I think radioactive garbages in Pacific ocean from Fukushima would do better job.
Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
81–90 of 150 posts
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
We did it! Maybe there is hope...
I don't know where you live, but the Swedish Green party still want to immediately start phasing out nuclear power. More CO2 for the world. (If the seas do have an ecological crash which makes the remaining eco systems go down, then any surviving Green party members will probably argue the advantage of this, pushing their carts down "The Road".) So, no hope. :-) :-(
I don't see nuclear power as a great solution. The waste contaminates the environment for thousands of years. And the system is not fault-tolerant, failing in ways which render the environment uninhabitable for who knows how long (Chernobyl, Fukushima).
Yeah, it doesn't generate CO2. But at least you can live in a hotter world, can't live with nuclear waste/fallout.
(Also, we don't know that a hotter climate is bad, we've never tried it before)
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#83I think radioactive garbages in Pacific ocean from Fukushima would do better job.
Are you high? What does radioactivity from Fukushima have to do with ocean acidification?
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that we would like to continue living in an environment similar to what we evolved in, and we would like to continue to have large amounts of bio-diversity and biological services available on a timeline that is useful to us. I'm adept of the view that the environment influences the organisms as much as organisms influence their environment, or rather that there isn't a clear distinction between envi…
It is sort of incredible that on one post you admit to knowing little about the subject, and then on the next you make authoritative (albeit unsurprisingly asinine) arguments such as "it's unrealistic to expect the environment to stay the same, and we should just treat these events as normal and see if we adapt or go extinct."
I think it's pretty clear I'm giving my beliefs on the bigger picture (how we see human interaction with the environment), as a commentary on gizmo686's post, not providing any kind of guideline to the human race from my godly wisdom.
Would add more to the discussion if you elaborated on why you think it's foolish.
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you live, but the Swedish Green party still want to immediately start phasing out nuclear power. More CO2 for the world. (If the seas do have an ecological crash which makes the remaining eco systems go down, then any surviving Green party members will probably argue the advantage of this, pushing their carts down "The Road".) So, no hope. :-) :-(
I don't see nuclear power as a great solution. The waste contaminates the environment for thousands of years. And the system is not fault-tolerant, failing in ways which render the environment uninhabitable for who knows how long (Chernobyl, Fukushima). Yeah, it doesn't generate CO2. But at least you can live in a hotter world, can't live with nuclear waste/fallout. (Also, we don't know that a hotter climate is bad,…
Are you sure that's an objective assessment of the relative risks, numerically speaking, and not just a common human failing of seeing slow acting, nebulous threats like climate change as being less dangerous than fast and scary threats like nuclear disasters? Nuclear seems the less dangerous bedfellow to me.
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you live, but the Swedish Green party still want to immediately start phasing out nuclear power. More CO2 for the world. (If the seas do have an ecological crash which makes the remaining eco systems go down, then any surviving Green party members will probably argue the advantage of this, pushing their carts down "The Road".) So, no hope. :-) :-(
I don't see nuclear power as a great solution. The waste contaminates the environment for thousands of years. And the system is not fault-tolerant, failing in ways which render the environment uninhabitable for who knows how long (Chernobyl, Fukushima). Yeah, it doesn't generate CO2. But at least you can live in a hotter world, can't live with nuclear waste/fallout. (Also, we don't know that a hotter climate is bad,…
It doesn't matter if it's a great solution; it's the only solution we have right now.
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is sort of incredible that on one post you admit to knowing little about the subject, and then on the next you make authoritative (albeit unsurprisingly asinine) arguments such as "it's unrealistic to expect the environment to stay the same, and we should just treat these events as normal and see if we adapt or go extinct."
I think it's pretty clear I'm giving my beliefs on the bigger picture (how we see human interaction with the environment), as a commentary on gizmo686's post, not providing any kind of guideline to the human race from my godly wisdom. Would add more to the discussion if you elaborated on why you think it's foolish.
I think it's pretty clear your beliefs are stupid ;-)
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that we would like to continue living in an environment similar to what we evolved in, and we would like to continue to have large amounts of bio-diversity and biological services available on a timeline that is useful to us. I'm adept of the view that the environment influences the organisms as much as organisms influence their environment, or rather that there isn't a clear distinction between envi…
"Events like increased CO2 levels in the ocean should be seen as the way things are, rather than one-off catastrophes." This is a false dichotomy. Just because these events have happened regularly, on geological time scales, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a one-off catastrophe from the point of view of homo sapiens. I'm not saying an extinction event, but it could be a catastrophic event. In other words, taking the…
> Just because these events have happened regularly, on geological time scales, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a one-off catastrophe from the point of view of homo sapiens.
I agree. Without the environment pressuring us back though, what would keep us from dumping CO2 in the atmosphere forever, or at increasing rates? We wouldn't even be discussing this.
That's the whole point of my comment: why don't we see humans as a force of nature themselves, as opposed to the more popular view that nature is static and humans are supposed to leave it untouched.
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#89Can the CO2 be removed from the ocean and broken into C and O2? Is this geo-engineering we can do?
When asking about our ability to geiengineer, remember that we are the once that caused this problem in the first place, and without even trying. Having said that, releasing CO2 is a much easier problem than removing it. As to your proposal, CO2 would decompose into C2 and O2 (with twice as many O2 molecules). Incidentally, C2 is a strong acid [1]. Additionally, breaking CO2 this way would move it to a higher energy…
> For example, a common idea is to introduce iron to the ocean. This would increase plankton populations, and the plankton would then use solar power to remove CO2.
I'm wary this leads to a "and now you have TWO problems" situation... presumably oceans full of plankton would do lots of other bad things too? Humans introducing plants/animals to control the populations of other plants/animals has worked spectacularly badly over the course of history (see: New Zealand).
Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well ocean acidification is real and proven. At this point all we're arguing about is how many years we have left.
This is certainly true, but amount matters. If its 300 years then we have a problem, if its 3000, maybe not so much. Articles like this do not help give perspective.
I guess there will be many who won't care about 300 years as well, since they won't be around.