Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Thanks for tropical forests

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    How do you square that with the estimates of the total Amazon carbon content that you cited earlier.

    And, while you're at it, how do you square that with the estimate that there's only 43,500 billion tonnes actively involved in the carbon cycle?
    Plate tectonics? "Between 60 million years ago and 10 million years ago, the Somali Plate began rifting from the African Plate along the East African Rift." (Wikipedia) Lots of time for subduction etc.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Stoic View Post
      Yes, the rainforests have removed a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere over 60 million years. And the lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and cooler temperatures) resulting from that have caused the oceans to absorb less CO2 over that period of time.
      Agreed.

      It all pretty much balances out, in the long run.
      Well, I would need to see numbers! The numbers I have seen indicate a substantial decrease in CO2 after the K-T boundary.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        The numbers I have seen indicate a substantial decrease in CO2 after the K-T boundary.
        As I've pointed out, there was a substantial increase at the K-T boundary. The Chicxulub impact event would have put a huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as would the Deccan Traps.

        It's not surprising that the CO2 level would decrease afterwards.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post

          As I've pointed out, there was a substantial increase at the K-T boundary.
          Here is a source that spells it all out.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Plate tectonics? "Between 60 million years ago and 10 million years ago, the Somali Plate began rifting from the African Plate along the East African Rift." (Wikipedia) Lots of time for subduction etc.
            No. Just no.

            Subducted material is part of the carbon cycle. It tends to get re-released via volcanic activity.

            And it doesn't get into the complete contradiction between your new figure and your earlier one.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Don't volcanos emit CO2, instead of storing it?
              And the Deccan Traps released a massive amount into the atmosphere (CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate) for tens of thousands of years. Obviously, when that activity ceased at the very end of the Cretaceous, CO2 levels would naturally start to drop back down

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #52
                Interesting article that gets at an issue Stoic was mentioning:
                https://theconversation.com/what-wou...tropics-160740

                The carbon cycle is in a dynamic equilibrium, and changes in one aspect have complicated impacts on all others.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  As I've pointed out, there was a substantial increase at the K-T boundary. The Chicxulub impact event would have put a huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as would the Deccan Traps.

                  It's not surprising that the CO2 level would decrease afterwards.
                  Yes, but the equilibrium point decreased by 1/2 to 2/3, all while the sun was brightening. That is the conundrum.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    Subducted material is part of the carbon cycle. It tends to get re-released via volcanic activity.
                    So the question is how much gets subducted, versus how much gets released?

                    And it doesn't get into the complete contradiction between your new figure and your earlier one.
                    But they need not be contradictory, the total stored carbon does not tell us how much carbon is processed each year.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Yes, but the equilibrium point decreased by 1/2 to 2/3, all while the sun was brightening. That is the conundrum.
                      I don't know that it's a conundrum. It changed in the direction you would expect a brightening sun to change it, for one thing. (More sunlight means more plant growth, which sinks more carbon, both on land and in the ocean.)

                      And as TheLurch pointed out, there are lots of factors that affect the carbon cycle.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        So the question is how much gets subducted, versus how much gets released?
                        Most of the carbon subducted comes right back up via volcanoes (with "right back" encompassing a few million years, in this case). It's why volcanoes have such a major influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

                        /adds "plate tectonics" and "carbon cycle" to the long list of subjects Lee doesn't understand.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But they need not be contradictory, the total stored carbon does not tell us how much carbon is processed each year.
                        If the carbon isn't stored, then the Amazon isn't contributing to sequestering it, meaning the Amazon isn't altering the climate via this carbon. Since you tend to forget your own arguments, that's the whole point here - how much is the Amazon cooling the climate.

                        /adds "basic logic" to the list of things Lee doesn't understand.

                        You're still just hand waving. The Amazon doesn't store enough carbon to offset the massive warming that would be required for your original post to be true.

                        The blog post was lying to you. Why are you incapable of accepting that? What's going on psychologically here?
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Most of the carbon subducted comes right back up via volcanoes (with "right back" encompassing a few million years, in this case). It's why volcanoes have such a major influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

                          /adds "plate tectonics" and "carbon cycle" to the long list of subjects Lee doesn't understand.
                          Wouldn't it be easier to list the things that Lee has shown some understanding of?

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                            I don't know that it's a conundrum. It changed in the direction you would expect a brightening sun to change it, for one thing. (More sunlight means more plant growth, which sinks more carbon, both on land and in the ocean.)
                            Do you have numbers for this?

                            And as TheLurch pointed out, there are lots of factors that affect the carbon cycle.
                            Certainly, and can we quantify various factors? Is the question...

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Most of the carbon subducted comes right back up via volcanoes (with "right back" encompassing a few million years, in this case). It's why volcanoes have such a major influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
                              But even in your statement you imply some of the carbon stays sequestered.

                              If the carbon isn't stored, then the Amazon isn't contributing to sequestering it, meaning the Amazon isn't altering the climate via this carbon.
                              18 quadrillion tonnes would say no. I say the carbon is stored, and is sequestered.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Do you have numbers for this?
                                Nope.

                                Certainly, and can we quantify various factors? Is the question...
                                If you want to argue that something improbable happened, I think it's you who needs to quantify various factors.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X