Remember me
▼ Content

Hypothesis


Hypothesis09-02-2017 21:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
The primary source of carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth's interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs. Much of the CO2 released at subduction zones is derived from the metamorphism of carbonate rocks subducting with the ocean crust. Much of the overall outgassing CO2, especially as mid ocean ridges and hotpot volcanoes, was stored in the mantle when the Earth formed.

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/121762

The earth's mantle appears to be cooling much faster than thought. This cooling is likely to lead to cracking and additional volcanism especially along the mid-oceanic ridges.

This would lead to a FAR greater increase in CO2 than the additions of man.

We do know that there has been steadily increasing volcanic activity over the last several hundred years.

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/vortectonics/vortex_correlations2.htm
Edited on 09-02-2017 22:17
09-02-2017 23:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
How would you go about confirming your hypothesis?
11-02-2017 00:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
How would you go about confirming your hypothesis?


By funding actual research projects that use remote submersibles capable of reaching these oceanic ridges and directly measuring the CO2 levels being emitted.

But why do that when you can claim that man is the problem? That government agencies can ASSUME power outside of the overview of Congress and hide all they are doing under the guise of security?
11-02-2017 01:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
How would you go about confirming your hypothesis?


By funding actual research projects that use remote submersibles capable of reaching these oceanic ridges and directly measuring the CO2 levels being emitted.

But why do that when you can claim that man is the problem? That government agencies can ASSUME power outside of the overview of Congress and hide all they are doing under the guise of security?

Wouldn't it be easier to measure the CO2 as it bubbled to the surface?
11-02-2017 01:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
How would you go about confirming your hypothesis?


By funding actual research projects that use remote submersibles capable of reaching these oceanic ridges and directly measuring the CO2 levels being emitted.

But why do that when you can claim that man is the problem? That government agencies can ASSUME power outside of the overview of Congress and hide all they are doing under the guise of security?

Wouldn't it be easier to measure the CO2 as it bubbled to the surface?


Thank you for another innocent act of ignorance. Bubbled to the surface huh? Are we back to your 10^10th?
15-02-2017 19:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
How would you go about confirming your hypothesis?


By funding actual research projects that use remote submersibles capable of reaching these oceanic ridges and directly measuring the CO2 levels being emitted.

But why do that when you can claim that man is the problem? That government agencies can ASSUME power outside of the overview of Congress and hide all they are doing under the guise of security?

Wouldn't it be easier to measure the CO2 as it bubbled to the surface?


I'm afraid that I let my surprise get the better of me.

In the deep ocean trenches and the mid-oceanic ridges the trenches are below 4,000 meters and the TOPS of the ridges are 2,500 meters. (8,000-13,000 ft) This is from a shallow mile and a half deep to over two and a half miles deep.

CO2 isn't released in "bubbles" but dissolved into the salt water in large part because of the pressure of these depths.

At the top of the ridge the water pressure is about 12,000 psi. Woods Hole has the submersible Alvin which is capable of diving to these depths and further. But they haven't been taking water samples as far as I know.
15-02-2017 20:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
How would you go about confirming your hypothesis?


By funding actual research projects that use remote submersibles capable of reaching these oceanic ridges and directly measuring the CO2 levels being emitted.

But why do that when you can claim that man is the problem? That government agencies can ASSUME power outside of the overview of Congress and hide all they are doing under the guise of security?

Wouldn't it be easier to measure the CO2 as it bubbled to the surface?


I'm afraid that I let my surprise get the better of me.

In the deep ocean trenches and the mid-oceanic ridges the trenches are below 4,000 meters and the TOPS of the ridges are 2,500 meters. (8,000-13,000 ft) This is from a shallow mile and a half deep to over two and a half miles deep.

CO2 isn't released in "bubbles" but dissolved into the salt water in large part because of the pressure of these depths.

At the top of the ridge the water pressure is about 12,000 psi. Woods Hole has the submersible Alvin which is capable of diving to these depths and further. But they haven't been taking water samples as far as I know.


I would have thought having gone through all the effort of getting there they would take samples. A recent news article suggests that they are taking samples otherwise how would they know about the pollution.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/13/extraordinary-levels-of-toxic-pollution-found-in-10km-deep-mariana-trench


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
15-02-2017 21:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:
At the top of the ridge the water pressure is about 12,000 psi. Woods Hole has the submersible Alvin which is capable of diving to these depths and further. But they haven't been taking water samples as far as I know.


I would have thought having gone through all the effort of getting there they would take samples. A recent news article suggests that they are taking samples otherwise how would they know about the pollution.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/13/extraordinary-levels-of-toxic-pollution-found-in-10km-deep-mariana-trench


There is a major difference between looking for PCP's and looking for dissolved CO2 spot. Because of the way these things are handled opening these samples to air causes the CO2 to disperse just as it would in a bottle of pop. In small sample bottles unless the entire purpose is to measure CO2 levels most of it is simply lost. The "toxic pollution" they are looking for is mostly particulate matter.

Again I have to wonder why non-scientists are so ready to criticise statements that they don't understand.
16-02-2017 01:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I understand you perfectly, you have convinced yourself that your stupid idea has merit. You also say as a non-scientist my opinion is worthless.

Are you a scientist then?




Join the debate Hypothesis:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse gas hypothesis violates Law of Conservation of Energy218-03-2019 18:56
The reason I don't believe the hypothesis doubling CO2 increases temp by 1 C is704-02-2019 21:02
AGW is a hypothesis that's never been tested510-12-2014 13:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact