Step one, Alternative power resources, wind, solar, hydro, maybe even nuclear. Step two, Carbon dioxide sequestration, either through biological or abiotic mechanisms Step three, soot removal, nox removal, sulferous oxide removal. All costly... Consider though the cost of continuing the path we are on today.
I agree that the corn or sugar cane has temporarily sequestered the carbon as complex carbohydrates. My point is that since there is already way too much CO2 from combustion processes that at best you are remaining static with respect to the fraction of this atmospheric gas. Consider that in order to get ethanol you must take the fructose and ferment it with some process, I think yeast is what they use yet there may be a faster process using some catalyst. That, I have yet to know about. The usual yeast process I do know about has a byproduct of CO2 and the ensuing combustion of the ethanol will produce yet more CO2. I believe the reaction is C2H5OH + O2 = CO2 + H2O + kinetic energy (unbalanced equation). It is essentially the same as burning old forest wood, which by your mention could also be considered only recently sequestered from the atmosphere (with the exception of some bristlecone pines)
I believe we speak the same, yet use different words, on your second statement about CO2 as it is definitely a byproduct of all ethanol - oxygen reactions (along with water vapor) but this could be a semantic issue. I think we will agree that we are both correct with our chemistry sets in mind (Hee!)
Since we have collectively in our civilization nearly doubled the CO2 portion of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, not to mention the other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, I think instead of consideration of combustion processes, which nearly all yield some CO2 in the process, that consideration of non-combustion energy process be exploited. Like solar, wind, water and then storage of the converted energy in technologies that already exist. Like for instance nickel hydride batteries or even old lead acid technology storage cells can be utilized. This way the slow process of sequestration of CO2 could maybe start the process of lowering the fraction of CO2 that is threatening this place we live on whether it be by more carbohydrates in plant tissues or shells of marine biota as limestone.
At this point in time anything to sequester the atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial revolution fractions would be wise to put resources hard at work on for solutions. We have many climatologists that think we have bypassed the point of no return. Like an ocean liner going to fast trying to stop in a short distance there is a huge amount of inertia in the climate processes.
Consider that we have already warmed the planet due to anthropogenic processes to the point that the glaciers have rolled way back, and now I read that the permafrost is warming up and releasing huge amounts of methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas. Since glaciers reflect much more light the albedo of Earth has been diminished and absorbs much more energy than is reflected exacerbating the process.
I hope you are free of thinking you have opened up an argument, I want you to know I enjoy a friendly discussion and exchange of ideas here.
Ethanol is a fuel aternative. It's combustion byproduct is still CO2. So all you are doing here is removing OPEC from the equation. As for getting lower amounts of greenhouse gasses, nothing has changed!
The writer of that article has listened to way to many politically right pundits. Science matters little to the author and a personal attack of the messenger is done by attacking science. The truth is that there is proof that the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have risen to alarming proportions compared to what existed before the industrial revolution. All these anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are affecting the climate. The evidence is incontrovertible. Now it may be that there are other phenomena occurring that are slowing down global warming like all the soot in the atmosphere that blocks out a proportion of sunlight. The writer has treated the issue from a position that has a weak foundation, I would see no surprise if this same person would endorse Intelligent design. What an dope!
I had a dear friend that was a hemopheliac. He had to inject clotting factors regularly and he was one of many unfortunate victims of a tainted blood supply. He was using a blood product that was made from donor blood. He came down with the HIV soon after returning to the U.S. when he heard his brother had been diagnosed with the same affliction.
Maybe if these medications were available to people who are free of choice about life-or-death medications that are made from blood products they would be given a better chance for a long life. As it turns out my friend died from the HIV.
The point I am wishing to make here is that HIV is not just an infection for intraveineous drug users and unsafe sex behaviors, some people have caught it having yet to engaged in sex.
If it were your life, I believe your question would be more like how to make this expensive medication cheaper. Maybe if you had a friend of family member that had gone through the same you might change your perspective.
I was watching a pot bust on the shop "Cops" and the herbalist dude was also into making beer, which in the US is totally legal as long as you keep within the limits of the laws. When the cops were ransacking this poor grower's home they noticed a wort cooler (a coil of copper tubing you run cold water through to cool off your future beer so you can pitch your yeast quickly) which was assumed to be a still (or distillation apparatus) which if used is breaking the rules in most jurisdictions.
Yup! your innocuous laboratory equipment can be used for illegal purposes and our constabularies are taught to assume that all of us succomb to the temtation to deviate from the goodness side to the evil side.
If the message is accurate and all the scientific data appears to point to this conclusion, You will see the sea rise a huge amount. Today's beachfront property will be well below the sea level and the process will make the climates throughout the Earth change so much it is hard to say today what it will be like in 100 years.
This is excellent science, yet it is a waste if it gets wrapped up in politics and the message is lost for concern with the corporate bottom line. It is time for our world's leadership to work together to stem the accellerating rate of our climate change rate due to global warming prior to it getting beyond our ability to slow it down, alas, it may already be too late. Man's effect on the quantities of greenhouse gasses is incontrovertable and there is a direct corellation to global warming.
Life, with respect to the climate, will probably be okay for us, but for your cheldren's children it will be devastating if my fuzzy crystal ball has any clarity.
FYI, the Earth has been in existance for some 4.5 billion years. This is broken down into several time groupings starting with Precambrian. The next eras are Paleozoic which begins some 650 million years back, prior to this there were no abundant fossil records. The Precambrian record has been divided into several divisions and the earliest fossils found date back to 3.8 billion years ago. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/precambri an.html
The 2 ways of carbon sequestration are through (1) photosynthesis, and (2) some algaes and mollusks and other sealife that are associated with reefs that produce calcium carbonate.
It is important to note that the process of these animals making calcium carbonate also releases carbon back into the environment so it really sequesters little carbon. Another thing to consider is that photosynthetic processes on land areas are usually later found to release the carbon back into the environment after the plants die and decay.
The amount of time needed to remove carbon from the atmosphere is monumental! Sequestration becomes a real problem considering the time span that is needed. Also there is a reduction of land based photosynthesis processes due to deforestation and wildfires (which also exacerbate the issue at hand).
The extra CO2 tends to create pH problems with the ocean waters over time which is fairly basic chemically (>7pH). It turns out that the ability of organisms living in the seas are going to be compromised by the resultant lower pH. And also the calcium carbonate already sequestered in limestone and reef systemsis released when it is contacted by acidic aqueus solutions like carbonic acid that results from raindrops coming in contact with CO2.
Also added to this is the albido of mother earth. The water on out home planet has a thermal inertia so to speak. Dark land compared to light reflective ice absorbs more infrared or heat energy. this causes more ice to melt accellerating the recession of glaciers and other ice masses and resulting in a higher sea level.
We may be at a point in the process where turning off the machine humanity has created since the industrial revolution is impossible and that global warming is here to stay. Buy your next home away from the ocean's shore as it wil become today's inland areas that will be the new beachfromt tomorrow.
Actually, much of the land will be beneath the high tide level. Are you ready for your town to set itself up for another New Orleans/Katrina situation?
Dude, several incorrect points. I will point out five of them...
First, Ash does and can fall right out of the sky during an eruption, it is called a nuee ardente or pyroclastic flow. http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/py ro.html It happened at St. Helens and if the eruption is significant enough it will most likely produce one. It is more common than rare. If the eruption is big enough to cause this type of eruption, you can be assured that the ash can and often does reach into the upper limits of the atmosphere and can have a long term effect on the atmosphere and even cause climate changes and disrupt the ozone layer.
Third, Krakatoa's devopement was due to subduction and did have the high silicic lava that causes plugging, but the explosive event it created was due more to the ocean water getting into the crater that resulted from the huge amount of magma loss resulting in a collapse of the island. This ocean water was super heated and is called a phreatomagmatic erruption. This is what is thought to be mostly responsible for the resultant tsunami and destruction of Krakatoa.http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiVolcanic Mechanisms.html
Forth, As for Mars, there is no source for internal heating that drives the processes that lead to vulcanism anymore. The current belief is that the heat source is either to small or has cooled sufficiently to have ceased any geological surface processes. It has probably been more than 20 million years since a volcano has errupted on Mars.http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/ mars/Overview.html
Fifth, As for igneous rock "not flexing" it is pretty flexible in the molten state. It is no less "flexible" than other rock types, metamorphic and sedimentary. Usually geologists discuss rocks in terms of hardness using the standard Mohs scale where talc is 1 and diamond is 10.http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blmohsscale .htm
I believe to retain credibility it is helpful to have facts straight before stating them.
I lost a very wonderful friend, (that had hemophilia) due to the AIDS complications from infected clotting factor. He had to introveniously inject these clotting factor all of his life. He was living in America and was transfered to Scotland on a job assignment. It turns out his brother had hemophilia also and had been diagnosed as having an unusual brain tumor that was linked to AIDS. His brother was remembered to have told the doctor when he was told of having AIDS that he had never had intercourse with anyone.Obviously his AIDS had been linked to the clotting factor he had to inject. Anyway my friend came back to America (to be by his brother's side) from Scotland where all the blood products were screened for HIV. From the Americaan blood products he too soon became infected and after bouts of totally weird infections succomed to pneumonia.
I was so upset to learn that the tainted blood products he had to inject were the cause of his AIDS and low T-cell count. The cure in this case killed him rather than the diesease!
To hear that this new developement is on track is very wonderful news indeed, yet a bit late for many. I hope this proves to be a viable alternative and potential cure for those with the affliction of this debilitating diesease.
I pray that the pharmaceutical companys are benevolent enough to make and develop these products to at least lessen the chance of being infected with horrendous complications that are associated with human blood products.
I agree with the stated information and have some other information to include...
Even if there is cross pollinization from the GM rice, the resultant rice from this year's crop would contain only the parent's rice plant's attributes rather than that of the pollenizing parent. I would contain the next crop's genetic formulation.
I believe the potential (sales) hazard would be in next year's (or next crop depending on the climate and how many crops per year are grown) crop as the new genetic material is expressed in the plants (from those cross polinated from GM rice plants) rice seeds and might contain the potential mutagens that those consumers that are fearful of might be affected by. In fact there may even be a chance that a cross polinated seed could be non-viable. A rice mule equivalent!
Your faith based conclusion has little foundation, other than your faith.
The current "theory" of stellar and galatic evolution has a foundation built on science that has a huge amount of empiracal data and tons of tangible evidence.
Your god is only tangible to you, and is not a measurable entity, has no evidence or proof of existance other than your faith.
To wave your faith flag in a discussion of science is tantamount to flamebait.
I suggest you bury your ignorace to science with your wimpy arguments on physics that are free of any foundation into your book of mythology (The Bible) and leave science free of your faith babble.
You would love to believe that Man was created by some supreme being using some type of explanation of omnipotence.
Since you wish to share your theory of your God I will share what my theory is: I believe man created his God by some act of ignorance because there was less knowledge at the time(s) it was put together.
Ignorance is a state of having yet to possess knowledge, Stupidity, on the other hand, is knowing the facts and sticking to a frame of thought that is wrong.
Since the writing of the Bible much has been discovered:
The Earth is NOT the center of the universe,
Infections are caused by bacteria and viruses to mention just a few.
People who think like you would have been much happier if Galileo never had lived.
Give us a break.
I like what you stated here. You did pose a question;"What else are people doing with hops other than make beer?"
It turns out the hops were not used when the earliest recepies of beer were formulated. Hops were grown here and there and it was discovered that they possessed a antiseptic property fairly cool. If you were cut and bleeding you would take some hops flowers and rub the pollen on the wound. This often discouraged infection. Later it was discovered that this kept beer from going "bad" and balanced the brew's normally sweet flavor with a slight tartness.
With antiseptics and antibiotics now available this use is outdated. We pretty much use hops to flavor the different brews of the world.
This sound like nonsense to me.
First there are forest fires that dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, add to this the fossil fuel consumption from industrialized nations and this information about what will happen if volcanoes stop becomes even more laughable.
Folks, there is a much higher probability of our environment becoming akin to that of Venus which is hot enough to melt lead because of the huge increase in CO2 caused by man. The carbon cycle will be continuing free of subduction processes' influences.
What we really might want to consider is the mechanism for re-sequestration of CO2 is by 2 sources, photsynthesis by plants ability to lock up CO2 in sugars by using the sun's light energy and biotic action in the formation of limestone by mollusks and the like.
Man's influence on the atmosphere is tangile and measurable. We have scientific data that confirms this as incontravertable.
As for the geologic process having much to do with the carbon cycle, I believe we have little to concern ourselves with. Man's influence far out shadows any geological process that might cause fluctuation of CO2.
The answer is simply "NO!"
the explanation follows:
Mt. St. Helens is a by-product of subduction, where the microplate, known as the Juan de Fuca plate (a remnant of the once more huge Farralon plate) is pushed towards the American plate and since it is of a much denser material than the continental crust it is bent downwards toward the mantle of the Earth. As it subducts partial menting of the plate causes the formation and continued filling of the magma chambers and the resultant volcanics.
The cause of the latest Parkfield earthquake is due to the Pacific plate slipping past the American plate in what is called "right slip strike" faulting. The terminous of the SanAndreas fault is off the coast of northern California west of Point Mendicino in a triple plate boundary that has the three plates American, Pacific and the southern portion of the Juan de Fuca plate. This is about 350 miles south of the Mt St Helens area.
The only relationship between the two is that they are happening on adjacent geological plates. The phenominum that causes the earthquakes in Parkfield is not related to what is responsible for the activities in Washington.
I hope this helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Step one, Alternative power resources, wind, solar, hydro, maybe even nuclear.
Step two, Carbon dioxide sequestration, either through biological or abiotic mechanisms
Step three, soot removal, nox removal, sulferous oxide removal.
All costly...
Consider though the cost of continuing the path we are on today.
I believe we speak the same, yet use different words, on your second statement about CO2 as it is definitely a byproduct of all ethanol - oxygen reactions (along with water vapor) but this could be a semantic issue. I think we will agree that we are both correct with our chemistry sets in mind (Hee!)
Since we have collectively in our civilization nearly doubled the CO2 portion of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, not to mention the other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, I think instead of consideration of combustion processes, which nearly all yield some CO2 in the process, that consideration of non-combustion energy process be exploited. Like solar, wind, water and then storage of the converted energy in technologies that already exist. Like for instance nickel hydride batteries or even old lead acid technology storage cells can be utilized. This way the slow process of sequestration of CO2 could maybe start the process of lowering the fraction of CO2 that is threatening this place we live on whether it be by more carbohydrates in plant tissues or shells of marine biota as limestone.
At this point in time anything to sequester the atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial revolution fractions would be wise to put resources hard at work on for solutions. We have many climatologists that think we have bypassed the point of no return. Like an ocean liner going to fast trying to stop in a short distance there is a huge amount of inertia in the climate processes.
Consider that we have already warmed the planet due to anthropogenic processes to the point that the glaciers have rolled way back, and now I read that the permafrost is warming up and releasing huge amounts of methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas. Since glaciers reflect much more light the albedo of Earth has been diminished and absorbs much more energy than is reflected exacerbating the process.
I hope you are free of thinking you have opened up an argument, I want you to know I enjoy a friendly discussion and exchange of ideas here.
Ethanol is a fuel aternative. It's combustion byproduct is still CO2. So all you are doing here is removing OPEC from the equation. As for getting lower amounts of greenhouse gasses, nothing has changed!
The writer of that article has listened to way to many politically right pundits.
Science matters little to the author and a personal attack of the messenger is done by attacking science.
The truth is that there is proof that the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have risen to alarming proportions compared to what existed before the industrial revolution. All these anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are affecting the climate. The evidence is incontrovertible.
Now it may be that there are other phenomena occurring that are slowing down global warming like all the soot in the atmosphere that blocks out a proportion of sunlight.
The writer has treated the issue from a position that has a weak foundation, I would see no surprise if this same person would endorse Intelligent design.
What an dope!
I had a dear friend that was a hemopheliac. He had to inject clotting factors regularly and he was one of many unfortunate victims of a tainted blood supply. He was using a blood product that was made from donor blood. He came down with the HIV soon after returning to the U.S. when he heard his brother had been diagnosed with the same affliction.
Maybe if these medications were available to people who are free of choice about life-or-death medications that are made from blood products they would be given a better chance for a long life. As it turns out my friend died from the HIV.
The point I am wishing to make here is that HIV is not just an infection for intraveineous drug users and unsafe sex behaviors, some people have caught it having yet to engaged in sex.
If it were your life, I believe your question would be more like how to make this expensive medication cheaper. Maybe if you had a friend of family member that had gone through the same you might change your perspective.
All Ales and Scotch whiskys are made from the fermented malt whitch comes from barley.
You'd be crazy to believe they use it exclusively for their soups and porridge.
Plenty of Ale and fine Scotch = No thirsty folk of the U.K. and this leads to a happier less warring and a more easy going lot.
Lots's of barley = Happy Brits (easy math man!)
I was watching a pot bust on the shop "Cops" and the herbalist dude was also into making beer, which in the US is totally legal as long as you keep within the limits of the laws. When the cops were ransacking this poor grower's home they noticed a wort cooler (a coil of copper tubing you run cold water through to cool off your future beer so you can pitch your yeast quickly) which was assumed to be a still (or distillation apparatus) which if used is breaking the rules in most jurisdictions.
Yup! your innocuous laboratory equipment can be used for illegal purposes and our constabularies are taught to assume that all of us succomb to the temtation to deviate from the goodness side to the evil side.
This is excellent science, yet it is a waste if it gets wrapped up in politics and the message is lost for concern with the corporate bottom line. It is time for our world's leadership to work together to stem the accellerating rate of our climate change rate due to global warming prior to it getting beyond our ability to slow it down, alas, it may already be too late. Man's effect on the quantities of greenhouse gasses is incontrovertable and there is a direct corellation to global warming.
Life, with respect to the climate, will probably be okay for us, but for your cheldren's children it will be devastating if my fuzzy crystal ball has any clarity.
peace.
Liquor was legal and along came prohibition. The underworld came out of the cracks and crime ( and criminals) came in abundance.
The only correlation of numbers of crimes is the new laws that are made. Remove the prohibition and the crime is no more.
Think about it.
FYI, the Earth has been in existance for some 4.5 billion years. This is broken down into several time groupings starting with Precambrian. The next eras are Paleozoic which begins some 650 million years back, prior to this there were no abundant fossil records. The Precambrian record has been divided into several divisions and the earliest fossils found date back to 3.8 billion years ago. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/precambri an.html
It is important to note that the process of these animals making calcium carbonate also releases carbon back into the environment so it really sequesters little carbon. Another thing to consider is that photosynthetic processes on land areas are usually later found to release the carbon back into the environment after the plants die and decay.
The amount of time needed to remove carbon from the atmosphere is monumental! Sequestration becomes a real problem considering the time span that is needed. Also there is a reduction of land based photosynthesis processes due to deforestation and wildfires (which also exacerbate the issue at hand).
The extra CO2 tends to create pH problems with the ocean waters over time which is fairly basic chemically (>7pH). It turns out that the ability of organisms living in the seas are going to be compromised by the resultant lower pH. And also the calcium carbonate already sequestered in limestone and reef systemsis released when it is contacted by acidic aqueus solutions like carbonic acid that results from raindrops coming in contact with CO2.
Also added to this is the albido of mother earth. The water on out home planet has a thermal inertia so to speak. Dark land compared to light reflective ice absorbs more infrared or heat energy. this causes more ice to melt accellerating the recession of glaciers and other ice masses and resulting in a higher sea level.
We may be at a point in the process where turning off the machine humanity has created since the industrial revolution is impossible and that global warming is here to stay. Buy your next home away from the ocean's shore as it wil become today's inland areas that will be the new beachfromt tomorrow.
Actually, much of the land will be beneath the high tide level. Are you ready for your town to set itself up for another New Orleans/Katrina situation?
First, Ash does and can fall right out of the sky during an eruption, it is called a nuee ardente or pyroclastic flow. http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/py ro.html It happened at St. Helens and if the eruption is significant enough it will most likely produce one. It is more common than rare. If the eruption is big enough to cause this type of eruption, you can be assured that the ash can and often does reach into the upper limits of the atmosphere and can have a long term effect on the atmosphere and even cause climate changes and disrupt the ozone layer.
Second, volcanoes can develop quite rapily, Paricutin for example.http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Mexico /description_mexico_volcanoes.html
Third, Krakatoa's devopement was due to subduction and did have the high silicic lava that causes plugging, but the explosive event it created was due more to the ocean water getting into the crater that resulted from the huge amount of magma loss resulting in a collapse of the island. This ocean water was super heated and is called a phreatomagmatic erruption. This is what is thought to be mostly responsible for the resultant tsunami and destruction of Krakatoa.http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiVolcanic Mechanisms.html
Forth, As for Mars, there is no source for internal heating that drives the processes that lead to vulcanism anymore. The current belief is that the heat source is either to small or has cooled sufficiently to have ceased any geological surface processes. It has probably been more than 20 million years since a volcano has errupted on Mars.http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/ mars/Overview.html
Fifth, As for igneous rock "not flexing" it is pretty flexible in the molten state. It is no less "flexible" than other rock types, metamorphic and sedimentary. Usually geologists discuss rocks in terms of hardness using the standard Mohs scale where talc is 1 and diamond is 10.http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blmohsscale .htm
I believe to retain credibility it is helpful to have facts straight before stating them.
I was so upset to learn that the tainted blood products he had to inject were the cause of his AIDS and low T-cell count. The cure in this case killed him rather than the diesease!
To hear that this new developement is on track is very wonderful news indeed, yet a bit late for many. I hope this proves to be a viable alternative and potential cure for those with the affliction of this debilitating diesease.
I pray that the pharmaceutical companys are benevolent enough to make and develop these products to at least lessen the chance of being infected with horrendous complications that are associated with human blood products.
I agree with the stated information and have some other information to include... Even if there is cross pollinization from the GM rice, the resultant rice from this year's crop would contain only the parent's rice plant's attributes rather than that of the pollenizing parent. I would contain the next crop's genetic formulation. I believe the potential (sales) hazard would be in next year's (or next crop depending on the climate and how many crops per year are grown) crop as the new genetic material is expressed in the plants (from those cross polinated from GM rice plants) rice seeds and might contain the potential mutagens that those consumers that are fearful of might be affected by. In fact there may even be a chance that a cross polinated seed could be non-viable. A rice mule equivalent!
Just consider that study as another mythology.
Your faith based conclusion has little foundation, other than your faith. The current "theory" of stellar and galatic evolution has a foundation built on science that has a huge amount of empiracal data and tons of tangible evidence. Your god is only tangible to you, and is not a measurable entity, has no evidence or proof of existance other than your faith. To wave your faith flag in a discussion of science is tantamount to flamebait. I suggest you bury your ignorace to science with your wimpy arguments on physics that are free of any foundation into your book of mythology (The Bible) and leave science free of your faith babble. You would love to believe that Man was created by some supreme being using some type of explanation of omnipotence. Since you wish to share your theory of your God I will share what my theory is: I believe man created his God by some act of ignorance because there was less knowledge at the time(s) it was put together. Ignorance is a state of having yet to possess knowledge, Stupidity, on the other hand, is knowing the facts and sticking to a frame of thought that is wrong. Since the writing of the Bible much has been discovered: The Earth is NOT the center of the universe, Infections are caused by bacteria and viruses to mention just a few. People who think like you would have been much happier if Galileo never had lived. Give us a break.
Plegarism from "Blue Velvet" will win you rewards!! I was particularly impressed you chose that line. I have used it on occasion myself.
I like what you stated here. You did pose a question;"What else are people doing with hops other than make beer?" It turns out the hops were not used when the earliest recepies of beer were formulated. Hops were grown here and there and it was discovered that they possessed a antiseptic property fairly cool. If you were cut and bleeding you would take some hops flowers and rub the pollen on the wound. This often discouraged infection. Later it was discovered that this kept beer from going "bad" and balanced the brew's normally sweet flavor with a slight tartness. With antiseptics and antibiotics now available this use is outdated. We pretty much use hops to flavor the different brews of the world.
This sound like nonsense to me. First there are forest fires that dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, add to this the fossil fuel consumption from industrialized nations and this information about what will happen if volcanoes stop becomes even more laughable. Folks, there is a much higher probability of our environment becoming akin to that of Venus which is hot enough to melt lead because of the huge increase in CO2 caused by man. The carbon cycle will be continuing free of subduction processes' influences. What we really might want to consider is the mechanism for re-sequestration of CO2 is by 2 sources, photsynthesis by plants ability to lock up CO2 in sugars by using the sun's light energy and biotic action in the formation of limestone by mollusks and the like. Man's influence on the atmosphere is tangile and measurable. We have scientific data that confirms this as incontravertable. As for the geologic process having much to do with the carbon cycle, I believe we have little to concern ourselves with. Man's influence far out shadows any geological process that might cause fluctuation of CO2.
The answer is simply "NO!" the explanation follows: Mt. St. Helens is a by-product of subduction, where the microplate, known as the Juan de Fuca plate (a remnant of the once more huge Farralon plate) is pushed towards the American plate and since it is of a much denser material than the continental crust it is bent downwards toward the mantle of the Earth. As it subducts partial menting of the plate causes the formation and continued filling of the magma chambers and the resultant volcanics. The cause of the latest Parkfield earthquake is due to the Pacific plate slipping past the American plate in what is called "right slip strike" faulting. The terminous of the SanAndreas fault is off the coast of northern California west of Point Mendicino in a triple plate boundary that has the three plates American, Pacific and the southern portion of the Juan de Fuca plate. This is about 350 miles south of the Mt St Helens area. The only relationship between the two is that they are happening on adjacent geological plates. The phenominum that causes the earthquakes in Parkfield is not related to what is responsible for the activities in Washington. I hope this helps.
I find much wisdom and quotability to this statement of evil. I will use it myself in the future. Thanks fo rthe insightful sharing of you knowledge.