Scott Weberpal
EF5
Stephen, no one is denying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. What is being debated is whether or not that's the cause of our climate warming to the extent that some say it is.
30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud
- Thread starter Jim Saueressig
- Start date
Stephen, no one is denying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. What is being debated is whether or not that's the cause of our climate warming to the extent that some say it is.
Jim Saueressig
EF5
I was thinking about checking the temps on the time machine against volcanic eruptions as many of the spots are real suspiciously near volcanoes...
Brian Emfinger
EF4
I know volcanoes release a lot of CO2 but wouldn't a graph showing volcanic co2 release over time be quite variable? Obviously volcanoes release CO2 but if that were the main cause in CO2 rise the chart would not look like this:
I don't even see a bump for Pinatubo....
I just found that estimates are:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea.
I don't even see a bump for Pinatubo....
I just found that estimates are:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea.
Rob Wadsworth
EF5
Both of the Mt Tambora and the Krakatau explosions created conditions that had the following effects of sudden cooling that lasted a minimum of six years. They are both forces that created vastly larger doses of CO, CO2, and SO2 than Global Warning is supposedly responsible for. A small but significant measure of light reaching the Earth was reflected AWAY from the Earth that created a temporary state of Global Cooling.
See: "The Year Without a Summer" on Google Search...
These gases subsided and were eventually dispersed and washed down out of the atmosphere; it corrected itself. The present change in CO2 levels are not drastic enough to do anything except make all living plant material to grow more vigorously due to the fact that plants use CO2 to manufacture starch/sugar thru chlorophyll and give off oxygen. Reports in the farmers almanacs after those 5-6 years after the major volcanic explosions showed that a significant rise in the SO2 being washed into the soil along with the abundance of CO2 (although they were unaware of these actual factors at that time) made for bumper crops after the six-year re stabilization of the atmosphere.
Having the politicians enter into it - such as 'Man-Bear-Pig' ('South Park') Al Gore and twisting the facts to his own leanings/likings and cronies only clouded the perceptions that we now know as 'Global Warming'. It isn't wrong - per se - except that the true cause has yet to be uncovered and is as yet unknown.
I can tell you - as a farmer - that we had a bumper crop year for both corn and soybeans in this part of Iowa. Is it due to the abundance of timely rainfall, sun light, AND the slightly elevated quantity of CO2? I would have to say: yes.
See: "The Year Without a Summer" on Google Search...
These gases subsided and were eventually dispersed and washed down out of the atmosphere; it corrected itself. The present change in CO2 levels are not drastic enough to do anything except make all living plant material to grow more vigorously due to the fact that plants use CO2 to manufacture starch/sugar thru chlorophyll and give off oxygen. Reports in the farmers almanacs after those 5-6 years after the major volcanic explosions showed that a significant rise in the SO2 being washed into the soil along with the abundance of CO2 (although they were unaware of these actual factors at that time) made for bumper crops after the six-year re stabilization of the atmosphere.
Having the politicians enter into it - such as 'Man-Bear-Pig' ('South Park') Al Gore and twisting the facts to his own leanings/likings and cronies only clouded the perceptions that we now know as 'Global Warming'. It isn't wrong - per se - except that the true cause has yet to be uncovered and is as yet unknown.
I can tell you - as a farmer - that we had a bumper crop year for both corn and soybeans in this part of Iowa. Is it due to the abundance of timely rainfall, sun light, AND the slightly elevated quantity of CO2? I would have to say: yes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian Emfinger
EF4
just to be clear...
Volcanoes reduce global temperature by sending pollutants (dust, gases, etc) into the stratosphere. They release CO2 but that is tremendously offset by sunlight being reflected by pollutants in the stratosphere.
I suppose we could learn to control volcanoes and when it gets too warm to just set one off?
We release more CO2 per year than the years that included the Tambora and Krakatau eruptions...
I imagine this will be immediately discredited somehow but it shows the normal cycles and it shows how we are not in a normal cycle.
Volcanoes reduce global temperature by sending pollutants (dust, gases, etc) into the stratosphere. They release CO2 but that is tremendously offset by sunlight being reflected by pollutants in the stratosphere.
I suppose we could learn to control volcanoes and when it gets too warm to just set one off?
We release more CO2 per year than the years that included the Tambora and Krakatau eruptions...
I imagine this will be immediately discredited somehow but it shows the normal cycles and it shows how we are not in a normal cycle.
Jeff Snyder
EF5
You mention historical/proxy data sources for evidence that the earth has been warmer. However, by the same sources, there is ample (and corroborated) data that indicate that the earth has been warming much faster in the past 100 years than centuries and millenia. Yes, there wasn't much in the way of thermometers 300+ years ago, but there are proxy data, as you know. When various data sources (tree rings, ice core samples, fossil pollen, sedimentation samples, coral samples etc.) corroborate a basic trend, it lends some confidence that the trend is not a function of statistical manipulation. Even examining rural stations (to minimize effects of urban sprawl) indicates significant global mean temperature increases over the past 100 years. In addition, we know that the sea level is rising, mean and especially summer minimum ice extent is diminishing (except for minor expansion in/near Antarctica), and oceanic SSTs are, in the mean, rising. All of these other readily-measured observables conceptually agree with global warming. Yes, there are problems with the international temperature record, and there are many different datasets that use different correction factors in an attempt to remove things like urbanization, instrument quality, etc. However, nearly all of them show the same story.
Not a single person in here denies any of that. As I said in the previous post, and as most folks who are moderately read on global climate change data and forcings know, the climate does change naturally! Milankovitch cycles (e.g. orbital and tilt variations), volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output, and many other 100% natural factors CAN and HAVE changed the climate in the past. Heck, a large volcanic eruption may change the climate much faster and much more significantly than humans can. This is no surprise, and no one will refute that. However, just because natural factors can change climate does NOT necessarily mean that ONLY they can change the climate. None of the above natural forcings inherently preclude humans from changing the climate. Are you denying that CO2 does not absorb and re-radiate longwave energy? Are you refuting the idea that deforestation and land use changes effect the heat balance and composition of the atmosphere?
All of this seems like it would be best represented by a probability distribution function. There needn't be a binary or extreme "Yes, humans are the sole cause of massive global warming" or "No, humans have 0, zilch, absolutely no effect whatsoever on the atmosphere and climate". It seems, to me, that is is more likely than not that humans have some effect on the global climate. Sure, it may turn out that humans have a negligible impact, and the observed increase rate of warming lately is purely coincidence in terms of industrialization, or it's just a statistical error. However, it believe that's not the MOST LIKELY outcome or driver of observed global climate change.
The "us" vs. "them" mentality in which those who support global warming are either blind sheep or conspirators out to screw the world's larger economies seems insulting to those who consider themselves relatively educated. Sure, some folks just regurgitate what they hear in the media, but that works both ways (either for or against the notion that humans affect the climate). But there are many educated, well-read people who certainly have no will to "conspire" against everyone to lead this "scam", nor do they have an ulterior motive to produce fake science for the sole purpose of grant money. And it's insulting to insinuate such.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Saueressig
EF5
I would be inclined to say deforestation causes more of an increase in CO2 than any other cause ever..... Lets find a way to compare those two and I think you will see what is dooming us to higher CO2 concentrations.
Jason Harris
EF5
Deforestation is #2 after energy pollution:
--
The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists.
Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.
----
note, that's 25 vs. 31%
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html
--
The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists.
Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.
----
note, that's 25 vs. 31%
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html
Jim Saueressig
EF5
So to stop deforestation and start planting trees would reverse the trend. We still need to reduce pollution but to me to put a stop to deforestation or find a way to replace what is lost would overcome the increase and turn it around. I wonder how much all the slash and burn fires add by themselves not counting the loss of consumption by the burned trees.
I would like to throw out though that in my opinion the trucking industry is probably the worst contributor there is in the auto category with its diesel pollution...
I would like to throw out though that in my opinion the trucking industry is probably the worst contributor there is in the auto category with its diesel pollution...
Rob Wadsworth
EF5
I can remember growing up in the Santa Clara Valley here in CA in the 70's; now - that was air pollution that was visible and dangerously breathable. Over the last ten years, there is hardly a single day that one can see any pollution. The change in auto specifications have already so drastically reduced emissions (some newer vehicles - including my own - are now '0 pollution' output conformance) that it is rapidly being a non-major contributor to air contamination.
Deforestation has been met - at least in the US - with replanting forested lands thru compliance of their own in order to maintain their own industry. Plants/trees will often spontaneously grow if their environmental conditions are favorably present. Even in the slash-and-burn practices in Brazil and Central America, it is a constant fight to keep these jungles pushed back from overrunning and reclaiming the land. You can't grow daisies at the N pole, and Brazil cannot support permafrost. There are other factors that need to be looked into before the politicians can reach into your pocketbooks and before they can say conclusively that man is the real cause of GW.
Furthermore, some of the statistics of 400k years must be skewed. We know that when Mt St Helens erupted that there was a HUGE spike in CO2, SO2, and ash that those statistics fail to demonstrate. I can only imagine what it was like after the Tambora blast. Or even the super-explosion from Yellowstone? A 'no show'?!?
Is THAT evidence of GW or the old axiom that states 'figures don't lie; but liars do figure'?
Me thinks so!
Correction: the super explosion was 640k years ago.
Please note that time frame is conspicuously missing from the chart above...
Deforestation has been met - at least in the US - with replanting forested lands thru compliance of their own in order to maintain their own industry. Plants/trees will often spontaneously grow if their environmental conditions are favorably present. Even in the slash-and-burn practices in Brazil and Central America, it is a constant fight to keep these jungles pushed back from overrunning and reclaiming the land. You can't grow daisies at the N pole, and Brazil cannot support permafrost. There are other factors that need to be looked into before the politicians can reach into your pocketbooks and before they can say conclusively that man is the real cause of GW.
Furthermore, some of the statistics of 400k years must be skewed. We know that when Mt St Helens erupted that there was a HUGE spike in CO2, SO2, and ash that those statistics fail to demonstrate. I can only imagine what it was like after the Tambora blast. Or even the super-explosion from Yellowstone? A 'no show'?!?
Is THAT evidence of GW or the old axiom that states 'figures don't lie; but liars do figure'?
Me thinks so!
Correction: the super explosion was 640k years ago.
Please note that time frame is conspicuously missing from the chart above...
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Snyder
EF5
There's a difference between relatively large aerosols that have negative radiative forcing (that is, they have a net cooling effect), and greenhouse gases that have positive radiative forcing. Large particulates that tend to decrease insolation at the surface are often quite visible and cause a lot of the smog, etc. The greenhouse gases (like CO2, SF6, CH4, etc) are largely invisible in terms of what we'd normally call smoggy, nasty pollution. In addition, some greenhouse gases have residence times in the atmosphere on the order of many decades and millenia. In other words, a release of SF6, for example, will stay in the atmosphere for a long, long, long time. A release of some heavy particulates, many of which have a net cooling effect, tends to have a much lower residence time. In that manner, the pollution reduction laws and guidelines actually HAVE had a little warming effect since they have removed a source of cooling. In actuality, it's probably not so much that the pollution control laws have caused some warming, it's more that they have removed a source of man-made cooling.
In addition, recent volcanic explosions haven't actually released that much CO2, particularly compared to anthropogenic releases. Rob, show me a reliable reading that moden volcanoes release such tremendous amounts of CO2, please, and show how the increase in CO2 from such an explosion would outweight the cooling effect of increased stratospheric aerosols. The global CO2 monitoring stations have not shown much of any increase in CO2 caused by recent volcanic eruptions. More important than CO2, volcanoes are very proficient at releasing SO2, which, if expelled high enough into the stratosphere, can become sulphate aerosols and result in global cooling. There are a couple of datasets used that contain estimates of the visible optical depth of aerosols produced from volcanic explosions since the late 1800s, and these are used in some climate models. So, any increase in CO2 or other GHGs from volcanic eruptions can mask any temperature effect they would have because of the overwhelming cooling effect caused by a sudden and significant increase in atmospheric aerosols. Again, we all know that volcanoes can cause rapid and significant climate change. That doesn't prove, however, that humans can't.
In addition, recent volcanic explosions haven't actually released that much CO2, particularly compared to anthropogenic releases. Rob, show me a reliable reading that moden volcanoes release such tremendous amounts of CO2, please, and show how the increase in CO2 from such an explosion would outweight the cooling effect of increased stratospheric aerosols. The global CO2 monitoring stations have not shown much of any increase in CO2 caused by recent volcanic eruptions. More important than CO2, volcanoes are very proficient at releasing SO2, which, if expelled high enough into the stratosphere, can become sulphate aerosols and result in global cooling. There are a couple of datasets used that contain estimates of the visible optical depth of aerosols produced from volcanic explosions since the late 1800s, and these are used in some climate models. So, any increase in CO2 or other GHGs from volcanic eruptions can mask any temperature effect they would have because of the overwhelming cooling effect caused by a sudden and significant increase in atmospheric aerosols. Again, we all know that volcanoes can cause rapid and significant climate change. That doesn't prove, however, that humans can't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Foster
To put a slightly different twist to it....lets assume there is a significant Global Warming event. What is a realistic view for the climate in the next 100 years....if global warming exists. Let's also assume that we humans have been the source of the problem. Would it be fair to say that the source of may of the contributing gases is from burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and assorted gases. If we are consuming so much of these fossil fuels, and we are also saying that these are in limited supply, to possible run out....would it be possible that we'll just run out of the fuel that creates the problem before Global Warming gets really bad....thereby resolving the problem anyway.
Just a quick side thought.
Just a quick side thought.
Simon Brewer
EF3
I had come to the conclusion a while ago that the human effect on global warming was not an issue. The data, not CNN or FOX crap data, is pretty solid in support of human influences on climate change. I mean you can't burn a good chunk of the world's fossil fuels, pump that crap into the atmosphere, and not expect something to happen? I think the real issue is whether human kind should bother to attempt to stop what they started. It's kinda like trying to stop a boulder after you dislodge it from the top of a mountain; maybe we should just let it roll to the bottom and get out of the way.
I think polution is a more important issue. Things will change, the climate will change, so we have to adapt to a new climate, but it would be easier to adapt if our water wasn't poluted with chemicals like; fertilizers, oils, drugs (mostly legal), sewage runoff, toxic waste from factories, etc...
I think polution is a more important issue. Things will change, the climate will change, so we have to adapt to a new climate, but it would be easier to adapt if our water wasn't poluted with chemicals like; fertilizers, oils, drugs (mostly legal), sewage runoff, toxic waste from factories, etc...
Brian Stertz
EF5
Agree with you Simon...the Chesapeake Bay is a classic example of things that have been allowed to go on pollution wise with fertilizer poisoning. This has hurt the marine life to a point that parts of the bay are devoid of anything living including the famous crabs. I visited VA a couple years ago and spoke with a crusty crabman. He said that he is going to have to give up his way of life. He has been a crabber for a long, long time...now GW stuff. I say give Al Gore some red-face as he tries to backpeddle. Be it said that I am not a tree-hugger activist...but that Chesapeake Bay situation kind of bothered me...and I know many other places have been similarly affected.
Brian Emfinger
EF4
Yes its all a big conspiracy.
I would love to see any link, proof, or any evidence at all (there isnt but you can look) that shows St. Helens caused a huge spike in CO2. It didnt.
It doesn't take a smart person to know that all the cars, factories, burning, etc are releasing a lot of CO2 per day.
I had thought most people had moved past the CO2 issue... I wonder if there are still any that think the world is flat as well?
Similar threads
