It's been posted more than once on this forum:

quote Why all the concern about carbon dioxide emissions from human activities, when just one volcano emits so much more carbon dioxide..?

Terry Gerlach was a volcanic gas geochemist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey.

His new article "addresses the widespread mis-perception in the media, the blogosphere, and much of the climate skeptic literature that volcanic CO2 emissions greatly exceed anthropogenic CO2 emissions".

quote The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

In other words, year in and year out, human activities emit 100 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than volcanoes.

For more--and a link to Gerlach's new article:
http://www.realclimate.org/...genic-co2/#more-8349

I don't expect to change anyone's opinion about whether or not the earth's climate is changing, and how much of that could be attributed to human activities.

But I hope to catch some of the ones here who posted their opinion about CO2 from volcanoes vs. humans and say "Really?" "Do you have a source or reason for your post?"

It doesn't matter. CO2 isn't driving temperature like they claimed. 10 years of flat temperatures, and the recent paper with ACTUAL DATA showing that neither CO2 nor the alleged forcings from feedbacks are showing up in the climate system.

sun is somewhat down in out put now
do to low spot cycle
and record heat
an 2010 was record heat global avg
something is happening
and the bear has dogma but no data
and data always beats dogma

btw seen a polar ice chart recently ??

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

What does CO2 do for GW anyway? The true "greenhouse gas" is largely ignored by everyone in this argument, despite the fact that there is 10X more of it than CO2 - up to 100X more close to the Earth's surface. In fact, there is so much of it, it is frequently visible from the ground.

Yet there remains no mention of DHMO.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: What does CO2 do for GW anyway? The true "greenhouse gas" is largely ignored by everyone in this argument, despite the fact that there is 10X more of it than CO2 - up to 100X more close to the Earth's surface. In fact, there is so much of it, it is frequently visible from the ground. Yet there remains no mention of DHMO.

They're trying to ban it...

The weakening, dissipation, migration and proliferation of the magnetic poles have a greater effect on increased global warming with increased solar radiation than CO2.

See it "doesn't matter" and then the distraction starts.

Ignore the science, what good has that ol' book learnin ever done anyways. I hear dumping sewage into waterways can't hurt either, I mean it's natural.


Nice try Rinselberg but obviously it's not a science or education thing it's a right vs left issue, like everything is in some peoples eyes.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: See it "doesn't matter" and then the distraction starts.

If CO2 isn't causing any measurable rise in temperature, then no, it doesn't matter.

quote Ignore the science

Dr. Roy Spencer's latest paper shows that real world data (observations) indicates heat isn't being trapped like the warmists said. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter. And that IS SCIENCE.

so why is the avg heat up
while the sun is a little less active
and arctic ice at a new record low

clues are adding up fast

quote Originally posted by ray b: so why is the avg heat up while the sun is a little less active and arctic ice at a new record low clues are adding up fast

Average heat is NOT up.

quote Originally posted by ray b: so why is the avg heat up while the sun is a little less active and arctic ice at a new record low clues are adding up fast

Quit using the weather to discuss the climate. Just because it's a hundred degrees today doesn't mean that the average global temperature is up. One data point doeth not a conclusion make.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Quit using the weather to discuss the climate. Just because it's a hundred degrees today doesn't mean that the average global temperature is up. One data point doeth not a conclusion make.

Those who do not believe, or not want to, jump on any little thing they can find. There are plenty of studies showing that the vast majority of scientists who study this stuff say it's real. Those who disagree work for oil companies as geologists, and half of them believe as well. It is pure folly to think we can pump hundreds of millions of tons of pollutants into our air and not cause problems with the narrow BALANCE of nature that lets us be here.

Don't worry Weaselbeak, they'll change their tune when the world is nearly completely inhospitable to human life. When finger pointing, for the most part, will be useless... thats when, with their last burning breath, they'll most likely blame... Obama!

"Only after the last tree has been cut down;
Only after the last fish has been caught;
Only after the last river has been poisoned;
Only then will you realize
that money cannot be eaten."

- Cree Indian Prophecy

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-05-2011).]

look at this, then speak - we are far from 'record' world temperatures.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

I believe the sun is the largest contributor of our weather...

quote Originally posted by weaselbeak: There are plenty of studies showing that the vast majority of scientists who study this stuff say it's real.

"Vast majority" doesn't matter. That's a narrative that has been very successful at ensnaring people like you that are impressive with numbers and majorities, but it has nothing to do with how science is done.

quote Those who disagree work for oil companies as geologists, and half of them believe as well.

Another created false narrative about dissenting scientists "work for oil companies."

quote It is pure folly to think we can pump hundreds of millions of tons of pollutants into our air and not cause problems with the narrow BALANCE of nature that lets us be here.

CO2 isn't pollution. You want to work on cutting other pollution? No problem. But CO2 isn't pollution. Taxing CO2 will be the END of our economy and your way of life. And I'm surprised how hard it is to get this point across on a CAR FORUM for a car that emits CO2, and what effect CO2 taxing would have.

well, CO2 is NOT the only thing volcanos spew forth. sulfer based oxides is another major output. and, there is also the sun blocking particulates.

and, more importantly, volcanos have been part of the equation all along. they are part of the balance. part of the cycles.

NASA data said

NASA’s announcement this year – that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record – made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?

Not all that much, emphasizes James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. In the GISS analysis, for example, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 0.01°C (0.018 °F), a difference so small that the temperatures of these two years are indistinguishable, given the uncertainty of the calculation.

Meanwhile, the third warmest year -- 2009 -- is so close to 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007, with the maximum difference between the years being a mere 0.03°C, that all six years are virtually tied.

Even for a near record-breaking year like 2010 the broader context is more important than a single year. “Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

from

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/...climate-records.html

not some nut blog like you post here but real hard data not dogma

quote Originally posted by ray b: ...131-year instrumental record ... ...not some nut blog like you post here but real hard data not dogma

...yes sure in the last 131 years, MAYBE the temp has risen, but how does that compare to the last 4 billion years and the FACT that remains is that we are still in the longest cooling cycle yet???

...ANY scienctist will tell you that when you have a small batch of data it will give you inconsistant results - when talking about global weather, should this data not be expanded to include the whole life of the earth? When someone finds a cure for say cancer, they HAVE to backup their claims with all the data they have to prove it. Why is it that when talking about global warming, they ONLY select data from the last few hundred years?? Why, because it proves their claim and as such need MORE grant money for the government so they can continue thier work (ie: have a job) - that is bottom line that is all there is to it.

quote Originally posted by weaselbeak: Those who do not believe, or not want to, jump on any little thing they can find. There are plenty of studies showing that the vast majority of scientists who study this stuff say it's real. Those who disagree work for oil companies as geologists, and half of them believe as well. It is pure folly to think we can pump hundreds of millions of tons of pollutants into our air and not cause problems with the narrow BALANCE of nature that lets us be here.

Yup, unfortunately some think that because the talking heads and "their" side of the political aisle say it's not happening they will blindly follow.

Amazing how they claim that it's all a big conspiracy to control their money while never questioning who HAS the actual power. But no no it's the researchers who are getting rich, certainly not anyone else. Ignore...deflect...fear......hate...and deny...the spin machine sells the sheep what they want to hear and the sheep love it.

Strikingly similar to the tobacco debate IMO, I believe PT Barnum made an appropriate quote once.

People still believe we can dump tons of crap into a bubble with no effect...suuuuure. Let me see if I can guess one of the counter arguements....but....but....C02 is not a pollutant!! Either is water to a human body but if you drink to much you die.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: It's been posted more than once on this forum: In other words, year in and year out, human activities emit 100 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than volcanoes. For more--and a link to Gerlach's new article: http://www.realclimate.org/...genic-co2/#more-8349 I don't expect to change anyone's opinion about whether or not the earth's climate is changing, and how much of that could be attributed to human activities. But I hope to catch some of the ones here who posted their opinion about CO2 from volcanoes vs. humans and say "Really?" "Do you have a source or reason for your post?"

Accoring to scientists climates changed long before the combustion engine or coal burning. Ice ages, etc.
What is your argument for climate change before people?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: let's see your figures please.

see link that I posted.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Accoring to scientists climates changed long before the combustion engine or coal burning. Ice ages, etc. What is your argument for climate change before people?

Your statement (or question) is not relevant to today's concerns about human greenhouse gas emissions and the possibility of human-driven climate change. In the long run (tens of thousands of years into the future and beyond) there may be natural causes of climate change that are far beyond our current capabilities (or even imagination of how) to counteract. This argument is only about the climate changes that started recently--and that will continue at some level for the next 100 years. Depending on what happens or doesn't happen along the lines of curbing human greenhouse gas emissions.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: see link that I posted.

Really? Do you mean that graph? If so take into account the time span that is showing and what the science of climate change is saying.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Dr. Roy Spencer's latest paper shows that real world data (observations) indicates heat isn't being trapped like the warmists said. If that's the case, then it [CO2 emissions] doesn't matter. And that IS SCIENCE.

Here's a link to Spencer's latest report:

"On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance"
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

If you are educated enough to actually understand any of it, my hat's off to you: It's way over my head.

This report was just published at the end of July.

If it's true, it is (probably) a very welcome development. You might even call it "A Convenient Truth". But is it true? And how would it become commonly accepted by a majority of scientists, instead of the other climate models which predict significant global warming driven by man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

Since I don't understand Spencer's report, I don't know how exactly it would become commonly accepted by a majority of climate scientists.

I simply await further developments--and retain some skepticism about the probability of anthropogenic global warming--and at least as much skepticism about what's going on on Spencer's (and fierobear's) side of the fence.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: If it's true, it is (probably) a very welcome development. You might even call it "A Convenient Truth". But is it true? And how would it become commonly accepted by a majority of scientists, instead of the other climate models which predict significant global warming driven by man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

Spencer's paper is based on satellite DATA - real world data. The "climate models" are only that - computer programs designed to guess what will happen.

Think about that - real world data versus a computer program. Which would you think would be more important?

quote Since I don't understand Spencer's report, I don't know how exactly it would become commonly accepted by a majority of climate scientists.

Well, two things. First, Spencer's paper shows that the climate models (and the basic assumptions about human CO2 warming) are wrong. The atmosphere doesn't retain as much heat as has been assumed under the theory of possible catastrophic warming. I'm looking for a good "layman's" breakdown of what the paper means. I'll post if I find it.

Second, I don't expect it to be widely accepted because it will step on too many toes. In other words, if this paper is correct, a lot of climate scientists will lose a crapload of funding. Nobody likes to be out of a job, including scientists, and global warming is a massive cash-cow for research money.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-...rmism-192334971.html

quote The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

http://www.realclimate.org/...emperature-feedback/

Just skimmed the thread, but has anyone mentioned solar dimming yet? Temperatures rise when traffic or flights are cancelled en masse, and measure are being taken to increase the solar dimming effect. This is one reason that global climate change is somewhat masked. And it's not global warming, it's climate change. Well both, but apparently saying "warming" confuses some people.

Want to reduce CO2? Plant trees.

Carbon-gobbling trees in Northwest forests change the forest equation, a new study finds

quote Trees will mop up our carbon, if left alone. A near halt to logging in the Northwest's federal forests has left a lot of trees standing in the past two decades, and a new study shows a robust forest can help combat climate change by trapping carbon dioxide emissions. And it soaks up more than we knew. Researchers from the U.S. Forest Service and Oregon State University show for the first time just how much carbon unharvested Northwest forests can trap. These forests now constitute a carbon "sink" for the first time in decades.

Recent reports indicate that the Spotted Owl population continues to decline even with the logging ban in place.
Coincidentally, a new reason not to log has emerged.

quote Originally posted by newf: http://www.realclimate.org/...emperature-feedback/

I wouldn't believe a word they say at "realclimate.nonsense"

Besides...

Answered here

quote Originally posted by fierobear: CO2 isn't pollution. You want to work on cutting other pollution? No problem. But CO2 isn't pollution. Taxing CO2 will be the END of our economy and your way of life. And I'm surprised how hard it is to get this point across on a CAR FORUM for a car that emits CO2, and what effect CO2 taxing would have.

You need to do some research. Water isn't "pollution" either, but too much will drown you. There are numerous polls involving the world's scientists, which you can ignore as you don't like the results. And the ONLY group in those polls that only halfway disagrees are geologists. Maybe you think huge numbers of them don't work for oil companies, but big oil doesn't drill at total random.

I'm willing to listen to that, but here's what I want to know...

I have seen on multiple situations, a timeline of major volcanic eruptions, matched up to a timeline of ozone depletion / O2 measurements... and there was ALWAYS a spike in the ozone chart at the exact same time that there was a major volcanic eruption.

So as my good buddy Ed Begley Jr would say... "are your articles peer reviewed?"

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Average heat is NOT up.

May or may not be. I'm not sure. But recent heat is definitely ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, CO2 is NOT the only thing volcanos spew forth. sulfer based oxides is another major output. and, there is also the sun blocking particulates. and, more importantly, volcanos have been part of the equation all along. they are part of the balance. part of the cycles.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm willing to listen to that, but here's what I want to know... I have seen on multiple situations, a timeline of major volcanic eruptions, matched up to a timeline of ozone depletion / O2 measurements... and there was ALWAYS a spike in the ozone chart at the exact same time that there was a major volcanic eruption. So as my good buddy Ed Begley Jr would say... "are your articles peer reviewed?"

We are living in an age of occasional, mild to moderate volcanic eruptions. There's no doubt that these sporadic eruptions affect the global climate, but the effects are short-lived. Volcanic dust and sulfur dioxide--and that "spike" of ozone that 82-T/A has cited--clear up within a year or two (or three?) and these levels go back to what they were before the latest eruption.

Human activities, on the other hand, are injecting about 100 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere during an average year, compared to volcanoes. And the elevated CO2 content of the atmosphere is not short-lived--it persists for thousands of years. The atmospheric CO2 is slowly (over thousands of years) recaptured by the oceans, which theoretically could imply a higher level of acidity throughout the world's oceans and seas. (Some scientists are claiming that they can already measure higher levels of ocean acidity..)

Will elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 be the cause of major global warming as the 21st century progresses? I don't know. Many scientists seem to be saying "Yes". Some (like Dr. Roy Spencer) are saying "No".

I just want to shoot down the particular recurring myth (and recurring on this forum) that human activities are insignificant, compared to volcanoes, when you consider the effects on atmospheric physics and chemistry.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Average heat is NOT up.

It IS here.
http://www.accuweather.com/...h.asp?mnyr=7-01-2011

Link is the calendar chart for July in my home town. Our AVERAGE July high temperature is 84 degrees. In the month of July, we had 5 whole days that matched the average or were slightly below it. (Lowest being 81 degrees F on July 14th) That means 26 days of the last 31 were above our average. That is +2.74 degrees from our average. (86.74 average for this July)

How does that not make average heat up?

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I wouldn't believe a word they say at "realclimate.nonsense" Besides... Answered here

I wouldn't expect you to. Be sure to buy Roy Spenser's latest book Bear, which is it this time, how evolution didn't happen?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: We are living in an age of occasional, mild to moderate volcanic eruptions. There's no doubt that these sporadic eruptions affect the global climate, but the effects are short-lived. Volcanic dust and sulfur dioxide--and that "spike" of ozone that 82-T/A has cited--clear up within a year or two (or three?) and these levels go back to what they were before the latest eruption. Human activities, on the other hand, are injecting about 100 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere during an average year, compared to volcanoes. And the elevated CO2 content of the atmosphere is not short-lived--it persists for thousands of years. The atmospheric CO2 is slowly (over thousands of years) recaptured by the oceans, which theoretically could imply a higher level of acidity throughout the world's oceans and seas. (Some scientists are claiming that they can already measure higher levels of ocean acidity..) Will elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 be the cause of major global warming as the 21st century progresses? I don't know. Many scientists seem to be saying "Yes". Some (like Dr. Roy Spencer) are saying "No". I just want to shoot down the particular recurring myth (and recurring on this forum) that human activities are insignificant, compared to volcanoes, when you consider the effects on atmospheric physics and chemistry.

Yeah, the spikes on the graphs that I would see were VERY apparent, but they usually did drop back to normal within 5 years.

I remember though that one of the lowest points in recorded history was during the US Industrial Era... which has always confused me because that was the dirtiest time in American history.

That said, India, China, and other companies are currently going through their own industrial era now, which COULD be used to explain why the charts show it to be especially bad right now.


I'd rather be safe than sorry with respect to the environment, but I'm still not a believer. I think there's a lot that we DO need to do though, and that (as far as I'm concerned) has to do with preventing the polution of ground water, bogs, marshes, swamps, and improving recycling. In South Florida, Waste Management is really big on recycling. I come here to Maryland, and no one does recycling collection??? Maybe they just go through all the trash? Not sure though... I should find out.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'd rather be safe than sorry with respect to the environment, but I'm still not a believer. I think there's a lot that we DO need to do though, and that (as far as I'm concerned) has to do with preventing the polution of ground water, bogs, marshes, swamps, and improving recycling.

THIS!

I agree 100% with Todd.. Environmentalism, even if "not needed"still becomes conservationism, and that can bring costs down on certain things regardless of environmental impact. Thats good enough for me to pitch in. I would rather be safe than sorry myself. Good post.