| Pemalite said: Exactly. And as temperatures rise, the oceans release said carbon. |
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/ocean/
I don't think that's how it works based on the above example from NASA climatekids in the question "How does the ocean suck up CO2 ?". Most of the CO2 sucked up by the ocean isn't because of the change in the ionization of the water, it's mainly down to marine life like plants and bacteria photosynthesizing. I'm also not sure how ionized water is supposed to release carbon too, wouldn't that mean we'd have more bouts of acidic rain instead ?
What I also don't think is the temperature rises in the worst case scenario will start making our oceans boil either assuming that you meant the ions trapped in the water will change into gaseous form rapidly. Water has a boiling point of 100'C at 100 kPa ...
If we wanted to get more complex as to what will happen with the CO2 in the ocean, as organic plant life is formed it can either get consumed by marine animals or it will decay into simpler organic hydrocarbons in anaerobic environments. In the latter case as some may have guessed through the magic of geology, it get's reformed as what we know today as fossil fuels! 
| Pemalite said: Ethanol was just the example. |
Wouldn't that be a positive that we can now technically cycle carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons faster ? 
It would be a win-win situation where we don't have to give up our gas guzzling vehicles if we can recycle our carbon faster in an economical way ...
| Pemalite said:
But for every 1c in temperature rises associated with the green house effect, the more CO2 is released from our Arctic regions and the oceans. |
So far the ocean has been a carbon sink mainly thanks to the organisms living in it so I wouldn't bet on the arctic being a tipping of any sort ...
| Pemalite said:
Don't regret being a centrist at all. |
Both are pretty bad indeed but the reason why the representatives of science (mainly scientists) have a small representation in democracy is because they reek and stink of elitism like one would see from a technocracy so that's why they mostly keep losing in elections since they can't find anyway to appeal to a larger base of constituents. Scientists suck at the game called "democracy" so autocracy it is for them ...
It doesn't help that the representatives of science that they make enemies willingly along the way ... (theoconservatives, serving corporate pharmaceutical interests, hardcore nature lovers etc)
| Pemalite said:
We don't have any Nuclear power here at all... Yet it is green, plentiful... And we have a stupidly massive amount of Nuclear energy potential buried under our feet. |
It's cause of their fear of nuclear meltdowns and radioactive contamination, hopefully with gen 4 nuclear reactors we'll put many of those fears to rest because finding a way to store intermittent sources like light and wind is starting to become a lot less realistic ... (nearly all of our options for storing those sources of energy have been a failure)
