[sdiy] The Dreaded ROHS

[Bob Weigel]

I assume they're basing those calculations only on what comes out of 
volcanoes?  I've never done the detailed calculations but they're 
comparing *all* human involvement I see.  I was comparing vehicle 
emissions  as you see.   There seems to be so much focus on vehicle 
emissions when the real dingers are obviously coal burning power plants 
and the like. 

However also we have to consider also slow leeching processes to 
geysers, forrest fires etc. ...across the surface of the whole earth.  
Not just volcanic erruptions.   Natures total gassing vs. ours :-)  It's 
a very research laden thing to undertake but I think it might produce 
some surprising resutls.  What sorts of gasses are soils emitting around 
the earth?  Multiply by the surface area.....  Forrest fires are part of 
nature.   What do they contribute?  Each year massive fires rage all 
over the earth. 

Anyway so much focus on CO2....it being one of the things so easily 
absorbed by the environment.  I haven't had time to do a detailed study 
because what I've heard so far hasn't impressed me as well founded.  If 
anyone has a 'good' link that scientifically assesses the alleged 
problem here let me know.  All I've seen is a bunch of hand waving crap 
so far. -Bob

Simon Brouwer wrote:

>Bob Weigel schreef:
>  
>
>>Simon Brouwer wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Bob Weigel schreef:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>For example I recently calculated that if 1 billion people of the
>>>>        
>>>>
>world drove some log truck that intakes .5 cf per rev (350 does .1 cf
>per rev) of let's say..utterly polluted useless air (which isn't the
>case..but..just say to get a concept) out the other side... and they
>all drove them 10,000 miles per year... the total impact on the
>atmosphere would be on the order of  1.7ppm
>  
>
>>>And you think that a yearly increase of that much CO2 in the
>>>atmosphere will not have a large effect on global temperatures in the
>>>      
>>>
>long run?
>  
>
>>>1.7 ppm may *sound* negligible but that doesn't mean that it *is*.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Well the thing is we have an earth that is full of processes of
>>combustion.  The little ones people do in vehicles pale in comparison to
>>    
>>
>the ones nature does beneath the surface all the time.
>
>Yeah, yeah, "volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans"... According to, for
>example, the U.S. Geological Survey, it's simply not true: human
>activities release *more than 130 times* the amount of CO2 emitted by
>volcanoes. See
>http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#effects
>
>All this being completely off topic here, I just want to say: a lot of
>bogus claims are made in this debate. Don't take them at face value but
>try to find out what scientific substance they have. *Then* draw your
>conclusions, whatever they may be. I'd like to leave it at that.
>
>  
>