Hell, It's about time!
Is it a pollutant or plant food? Should it be regulated? Why or why not?
Did you read the article you posted? From the article:pro2A said:That statement holds no water as the oceans absorb most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
Study Shows Oceans Absorb Carbon Dioxide Excess - Science News - redOrbit
"The ocean has removed 48 percent of the CO2 we have released to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and cement manufacturing," Sabine said after reviewing data gathered between 1989 and 1998 from three major studies of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. The studies collected more than 72,000 ocean samples.
An accompanying study by Richard A. Feely, also of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, notes that dissolving CO2 in water forms an acid and that process can affect ocean life.
Feely and his research team found in laboratory tests that the water near the ocean surface with added CO2 can cause shells of marine animals, including corals, snails and plankton, to dissolve.
That process hasn't yet been studied in the oceans, he noted, but the lab findings indicate a need for concern.
How do you take that for fact when that process hasn't even been studied?That process hasn't yet been studied in the oceans
The point of capping it isn't to get rid of it, but to release less of it. Incidentally, you can get rid of it. If you heat it up and combine it with lithium hydroxide, you get lithium carbonate and water. Carbon dioxide scrubber.pro2A said:Yes I did, but the fact still stands that it does in fact absorb CO2 regardless of how much. There is a natural earth cycle that regulates the natural CO2, O2 cycle. The ocean is. You can't get rid of it no matter how hard you try, it has to go somewhere. Capping it doesn't make it go away, it just stays somewhere else.
It's been studied, as the article would seem to indicate, just not in the ocean. You can dissolve some carbon dioxide in saltwater containing shellfish to see what happens, without going to the ocean.pro2A said:How do you take that for fact when that process hasn't even been studied?
I'm sorry, Sim, I just have to call you on this. You chastised Pro for saying this above partisan bickering and of course have to throw the "Fox News" insult which adds nothing, then make the partisan claim that "every single serious scientist agrees with global warming does exist and most likely is caused by man-made emissions". Not true. First, you obviously claim than only scientists who believe that are serious (so those that don't are circus clowns?) then claim this "global warming" does exist and is most likely caused by man. Not true, there are MANY scientist (serious ones also of you can believe that) that don't agree man-made emissions are warming the planet, and actually, about half of the hottest years on record in the 1900's occurred before WWII.Your problem is that you are trapped in bi-partisan thinking: Anything will be wrong and bad for you, as long as "the other side" advances it, and at the same time, you will agree with everything "your side" says. But global warming is too serious an issue to be considered a partisan issue. It can and most likely will have devastating effects for global climate, resulting in famines, floods, natural disasters affecting many people, if no action is taken.
This should be an issue above partisan bickering. If you still have doubts about the fact that every single serious scientist agrees global warming does exist and most likely is caused by man-made emissions, you should try to inform yourself by other sources than low-quality far right propaganda, instead of discarding any piece of information that doesn't come from FOX News or a talk-radio host as "liberal".
It's funny, in the whole world, there is a consensus about this in the scientific community. Leading scientists who were invited to climate conferences at the UN found temperature is heating and will surpass 2 degrees by the mid of the century. Every second week, there is a new study supporting it.I'm sorry, Sim, I just have to call you on this. You chastised Pro for saying this above partisan bickering and of course have to throw the "Fox News" insult which adds nothing, then make the partisan claim that "every single serious scientist agrees with global warming does exist and most likely is caused by man-made emissions". Not true. First, you obviously claim than only scientists who believe that are serious (so those that don't are circus clowns?) then claim this "global warming" does exist and is most likely caused by man. Not true, there are MANY scientist (serious ones also of you can believe that) that don't agree man-made emissions are warming the planet, and actually, about half of the hottest years on record in the 1900's occurred before WWII.
The ice in Greenland has already melted considerably and farmers there now have 2 more months without ice to grow their crop.
In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
- Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).
- The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
- World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
- Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
- There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
- There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
- Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
- Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years
Sorry, but claiming FOX News is right-wing is not a label, it's a hard fact obvious for everybody who has ever watched FOX News. FOX does not even attempt to be neutral. It's a common policy that they attach a "D" to the names of Republican politicians involved in scandals, to evoke the impression if something is bad, it must be liberal. FOX is placing partisan loyalty over truth and information. I think you can admit as much, even if you like to watch FOX.I would suggest you heed your own advice, and let's get away from labels such as "low-quality right-wing propoganda", it really ruins the rest of the argument that you made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/business/media/18scene.htmlFox's political orientation is clearly to the right of the rest of the media. Research has found, for example, that Fox News is much more likely than other news shows to cite conservative think tanks and less likely to cite liberal ones.
Asia Times -[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.
And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).
Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions. [/FONT]