Sea levels are rising and will continue to rise because LAND ice is melting. The glaciers that cover the landmasses of Greenland and Antarctica. As well as other glaciers in mountain areas around the world, but that's just fractional, compared to Greenland and even more, to Antarctica.
"Antarctica's 'Doomsday Glacier' [is] holding on today [only] by its 'fingernails'"
Memes and truth go with one another about as well as ice cream and sriracha sauce. At least, the memes that keep showing up here. For the most part.
Online disinformation is a problem. Online information is a solution.
This is just as much of a scam as covid. Just enough risk and danger to politicize and spread fear. Just enough BILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$$$ to make the powerful RICH and the masses in chains.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: This is just as much of a scam as covid. Just enough risk and danger to politicize and spread fear. Just enough BILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$$$ to make the powerful RICH and the masses in chains.
I am not going to comment on that, but I want to go back to the meme that was posted towards the end of the previous page. This one:
So what's the point?
No one with any credentials or reputation (among scientists) as a climate researcher is saying that sea levels rise when icebergs or sea ice melt. It's only when LAND ice melts that sea levels rise, as a consequence. Glaciers. Any ice that is on land and not already displacing sea water as it floats within or on top of seawater.
Where does this meme come from? Should I say that it comes from the "Dumb Right"..? That comes to mind because it looks to me like a meme that comes from the same groups of people that are always railing against the "Left" and against "Leftists".
If this is what the minds behind this meme think about the physics of melting ice and sea levels, they're just dumb. Uninformed. Or misinformed. Do they not understand the distinction between land ice and sea ice?
Is this meme meant to say that "Greta Thunberg"—I will use that name as a kind of stand-in for any non-scientist or lay person who thinks of Global Warming as a threat to humanity—believes that sea levels rise when icebergs and ice covering the surface of sea water melts? I'm sure some do, but I know for a fact that many others do not.
It strikes me as a meme that is constructed like this:
A Dumb Right person thinks of something dumb, like "melting icebergs and sea ice (would) cause sea levels to rise."
The Dumb Right person turns it into a meme, for "consumption" by other Dumb Right people.
All of these Dumb Right people tell themselves that this is what the "Left" believes.
All of these Dumb Right people feel smug and self-satisfied, and get a "high" from thinking that they are so much smarter than the "Left".
There are literally thousands of posts over the years on this forum—some are memes, many are not—that adhere to this same script.
I am not going to comment on that, but I want to go back to the meme that was posted towards the end of the previous page. This one:
So what's the point?
No one with any credentials or reputation (among scientists) as a climate researcher is saying that sea levels rise when icebergs or sea ice melt. It's only when LAND ice melts that sea levels rise, as a consequence. Glaciers. Any ice that is on land and not already displacing sea water as it floats within or on top of seawater.
Where does this meme come from? Should I say that it comes from the "Dumb Right"..? That comes to mind because it looks to me like a meme that comes from the same groups of people that are always railing against the "Left" and against "Leftists".
If this is what the minds behind this meme think about the physics of melting ice and sea levels, they're just dumb. Uninformed. Or misinformed. Do they not understand the distinction between land ice and sea ice?
Is this meme meant to say that "Greta Thunberg"—I will use that name as a kind of stand-in for any non-scientist or lay person who thinks of Global Warming as a threat to humanity—believes that sea levels rise when icebergs and ice covering the surface of sea water melts? I'm sure some do, but I know for a fact that many others do not.
It strikes me as a meme that is constructed like this:
A Dumb Right person thinks of something dumb, like "melting icebergs and sea ice (would) cause sea levels to rise."
The Dumb Right person turns it into a meme, for "consumption" by other Dumb Right people.
All of these Dumb Right people tell themselves that this is what the "Left" believes.
All of these Dumb Right people feel smug and self-satisfied, and get a "high" from thinking that they are so much smarter than the "Left".
There are literally thousands of posts over the years on this forum—some are memes, many are not—that adhere to this same script.
Who disagrees?
Yet you and all your other D-evil Kmarx shoppers still live in coastal states with coastal multimill$$$ elitist chateau's. How is Epstein's Island? Is Martha's Vineyard immune from these rising oceans? I think Sol is cooling down or heating up. Trust the scientists... And the gio/engineers for making snow for the elitist skiers
Are you still waiting on the fed gov to mandate for everyone in the country to subsidize your red 88 GT with it's hemp/unicorn stool tires to be converted to all electric? Like all the other D's who don't live how they preach and force everyone else to live?
Remember that island a few years ago that the lefties had to evacuate everyone from because it would soon be underwater?
It's still there... And the land still reaches the water at the same point.
Stop being a 🐑🐏
That is a constant theme for decades with Leftist climate alarmists and weather whackos.
They bounce from one failed catastrophic prediction to the next never batting an eye.
“‘The trouble with almost all environmental problems,’ says Paul R. Ehrlich, the population biologist, ‘is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. … We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.’” —The New York Times, 1969.
“No real action has been taken to save the environment, [Ehrlich] maintains. And it does need saving. Ehrlich predicts that the oceans will be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade.” —Redlands Daily Facts, 1970.
“Scientist Predicts a New Ice Age by 21st Century: Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century. … If the current rate of increase in electric power generation continues, the demands for cooling water will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States. … By the next century ‘the consumption of oxygen in combustion processes, world-wide, will surpass all of the processes which return oxygen to the atmosphere.’” —The Boston Globe, 1970.
“The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. … ‘In the next 50 years,’ the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. If sustained ‘over several years’—‘five to 10,’ he estimated—‘such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!’” —Washington Post, Times Herald, 1971.
“Dear Mr. President: … We feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. … The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. … The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century.” —Brown University, Department of Geological Sciences, 1972.
“However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.” – Time Magazine, 1974.
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere—from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 [degrees] F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.” —Time magazine, 1974.
“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” —Associated Press, 1989.
“Unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” —former Vice President Al Gore, 2006.
“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” —Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), 2019.
"HOW DARE YOU!" -- An autistic Swedish high school dropout
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-13-2022).]
That was a "grab bag" of remarks from previous years, going all the way back to the "Dark Ages" of climate science, before systematic monitoring of sea levels from earth-orbiting satellites.
The Copernicus Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich satellite or "Sentinel 6" is producing the data for the most complete and the most accurate measurements of sea levels around the world in the history of climate science. It was launched by the European Space Agency on November 21, 2020.
The data from Sentinel-6 is part of what informs the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA, within the U.S. Department of Commerce.
quote
The [2022] Sea Level Rise Technical Report provides the most up-to-date sea level rise projections available for all U.S. states and territories; decision-makers will look to it for information.
This multi-agency effort, representing the first update since 2017, offers projections out to the year 2150 and information to help communities assess potential changes in average tide heights and height-specific threshold frequencies as they strive to adapt to sea level rise.
The Next 30 Years of Sea Level Rise Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 - 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 - 2020). Sea level rise will vary regionally along U.S. coasts because of changes in both land and ocean height.
More Damaging Flooding Projected Sea level rise will create a profound shift in coastal flooding over the next 30 years by causing tide and storm surge heights to increase and reach further inland. By 2050, “moderate” (typically damaging) flooding is expected to occur, on average, more than 10 times as often as it does today, and can be intensified by local factors.
Emissions Matter Current and future emissions matter. About 2 feet (0.6 meters) of sea level rise along the U.S. coastline is increasingly likely between 2020 and 2100 because of emissions to date. Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 - 5 feet (0.5 - 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 - 7 feet (1.1 - 2.1 meters) by the end of this century.
They're talking about Greenhouse Gas emissions caused by humans, including carbon dioxide or CO2, the most commonly talked-about Greenhouse Gas.
Continual Tracking Continuously tracking how and why sea level is changing is an important part of informing plans for adaptation. Our ability to monitor and understand the individual factors that contribute to sea level rise allows us to track sea level changes in a way that has never before been possible (e.g., using satellites to track global ocean levels and ice sheet thickness). Ongoing and expanded monitoring will be critical as sea levels continue to rise.
Originally posted by olejoedad: Someone remind me how long ago was it that environmentalists were warning about clear-cutting the Amazon rainforest.
I don't know what you think is going on there, in Brazil and the other Amazon basin countries, or why you (apparently) think that was a false alarm or a case of environmentalists "Crying Wolf."
I"m sure Tucker Carlson has the answer.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-13-2022).]
I don't know what you think is going on there, in Brazil and the other Amazon basin countries, or why you (apparently) think that was a false alarm or a case of environmentalists "Crying Wolf."
I"m sure Tucker Carlson has the answer.
You have a knack for not understanding sarcasm.
The Amazon rainforest was a huge CO2 absorber.
Perhaps you should ask Mr. Carlson if you value his opinion, as I do not watch his show.
Originally posted by olejoedad: You have a knack for not understanding sarcasm. The Amazon rainforest was a huge CO2 absorber...
Ah. I didn't "get your drift."
I don't think the Amazon rainforest and all the other forests and wetlands around the world could soak up all the CO2 that's needed to checkmate global warming—even if these natural carbon absorbers were being preserved and protected against the encroachments of loggers, farmers, miners and the like.
But here's "fresh comfort", in a new report from Reuters on "Project Bison", which is linked to the newly enacted federal Inflation Reduction Act.
quote
WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters)—A Los Angeles-based company kicked off on Thursday what it said will be the first large-scale direct air capture (DAC) project to capture and store 5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030, benefiting from new U.S. government incentives.
This is a technology that removes the heat-trapping carbon dioxide or "CO2" molecules from the air and "throws them away" in underground wells, to help put the brakes on global warming. That's all it does—remove CO2 molecules from the air—but since that's the only thing it does, it can be engineered in an optimal way to do it very efficiently, and using so little energy that it does not becomes self-defeating.
quote
The passage in August of new law by Congress accelerated the launch of Project Bison by a couple months, giving CarbonCapture and the DAC industry the financial support and long-term certainty needed to scale up the technology, CarbonCapture CEO Adrian Corless told Reuters.
“With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the proliferation of companies seeking high quality carbon removal credits, and a disruptive low-cost technology, we now have the ingredients needed to scale DAC to megaton levels by the end of this decade,” said Corless.
quote
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said large-scale carbon removal technologies like DAC will be needed in the coming decades to limit global warming to 1.5C and avoid increasingly severe climate impacts.
And (having formerly been the keeper of a "lightning tracker" computer at the power company) I'm guessing that the ability to detect/track/record lightning strikes has gotten maybe a bit better since 1955. Maybe?
no your one minor eruption in dec 0 3 2015 did not produce 10,000 times more CO2
YOU FAIL AT MATH
BY A LOT
DO YOU EVER FACT CHECK ?
OR JUST LIE FOR THE RUMP
Claim A single eruption from a volcano puts 10,000 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all of human activity has throughout history. Rating False False About this rating Origin
The myth that a single volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind to date, let alone 10,000 times more, is one of the most pervasive as well as one of the most demonstrably false climatological claims out there. It stems, ultimately, from a geologist named Ian Rutherford Plimer, infamous for writing a widely discredited book titled Heaven and Earth, which attempted to argue that humans have had an insignificant effect on global climate.
In a 2009 editorial written for Australia’s ABC news, he echoed a sentiment he had argued with similar inelegance in his book by providing the following statement, widely spread nearly word-for-word in climate skeptic circles, without any supporting citation: “Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”
This brief statement — a mere 28 words — yields a remarkably dense buffet of spurious claims and outright falsehoods. It also is rife with ambiguity. What numbers is he actually comparing? What is a volcanic “cough”? From a fact-checking standpoint, there are no interpretations of Plimer’s second sentence that can produce a factual assertion. The only way to make the first sentence work is with a scientifically useless comparison. All other interpretations fall well short of reality.
That useless comparison would be the total mass of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by human activity (roughly calculated here by taking the roughly 120 ppm rise in CO2 since pre-industrial times converted into 936.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide gas) compared to the total mass of the entire atmosphere (estimated to be around 5,100,000 gigatons). This yields roughly 1 part post-industrial CO2 rise in 10,000 parts of the entire atmosphere.
As CO2, in total, makes up only about 0.06% by mass of the atmosphere and 0.04% by volume, this is not exactly revelatory. The question is not about how much other stuff is in the atmosphere. Rather, the question is about how much stuff humans are adding that wouldn’t already be in the atmosphere, and, as a result, what the the potential for that amount would be to affect climate — a topic for which there is a wide scientific consensus.
The erroneous interpretation that many have made from Plimer’s statement would be the assertion that the total amount of carbon released by humanity throughout all time (represented here as gigatons or petagrams of carbon, not carbon dioxide) represents only 1/10,000th (0.01%) of the total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These numbers do not check out, even when checked against collected data that ends in the year 2000, according calculations provided by the federally-funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center:
According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From […] above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
A more scientifically valid approach, perhaps, would be to compare annual volcanic emissions fluxes to annual anthropogenic fluxes, as the carbon cycle is an ever-shifting network of sources and sinks of CO2 that need to be accounted for. A 2013 review attempted to estimate the annual contribution of CO2 emitted from all volcanoes (active and passive) and other tectonic sources on Earth per year, coming up with a figure of 540 megatons per year (note that these measurements, unlike the ones above, represent the total mass of CO2 not solely the carbon component):
[CO2 from the plumes of actively erupting volcanoes]:
Using the available data from plume measurements from 33 degassing volcanoes we determine a total CO2 flux of 59.7 Mt/yr. Extrapolating this to ~150 active volcanoes produces a total of 271 Mt/yr CO2.
[CO2 passively vented by active volcanoes]:
Extrapolation of the measured 6.4 Mt/yr of CO2 emitted from the flanks of 30 historically active volcanoes to all 550 historically active volcanoes produces a global emission rate of 117 Mt/yr.
[CO2 from other volcanic sources]:
Perez et al. (2011) calculated the global emission from volcanic lakes to be 94 Mt/yr CO2. The sum of these fluxes produces an updated estimate of the global subaerial volcanic CO2 flux of 474 Mt/yr. Emissions from tectonic, hydrothermal and inactive volcanic areas contribute a further 66 Mt/yr to this total […], producing a total subaerial volcanic emission of 540 Mt/yr.
While the authors of this study note that this is an exceedingly rough estimate, they also point out that it is orders of magnitude lower than estimates of the annual flux of CO2 added to the atmosphere through human activity, currently estimated to be around 35,000 Mt/year:
The global subaerial CO2 flux we report is higher than previous estimates, but remains insignificant relative to anthropogenic emissions, which are two orders of magnitude greater at 35,000 Mt/yr.
Once again, the actual numbers bear no resemblance to Plimer’s claims. It would have to be a pretty heavy volcanic “cough” from a “single volcano” to, by itself, increase Earth’s annual volcanic CO2 flux by a factor of 65.
Absurdity notwithstanding, numerous online claims reference specific volcanic eruptions purported to have added more than the total emission of anthropogenic carbon ever released (a value, estimated above, to be more than 282 Gt of carbon). The most commonly cited are the 15 June 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo and the 18 May 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Mount St. Helens released 0.01 Gt to the atmosphere and Mount Pinatubo released 0.05 Gt. Put another way:
There is no question that very large volcanic eruptions can inject significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens vented approximately 10 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in only 9 hours.
However, it currently takes humanity only 2.5 hours to put out the same amount. While large explosive eruptions like this are rare and only occur globally every 10 years or so, humanity’s emissions are ceaseless and increasing every year.
A more accurate rendering of Plimer’s claim would be something like “3500 Mount St Helens-scale volcanic ‘coughs’ in a single day might be able to produce as much CO2 as humans have added to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels to date.” Such a headline would be unlikely to have the same effect as the original one, however. Recent Updates
Update [June 29, 2022]: Updated SEO/social.
Alex Kasprak Dan Evon
Published 16 December 2015 Updated 29 June 2022
Climate Change Sources
Cook, John. “101 Responses to Ian Plimer’s Climate Questions.” Skeptical Science. 9 May 2012.
Monbiot, George. “Ian Plimer’s Volcano Claims Vaporise Under Questioning on Australian TV.” The Guardian. 16 December 2009.
Pilmer, Ian. “Legislative Time Bomb.” ABC News [Australia]. 13 August 2009.
Cook, John, et al. “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.” Environmental Research Letters, 15 May 2013.
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. “Frequently Asked Global Change Questions.”
Houghton, Richard A. “Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes 1850-2005.” A Compendium of Data on Global Change, 2008.
Burton, Michael R. et al. “Deep Carbon Emissions from Volcanoes.” Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry. 13 February 2013.
Perez, Nemesio M., et al. “Global CO2 Emission from Volcanic Lakes.” Geology. February 2011.
Friedlingstein, P. et al. “Update on CO2 Emissions” Nature Geoscience. 21 November 2010.
United State Geological Survey. “Volcanoes Can Affect the Earth’s Climate.” Accessed 24 March 2017.
this is not lauren boebert with two half-naked men
WOW A "rinselesque" HUGE text wall of unreadable obfuscation and bullshit.
quote
Originally posted by ray b:
DO YOU EVER FACT CHECK ?
Claim A single eruption from a volcano puts 10,000 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all of human activity has throughout history. Rating False False About this rating Origin
Leftists gotta Leftist ...and they love them some cut & paste "fact checkin"
.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-14-2022).]
WOW. A "rinselesque" HUGE text wall of unreadable obfuscation and bullshit.
Let's have a review:
Forum member "randye" uses a meme to assert that a recent, minor volcanic eruption put 10,000 times more carbon dioxide or "CO2" into the air than all of the CO2 that humans have ever produced.
Forum member "rayb" posts a Fact Check from Snopes that if true, pulverizes "randye's" assertion, turning it into meaningless dust.
Forum member "rinselberg" finds the Snopes that "ray b" posted and remarks that it includes, at the end, no less than 10 references to various subject matter experts, including the U.S. Geological Survey.
Forum member "randye" responds with another meme about "Fact Checks" that is completely general, has nothing to do with volcanos, CO2 or any other science, and is no more impressive than his previous meme about volcanos and CO2.
So far, forum member "randye" has not said anything about volcanos and CO2 that has any credibility. Unless he can provide some sources or other support for the meme that he posted:
Did forum member "randye" get that from some article about, or authored by Ian Rutherford Plimer, who is described in the Snopes Fact Check that "ray b" posted?
Or is it just a meme that caught "randye's" eye when he was rummaging through Truth Social* or 4chan or whatever dark, moldy subterranean levels of the Internet that he uses for his "research"..?
"Whobody knows"
* Truth Social is the "rump's" substitute for Twitter. From which (Twitter) he's famously been banned.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-14-2022).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Let's have a review: <Snip>
Forum member "rayb" posts a Fact Check from Snopes"..? <Snip> "Whobody knows"
I'll believe it when the Snopes pedalers of net word **** leaves the coastal, soon to be flooded, landmass of California. Like yourself. But it won't happen. Just like I'm not expecting the elites to give up their beach front properties.
With all this high tech orbiting and pointing down on us, they still can't find all the gold on the planet. Loch Ness monster "Nessie". Jimmy Hoffa. Hildabeast's emails. Brandons brain.
Forum member "randye", wallowing in his obsession with banal and childish Internet memes, has now revealed everything he knows about volcanos and carbon dioxide:
Click to show
The forum is pleased to know.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2022).]
The Internet meme that echoes some remarks from the controversial Australian geologist, academic and author Ian Rutherford Plimer.
The last three paragraphs of what Snopes(.com) had to say about it:
quote
There is no question that very large volcanic eruptions can inject significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens vented approximately 10 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in only 9 hours.
However, it currently takes humanity only 2.5 hours to put out the same amount. While large explosive eruptions like this are rare and only occur globally every 10 years or so, humanity’s emissions are ceaseless and increasing every year.
A more accurate rendering of [Ian Rutherford] Plimer’s claim would be something like “3500 Mount St Helens-scale volcanic ‘coughs’ in a single day might be able to produce as much CO2 as humans have added to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels to date.” Such a headline would be unlikely to have the same effect as the original one, however.
So, minor volcanic events, or even the next Mount St. Helens-scale volcanic eruption, massively outweighing or even roughly equaling the human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere?
Not even close, according to the Snopes analysis, which is buttressed by a formidable phalanx of 10 different sources for reference, including one from the U.S. Geological Survey.
But what about a "super volcano" eruption? An eruption of a scale that hasn't been witnessed in the relatively brief history of human civilization—about 10,000 years—compared to the Earth's 4+ billion years of planetary and geologic history?
If that were to happen, I'm guessing that the human contributions to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will move to the back burner, as far as social media conversations.
"You make the call."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2022).]
Brought to you through encouragement of liberal professors and by executive edict from the Biden Administration to all of the agencies and departments listed.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Brought to you through encouragement of liberal professors and by executive edict from the Biden Administration to all of the agencies and departments listed.
If there are not so many conservative professors, it might be for perfectly logical reasons. Especially, when it comes to climate research and trying to figure out what likely lies ahead in terms of sea levels, temperature regimes, rainfall patterns and the like.
But it's so much easier to post pointless and nonsensical Internet memes about Greta Thunberg or the equally ridiculous meme that is the last meme that "checked into this thread" before this point.
How does spewing nonsense about volcanos and carbon dioxide—nonsense of the kind that I've documented in this thread—do anything to discredit the likes of the most referenced and talked about climate researchers, such as Michael E. Mann? (Just the first name I could think of.)
Edited to add: I should have said that forum member "ray b" was the first to document in this thread... credit where credit is due.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2022).]
Hope you've read through the last page of this thread, or at least from the point where the word "volcano" (it was in an image meme) first entered the discussion. Or at least from here: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/.../000262-11.html#p434
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2022).]
