Due date: post initial comment by 11 pm 15 October
Acidic Clouds Nourish World's Oceans
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091005102645.htm
Global Warming From Carbon Dioxide Will Increase Five-fold Over The Next Millennium, Scientists Predict
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128104533.htmand just in case you don't remember the carbon budget
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161113.htm
i agree with the 2nd one about the global warming getting worse. in the article it mentioned that the atmosphere can store more CO2 than it needs and if we add more than we are going to mess up the cycle that nature has planned. we cant just mess with mother nature and think that we arnt going to have side effects. i dont believe adding more is a good idea because global warming could very well be a side effect.
ReplyDeleteKenzie,
ReplyDeleteHow do you think that the first article scientists can have such a different viewpoint? These articles are on such opposite ends from each other.
Im really confused as to how their views differ so dramatically. Being a scientist is all about basing your assumptions on facts and if their both looking at the same facts then why not the same conclusion?
ReplyDeleteI definetly think we should not add anymore CO2 to the atmosphere or mother nature will kick our A*&'. haha but seriously no more co2
8^)
i think that the first article can have such a diff. view point because they are only focused on that one thing. they were not looking into anything else other than the fact that we should use CO2 as a boost. they are more focused on what they are figuring out than the consequences.
ReplyDeleteinteresting observation.....what do the rest of you think?
ReplyDeleteI am a little confused about the first article, are they saying we SHOULD put more co2 into the atmosphere, for it stimulates plankton growth due to more soluble iron? But anyway reading the second and third article reminded me what we were talking about earlier today. There is only SO much co2 that the atmosphere can hold. YES the co2 can be absorbed by the land,water, and air but its got to reach that point at some time in which it cant hold any more.Than what happens? We can only fit so much co2 in the air for our ecosystem to function at all.
ReplyDeleteChrissy - what I got from the article was not so much that we should make a concentrated effort to add more to the atmosphere, but that the particulates we are already producing and depositing in the atmosphere is not such a bad thing.... makes you wonder.
ReplyDeleteWow... You weren't kidding when you said that they differed completely... If they are looking at the same facts, then shouldn't they have somewhere near the same conclusions?
ReplyDeleteI think we should just leave it alone and let madame mother natur sit on her throne and do her thing. She was doing a pretty good job before we came along...
How do we make 6.5 + billion people just leave it alone though? I think it is interesting that the same facts can be construed in a different manner , depending on the person ( s) looking at or using them.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with the second one. Global warming keeps getting worse and the carbon exchange that the ocean makes will eventually not be able to happen anymore because there will be no way for the ocean to soak up all of the carbon dioxide. This is crazy stuff!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with hannah. What will happen if the ocean gets too acidic? we probably won't be able to swim in it and all of the animals could suffer. I'm confused on the first article and i'm excited to hear everyone's viewpoints. I do think that the amount of CO 2 we're putting into the atmosphere is a negative thing. More co2 can only hurt the environment and the 6.5 billion people on this earth aren't doing much for the oceans and we are most certainly not aware of just how much co2 there is in the atmosphere
ReplyDeleteIs a good thing that scientist are discovering new things but the goal is for us humans to change our lifestyles so that we can reduce the amount of pollution we create not to find ways in which we could use nature to fix what we mess up.
ReplyDeleteSo basically, these scientist are saying that you need to add CO2 to the ocean, but not too much. One says it's really good to have a lot, and the other says it's bad. It seems to me that one scientist is working for China. They might try to make it seem like these emissions that cause acid rain are good. Yay money! It can change any scientific data.
ReplyDeleteAngelica - I LOVE your statement that the goal is for humans to change their lifestyles!!!
ReplyDeleteMoney rules the world Haley, right?
What about the rest of you APES?
ReplyDeleteIm so confused i dont understand how they are both different so much i think its dumb that they both have different facts because if its a fact they should both come ot with the same idea right???
ReplyDeletei agree i do think that the goal is for humans to change their lifestyles. i do not understand wh are scientists trying o fix the environment hen they could be finding ways to get pople interested in change their ways right???
Brittney,
ReplyDeletethat is the issue and why there are people on both sides of the "debate". Rewrite that last question. I am good at figuring out words with letters missing .but....there are a few words that could be more than one choice....
:)
I think that the global warming thing will worsen. We have had over 100 years to figure out alternatives to everything from cleaner coal, vegtable oil for gas etc. So almost in a way we deserve to have global warming because we were to stupid to do anything about it or we just didn't care about it back then, when i'm sure they were well aware of the side effects (I may be wrong and please correct me if I'm wrong or off subject)
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that the first article is saying that we need not to add anymore CO2 to the atmosphere, while article two contrdicts it. I know that sounds repetitive of everyone else but thats because I am late. I do think that Angelica was right when she said we should be able to change our lifestyles for the better!
ReplyDeleteHowever, how ARE we supposed to get 6.5 billion people to change their lifestyle for the better?!?!?!
The best way to get people interested in changing is if we use money. All we have to do is come up with new ideas or inventions that can do both stop Global Warming and provide a way for people to make money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first article versus the second. I find it very hard to belive the ocean is storing so much co2!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the second article. I find it hard to believe that man made pollution could actually be helping the oceans. It's no surprise that people are divided on the possibility of global warming when scientists, people who are supposed to be experts on our atomosphere, have such different views.
ReplyDeleteI'm really confused, the top of the post says the blog ends at 11 pm today, and it's not 11. Well I'm going to pretend like that's not there :). In my mind I don't think it is that abnormal that the articles differ. Is it not possible that both articles are true, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Can't acidic pollution allow more iron particles to aid in the removal of CO2, AND excess carbon dioxide cause the ocean's to not be able to absorb as much CO2? Anyways, I don't think the first article was promoting pollution, I think were simply explaining a new discovery. Also, I think that curtailing CO2 emissions would be extremely more beneficial to our environment than releasing pollution to assist in the creation of iron nanoparticles.
ReplyDeletei kinda think Luke's right in that both articles are partly true. but i believe the second article more than the first because i think releasing more carbon in the air would really hurt our environment like it said... poor little artic ice caps.
ReplyDeletei'm confused though because they're about the same thing and just really different. i don't know what to believe!
This is a major contradiction! One scientist says CO2 is good for the ocean and one says it's not..? And like Haley said..couldn't that cause acid rain and isn't that bad? Also, what does the one scientist mean that says add CO2 but not too much? How much is too much? I believe the CO2 could possibly damage other animals in the ocean. Releasing more carbon into the air is bad for the enviroment too, just like Emilee said..
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree with Luke and Emilee that I think that both of the articles are partly true, but the second one seems like what it is saying is true for the most part. CO2 in our atmosphere must be more harmful than beneficial. Putting more in our air would probably make things worse
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luke, its not promoting pollution, because i don't think any sensible person would promote it. It is simply stating a new discovery, which explains a simple fact that it is not entirely detrimental to everything. The amounts of CO2 in the air definitely cant be more good than bad though.
ReplyDeleteso i was sick, and now i'm back to blogging :)
ReplyDeleteit will be very bad if more acid gets added into the ocean because then it will affect all of the animals and things living in it, it will just kill them. & then humans will probably not be able to go out into the water either becaues of how much acid will be in there! so i say its a bad thing. & about the CO2, they don't need to add more to our atmosphere there is already enough as it is & the more we put out there could harm us humans living on the earth.
I agree with the second article. I can't imagine how man-made pollution would aid our oceans. But it is obvious that global warming is a serious issue and needs to be addressed quickly! No more CO2 please ;]
ReplyDelete