<>>Do you think limestone and coal are not buried? Do you not think that they used to be alive and kicking?<< So what?>
So what? Well, to go over it again. If the carbon isn't in the atmosphere and ecosphere, where it used to be, but is permanently in the ground, then there is less greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. So we are more prone to ice ages. It's very, very simple. I don't get it that you don't get it.
I suspect that this is like trying to convert the religious who believe things based on nothing but their desire to believe what they believe. I don't put a lot of effort in.
If the oil, gas, coal and limestone used to be in the atmosphere and alive, and now it isn't, but is dead and buried, then there is less greenhouse effect. It's a causal relationship. It seems very simple to me. Maybe you have some other idea. Maybe if you explained why that's not true, I would be enlightened.
I didn't understand the connection with horse radish, though I like wasabe in my sushi. Do you mean horse-radish causes the greenhouse effect? This is very peculiar thinking.
Okay, once again, buried limestone carbon is not in the atmosphere, neither is the oxygen for that matter. It used to be. It was stripped out and buried. Therefore, there's less greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than when the limestone was alive.
What could be simpler?
Oh well, I give up. According to you, there was no effect on Earth's temperature due to burial of all the coal, oil, gas and limestone. Fair enough. You can believe that if you like. Weird though that digging it out again and burning it is considered to have an effect if burying it didn't.
Mqurice |
