Replies to post #380975 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[Zorax]

Not knocking any of that data, but how it's dissimulated and how the numbers are manipulated.
Case in point. The below sentence sounds scary huge, however put into the earths total water content...

The question is, are the scientists percentages in many of their theories where there is no comparisons, really that detrimental to the cyclic nature of our earth? And in that sentence, how did they come up with such a figure? Probably measured a cubic yard of water for the chemical then just exponentially multiplied it out somehow. However, different parts of the oceans and all water is not identical. Anyhow, look at the the total water comparisons and then truthfully try to tell someone that the oceans keep all that Carbon diox and compound it every year instead of actually absorbing most of it like it always does or releases it into the atmosphere like our earth has done for eons. And plants have been sucking up carbon diox for like forever and also exhale carbon diox in great quantities. Are the worlds forests factored in these equations? It's a carbon cycle. Always has been. And after our present civilization is gone, will still be there. Like Facepalm, the earth is too big to kill.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/51289/a-global-garden-plants-storing-carbon

My point being, just like vaccine misinformation from scientists and yes there are still quite a few who doubt vaccines and covid and now their peers are wondering what in the hell they're thinking..... the question isn't how much evidence does one need, but how much of the evidence is alarmists. And I'm referring to climate change, not covid with that comment. I'm in the middle with climate change, neither believer nor doubter. The modern human race is certainly polluting all over the place, but even with 200 years of pollution all the scientists can show is a degree of temperature change which doesn't remain constant, only educated guesses of the future, which is what science does and then change if needed when new data is discovered. And water levels aren't washing over new york either. My point of view will not sit with most the board and that's fine. I'm not contesting anyone's opinion of the board. And I am trying to keep my opinions to myself.
Sometimes I forget.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%.13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the ocean. The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).15,16

How much does all the water in the earth's oceans weigh?
User Avatar

Wiki User
· 11y ago
Best Answer
Copy

x = total tons on water (total volume) covering Planet Earth
315 million (total volume) cubic miles of water cover the Earth (estimated)
4,168,181,825 cubic meters of water are in a cubic mile
1 cubic meter of water weighs 2,206.07 lbs. or 1.103035 tons (1 ton = 2000 lbs.)
Therefore, 1.103035 tons/cubic meter * 4,168,181,825 cubic meters/cubic mile * 315 million total cubic miles of water on Earth = x
x = 1,448,259,888,391,745,625 tons of water covering Planet Earth, or
(1 trillion = 12 zeros; 1 quadrillion = 15 zeros; 1 quintillion = 18 zeros) *Exb. 1
Therefore, x = 1.4482598884 quintillion tons of water on Planet Earth, or
About 1.5 quintillion tons of total water weight cover Planet Earth

Exhibit 1: Number Measurements:

# of

zeros

https://www.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_all_the_water_in_the_earth%27s_oceans_weigh

https://www.reference.com/geography/many-gallons-water-pacific-ocean-6b7ae382683ac9ec
The Pacific Ocean is estimated to contain 187 quintillion gallons of water. That quantity is equal to about one-third of the water of all the oceans.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112103419.htm

[fuagf]

Air Pollution Has Been a Problem Since the Days of Ancient Rome

"Not sure how much more evidence you need. Climate Change: How Do We Know? (Please see very, very bottom for personal thank yous.)
Here, https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165303328 "

By testing ice cores in Greenland, scientists can look back at environmental data from millennia past

Joseph Stromberg
February 2013

https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/Phenom-Classical-Gas-631.jpg">https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/Phenom-Classical-Gas-631.jpg" />
Methane gas has impacted our atmosphere since the Romans. Illustration by Kim Rosen

Before the Industrial Revolution, our planet’s atmosphere was still untainted by human-made pollutants. At least, that’s what scientists thought until recently, when bubbles trapped in Greenland’s ice revealed that we began emitting greenhouse gases at least 2,000 years ago.

Célia Sapart of Utrecht University in the Netherlands led 15 scientists from Europe and the United States in a study that charted the chemi­cal signature of methane in ice samples spanning 2,100?years. The gas methane naturally occurs in the atmosphere in low concentrations. But it’s now considered a greenhouse gas implicated in climate change because of emissions from landfills, large-scale cattle ranching, natural gas pipeline leaks and land-clearing fires.

Scientists often gauge past climate and atmosphere conditions from pristine ancient ice samples. The new research was based on 1,600-foot-long ice cores extracted from Greenland’s 1.5-mile-thick ice sheet, which is made up of layers of snow that have accumulated over the past 115,000 years.

Sapart and her colleagues chemically analyzed the methane in microscopic air bubbles trapped in each ice layer. They wanted to know if warmer periods over the past two millennia?increased gas levels, possibly by spur- ring bacteria to break down organics in wetlands. The goal was to learn more about how future warm spells might boost atmospheric methane and accelerate climate change.

The researchers did find that methane concentrations went up—but not in step with warm periods. “The changes we observed must have been coming from something else,” Sapart says.

That “something else” turned out to be human activity, notably metallurgy and large-scale agriculture starting around 100 B.C. The ancient Romans kept domesticated livestock—cows, sheep and goats—which excrete methane gas, a byproduct of digestion. Around the same time, in China, the Han dynasty expanded its rice fields, which harbor methane-producing bacteria. Also, blacksmiths in both empires produced methane gas when they burned wood to fashion metal weapons. After those civilizations declined, emis- sions briefly decreased.

Then, as human population and land use for agricul- ture increased worldwide over the centuries, atmospheric methane slowly climbed. Between 100 B.C. and A.D. 1600, methane emissions rose by nearly 31 million tons per year. According to the most recent data, the United States alone generates some 36 million tons of methane per year.

“The ice core data show that as far back as the time of the Roman Empire, human [activities] emitted enough methane gas to have had an impact on the methane signature of the entire atmosphere,” Sapart says.

Although such emissions weren’t enough to alter the climate, she says, the discovery that humans already were altering the atmosphere on a global scale was “tremendously surprising.”

The discovery will compel scientists to rethink predic- tions about how future methane emissions will affect climate. “It used to be that before 1750, everything was considered ‘natural,’” Sapart says, “so the base line needs to be reconsidered, and we need to look farther back in time to see how much methane there was before humans got involved.”

https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/Phenom-Classical-Gas-715.jpg">https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/Phenom-Classical-Gas-715.jpg" />
1 / 1 Methane gas has impacted our atmosphere since the Romans.

Illustration by Kim Rosen

Joseph Stromberg | | READ MORE .. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/author/joseph-stromberg/

[ Insert from link: Dizzy Gillespie and His Bent Trumpet
Here's how the Smithsonian acquired the instrument of one of the world's most influential and unconventional American jazz musicians
October 21, 2011 | Updated: January 5, 2018
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/dizzy-gillespie-and-his-bent-trumpet-114626062/ ]

Joseph Stromberg was previously a digital reporter for Smithsonian.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/air-pollution-has-been-a-problem-since-the-days-of-ancient-rome-3950678/