit from pollution"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right governments don't profit from pollution but they often profit from the pollution makers.

We need to find a balance in ways to deal with pollution that aren't too extreme or too relaxed. The US has all kinds of laws in place to protect the environment and often fund research for other forms of energy besides fossil fuel. I think we do need to get more serious with the research and development. As does places like China and Russia, this is one thing the world needs to be in on because it affects us all.

I'm hoping the Arctic will refreeze and not thaw so much next year but I may be wishing for too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The green party are the political arm of Greenpeace and other radically loony organizations that have no sense of how the world actually works.

As far as i am aware, no governments "profit from pollution"

Your opinion is been directly influenced by the propoganda machine of big oil. They have successfully stalled action on AGW for a decade now - they are shaping policy on an international basis. They are defining the response to climate change and they are profiting from doing nothing about climate change.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, would you rather have all the decisions made by people who profit from pollution ??

Br Cornelius

In the US we have a little problem with the environmental regulations, themselves. Building a new electric plant requires a lot of scrubbers and other expensive hardware. But you don't have to have that stuff if you repair an old, dirty coal-burning plant. So the industries are repairing the old plants, keeping them online long after they would normally have been replaced.

And that points up two problems: industry will not clean up its act unless forced to, and it takes better regulations than we currently have on the books.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That don't seem right letting them slide on the old stuff but strict on the new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All ready said I would not care if I were part of it.

If it means a better place for the grand kids, and their kids, ( meaning every ones ) then so be it...I am not selfish.

It would be a better place for no one. We depend on each other as a species to provide for the needs of each other. Those millions of strangers you will have no problem dying also support our future children.

Maybe if they live in an amish farm hidden from civilzation it could totally work. If not then the future kids are screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.