cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: CO2

Lies are like a house of cards. Just ask Solyndra.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: CO2


@Samnospam wrote:
The wood was in an area of Antarctica that is so arid it hasn't seen precip in thousands of years. I believe the time period of Antarctica thawing was measured in 10s of thousand years.

That's right, I remember more of the details as you note.

Now I may have to go back and refresh my time lines on when Antartica was a larger land mass which included what is now Australia, Africa and South America. Maybe more?

Seem to remember the amount of land at the pole influenced the weather and caused Ice? Was the large land mass part of the reason for one of our past ice ages I think?

Will put that in my to do list for reading as I can't recall exactly how all those things come together and now how this new find of ancient trees fit in the time lines.


Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Continental Drift


@Milligan Hay - Iowa d:^) wrote:

@Samnospam wrote:
The wood was in an area of Antarctica that is so arid it hasn't seen precip in thousands of years. I believe the time period of Antarctica having was measured in 10s of thousand years.

The Teutonic plates are always on the move.  The distance between Europe and the Americas grows by a couple of inches each year.  North America is heading south and west toward Australia, so our weather is naturally going to become more tropic over the eons.

 

Here is a fantastic YouTube presentation of how the Earth has changed over the past 600 million years and how it will look one million years from now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGcDed4xVD4

 



Interesting.

I will have to look at it again but I do not think it shows much in the line of ice except the most recent one.

As I just posted to Sam I think the large land mass at the south pole was claimed to be one of the reasons for one of the previous ice ages.

Land at the poles allows ice to accumulate better than on/over water such as the north pole where it is over the Arctic Ocean.

Time for some more reading to sort out.

Looks like some of our ancestors may have to move, some of the better agriculture areas appear to become part of the oceans in the future.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: CO2


@GoredHusker wrote:

I want to address the cutting down of trees.  What are they replacing the trees with?  We hear all the time about the deforestation of the rain forests in S.A.  What we don't hear is the fact that the rain forests are actually a carbon pit because more carbon is being emitted from the rotting and decaying dead trees than the actual rain forest is using.  I don't have any statistical data to back this up, but I would think clearing trees and replacing them with fast growing crops would actually use up a lot more carbon than the rain forests themselves currently are. 


Not sure there would be more generated than the new life above and below the surface would be tieing up.

Yes there would be some rotting but more plants dieing would replace if not actually more than replace the rot. Isn't that how soil is made? Or at least the organic part of the soil.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Continental Drift


@Canuck_2 wrote:

Interesting.

I will have to look at it again but I do not think it shows much in the line of ice except the most recent one.

As I just posted to Sam I think the large land mass at the south pole was claimed to be one of the reasons for one of the previous ice ages.

Land at the poles allows ice to accumulate better than on/over water such as the north pole where it is over the Arctic Ocean.

Time for some more reading to sort out.

Looks like some of our ancestors may have to move, some of the better agriculture areas appear to become part of the oceans in the future.



The study of plate movements is unbelievably fascinating and has a far, far more influence over the environment than any activity of the little critters that roam upon the surface of the Earth.   I found another YouTube that goes even further into the future which shows that the continents once again come all back together in about 250 million years from now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYbTNFN3NBo&feature=related

 


 

Yes, long ago the Earth had land mass that was connected from pole to pole, which cut off the ocean currents that move the Sun's heat around.  This caused the entire Earth to freeze into a large ball of ice for a long, long time.  The Earth's plate movements finally broke apart the land mass near the now Antarctic, allowing for some current movements, which began the warming/melting process.  Ocean currents have a vast influence on the average mean temperature of this planet.

 

Land moves around, rises, falls, and with it life is formed, changed, modified to the new conditions, becomes extinct, and new life is formed to replace it.  Some large meteor will probably hit the Earth again and wipe out most of the life on the surface, unless people have a base on another terrestrial moon/planet/or space station.  

 

I was just watching something a few weeks ago about how a new island is forming southeast of the big island of Hawaii, and will be above the surface within a few decades.   The area around Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming is showing signs of rising quickly.  It will one day blow up as it sits on a volcanic hot spot that has erupted on average every 600,000 years.  It has been 660,000 years since the last major explosion.  When it does blow its top, all of North America will be covered in a deep layer of ash for at least a thousand km away.  A huge Pyroclastic flow will incinerate everything in its path.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1350340/Super-volcano-Yellowstones-National-Park-soon-erup...

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: CO2

Living trees do consume CO2.  Dead trees emit CO2.  From what I've read, the rain forests actually emit more CO2 annually than they consume.  By clearing the trees and planting crops, more CO2 is consumed by the crops than what is being emitted.  Therefore, the rain forests went from being a carbon pit when they're covered with trees to a net CO2 consumer when crops are grown.  This is why most of the tree huggers abandoned their plight with regards to CO2.  Now, they're using endangered species rather than CO2. 

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: CO2

Now they have gone to dumping mercury in the water scare. They are perfectly fine with putting mercury in our light bulbs.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: CO2

How much water do you consume?  How much fish do you eat?  How many light bulbs do you eat?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Continental Drift


@Milligan Hay - Iowa d:^) wrote:


The study of plate movements is unbelievably fascinating and has a far, far more influence over the environment than any activity of the little critters that roam upon the surface of the Earth.   I found another YouTube that goes even further into the future which shows that the continents once again come all back together in about 250 million years from now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYbTNFN3NBo&feature=related

 


 

Yes, long ago the Earth had land mass that was connected from pole to pole, which cut off the ocean currents that move the Sun's heat around.  This caused the entire Earth to freeze into a large ball of ice for a long, long time.  The Earth's plate movements finally broke apart the land mass near the now Antarctic, allowing for some current movements, which began the warming/melting process.  Ocean currents have a vast influence on the average mean temperature of this planet.

 

Land moves around, rises, falls, and with it life is formed, changed, modified to the new conditions, becomes extinct, and new life is formed to replace it.  Some large meteor will probably hit the Earth again and wipe out most of the life on the surface, unless people have a base on another terrestrial moon/planet/or space station.  

 

I was just watching something a few weeks ago about how a new island is forming southeast of the big island of Hawaii, and will be above the surface within a few decades.   The area around Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming is showing signs of rising quickly.  It will one day blow up as it sits on a volcanic hot spot that has erupted on average every 600,000 years.  It has been 660,000 years since the last major explosion.  When it does blow its top, all of North America will be covered in a deep layer of ash for at least a thousand km away.  A huge Pyroclastic flow will incinerate everything in its path.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1350340/Super-volcano-Yellowstones-National-Park-soon-erup...


Yes the earth has had many different configurations and will have many more.

Each change impacts many things from weather to life forms.

Yellowstone is only one of several 'super' volcanoes in the worlf and I think one of the largest is in south east Asia but Yellowstone is not the smallest and is probably overdue to 'blow its top' if I remember.

Is it Yellowstone that moves across the continent as North America drifts westward? Or is that another one I am thinking of which 'pops up' with an eruption every so many thousands of years. The hot spot stays put and the continent drifts so the next eruption happens in a different place.

There was a new island formed off Iceland a number of years ago and there was quite a study to see how and when life started growing on it's shores.

That is quite a feat to get life onto an island removed by any distance from other land.

Things have to happen in the right order to be able to establish and survive.

A seed growing plant has to grow before a seed eating bird or animal can arrive and survive.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: CO2


@GoredHusker wrote:

Living trees do consume CO2.  Dead trees emit CO2.  From what I've read, the rain forests actually emit more CO2 annually than they consume.  By clearing the trees and planting crops, more CO2 is consumed by the crops than what is being emitted.  Therefore, the rain forests went from being a carbon pit when they're covered with trees to a net CO2 consumer when crops are grown.  This is why most of the tree huggers abandoned their plight with regards to CO2.  Now, they're using endangered species rather than CO2. 


First Gored I do not know the correct answer to CO2 and rain forests but my gut feeling would be that the forest would be sequestering more CO2 than they were giving off as organic matter would continue to accumulate even as it rotted.

Now when it is farmed, usually OM in the soil is depleted. Yes really good farmers might hold the level of OM few raise it and how they do this is with mechanical machines and fertilizers which all contribute CO2. That is how I see it perhaps I am missing something.