4 ms·

the idea that once a fossil fuel is burned that carbon stays in the atmosphere forever is just plain wrong. the oceans absorb the carbon and put it right back

by autokad 11y ago

the idea that once a fossil fuel is burned that carbon stays in the atmosphere forever is just plain wrong. the oceans absorb the carbon and put it right back where it was - how do you think the oil formed in the first place? then they add fear mongering about 'run away global warming' as if we'd become venus, which is not possible with fossil fuels. earth has had MUCH higher carbon %s in the atmosphere and ... here we are.

kaybe 11y ago
Yes well, it will just take forever from our perspective to put it back in the ground.
jofer 11y ago
While this is technically true, it's important to recognize the difference in timescales. By burning fossil fuels, we're moving carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere and hydrosphere. The biosphere can rapidly take in a finite amount of CO2, but it's not a very large amount. The main way (on geologic timescales) that it's taken back out of the atmosphere/hydrosphere and put into the lithosphere is by carbonate deposition (i.e. limestones). On human timescales, that may as well be forever.
- autokad 11y ago
  creatures are made of carbon, lots of it. they absorb it, die, fall the the bottom of the ocean. it happens quite fast, and the more carbon the more they have to absorb the faster it happens. if we were in such dire straits environmentally, Obama - being a liberal, and having access to all the numbers and advisors, would have made that priority #1. What was his priority #1? forcing people to purchase health care. but wait, was it priority #2? not even, immigration among other things seemed more important.
  - jofer 11y ago
    Yes, the biosphere can rapidly remove carbon. However, the total amount it can remove and store on geologic timescales is very small. The total amount of biomass on the planet is not that large compared to what we're talking about. Furthermore, most organic matter decomposes and releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. On geologic timescales, the biosphere is not a major player in the carbon cycle. I don't understand how politcs factors into this. This is basic science.
    - johnchristopher 11y ago
      He's calling the higher authority argument (Obama) by using the fact Obama didn't act on this so he's right. That's funny because he dismisses that same authority figure in the next sentence.
noselasd 11y ago
"right back" is rather misleading. When you burn up fossil fuel over a few centuries that it took many millions of years to produce, the ocean does not put it "right back" there.
gcmartinelli 11y ago
compounding on the other responses, the increased emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere are also changing the ocean's chemical properties (acidification).. and this has a huge impact on the environmental equilibrium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

by autokad 11y ago

kaybe 11y ago

Yes well, it will just take forever from our perspective to put it back in the ground.

jofer 11y ago

While this is technically true, it's important to recognize the difference in timescales. By burning fossil fuels, we're moving carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere and hydrosphere. The biosphere can rapidly take in a finite amount of CO2, but it's not a very large amount. The main way (on geologic timescales) that it's taken back out of the atmosphere/hydrosphere and put into the lithosphere is by carbonate deposition (i.e. limestones). On human timescales, that may as well be forever.

autokad 11y ago
creatures are made of carbon, lots of it. they absorb it, die, fall the the bottom of the ocean. it happens quite fast, and the more carbon the more they have to absorb the faster it happens. if we were in such dire straits environmentally, Obama - being a liberal, and having access to all the numbers and advisors, would have made that priority #1. What was his priority #1? forcing people to purchase health care. but wait, was it priority #2? not even, immigration among other things seemed more important.
- jofer 11y ago
  Yes, the biosphere can rapidly remove carbon. However, the total amount it can remove and store on geologic timescales is very small. The total amount of biomass on the planet is not that large compared to what we're talking about. Furthermore, most organic matter decomposes and releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. On geologic timescales, the biosphere is not a major player in the carbon cycle. I don't understand how politcs factors into this. This is basic science.
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    He's calling the higher authority argument (Obama) by using the fact Obama didn't act on this so he's right. That's funny because he dismisses that same authority figure in the next sentence.

noselasd 11y ago

"right back" is rather misleading. When you burn up fossil fuel over a few centuries that it took many millions of years to produce, the ocean does not put it "right back" there.

gcmartinelli 11y ago

compounding on the other responses, the increased emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere are also changing the ocean's chemical properties (acidification).. and this has a huge impact on the environmental equilibrium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification