Google Carbonate Compensation Depth if you want to learn more.
Volcanic Eruptions Cause Global Cooling: Man Made Pollution Has a Very Small Effect
- Thread starter Jhon Cooper Matrin
- Start date
Google Carbonate Compensation Depth if you want to learn more.
. . . I believe (you can confirm, however) that Esoterist first breached the politics boundary with his suggestion to 'tax' breathing . . . I was just humorously responding . . . . geesh!
. . .been there . . . done that (even before Google, or the internet were conceived) . . . CCD is why CO2 (temporarilly-sequestered as CO3= in marine critters' 'shell' material) is lost (dissolved) at deeper, cold ocean depths . . . . any more 'variables'?
Trippy: Sorry for this enquiry . . . if it infringes on your posted warning . . . I'm unsure whether this warning was directed solely to me . . . or also for, Kwilborn (post #4), . . . or Billvon (post #6) . . . or Origin (post #2). . . . or The Esoterest (post #15) . . . or the original post Jhon Cooper Matrin (Post #1).
Thanks for your clarification . . . . I await your response . . . First-and-only warnings are serious!!
Thanks wlminex. I was generally responding to all posters who were posting to the political nature of the topic as well. I will refrain from posting in the thread hence forth. All I meant to interject was that BRIC nations don't see this issue as straight forward as the people posting would have it seem that it is seen. :truce: You'll hear from me no more on this line of reasoning unless the poster of the OP requests moving the thread to where it more appropriately belongs due to the title anyhow.
No foul meant.
(BTW, it was my 10 year old son that noted the absurdity of considering CO2 a taxable pollutant and thought that the governments would think of taxing breathing next. . . that's what he said to me. Due credit goes to him for that absurd? leap in logic.
)
It was a general comment.
I'm generally fairly tolerant with some degree of political discussion, but not if it hijacks the thread. Mostly I'm tolerant because with the remedial approach being taken in general by most governments, discussion must neccessarily contain some elements of politics, however, that doesn't mean it has to become a political discussion.
I'm not interested in hosting discussions about unverifiable shadowy lizard driven conspiracy theories, or political diatribes. In truth I was half tempted to cess this thread because of the OP, however it seemed to be generating some reasonable discussion.
If you want to know my personal opinion as a poster, and a 'citizen', well, irrespective of whether or not I disagree with it, I can see it as an inevitability of modern society. This is where we've put ourselves, and a carbon tax is the inevitable outcome of the position we've put ourselves in. I can see the merits, but I can also see some mighty big flaws.
I'm generally fairly tolerant with some degree of political discussion, but not if it hijacks the thread. Mostly I'm tolerant because with the remedial approach being taken in general by most governments, discussion must neccessarily contain some elements of politics, however, that doesn't mean it has to become a political discussion.
I'm not interested in hosting discussions about unverifiable shadowy lizard driven conspiracy theories, or political diatribes. In truth I was half tempted to cess this thread because of the OP, however it seemed to be generating some reasonable discussion.
If you want to know my personal opinion as a poster, and a 'citizen', well, irrespective of whether or not I disagree with it, I can see it as an inevitability of modern society. This is where we've put ourselves, and a carbon tax is the inevitable outcome of the position we've put ourselves in. I can see the merits, but I can also see some mighty big flaws.
Jhon Cooper Matrin
Registered Member
One of the incentives for preparing the posting of the discussion of volcanic eruptions on the internet was to draw attention to the history and the scientific information existing on the effects of volcano’s on global climates. It appears that the responders, in general, are not familiar with the history and science on the subject. To understand the subject of volcanic eruptions requires much time and effort. My posting was very brief and much material was left out. I hope my efforts will encourage those truly interested in the subject to do their own research starting with an open mind and considering the long and short term effects of the eruptions. The effects of volcanic eruptions on climate are extremely important and have not been properly evaluated at this time, especially with today’s economic turmoil.
And what specifically do you base this claim on?
IPCC AR4 WG1 Forcings:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Changes in Atmospheric transmission with annotations due to known volcanic activity
And
Volcanic SO2 releases
Note that is a log scale.
Pinutabu released more SOx than all the volcanoes have since then.
Last edited:
And it does.
Which is why SOx in the atmosphere is not long lasting.
It washes out.
Look at the graph on Solar Radiation Transmission and you can see the majority of the impact is gone within a year even from something the size of Pinatabu, which is not a frequent occurance.
Clearly, if we had a Pinatabu every year, our climate would be a LOT cooler.
But we don't.
The OP claim that volcanism’s effect on climate change is some esoteric or protected secret is ludicrous. Noted climatologist Hubert H. Lamb published his evidence for this in 1970, and is famous for first predicting a coming glaciation, then reversing and giving us early evidence of the case for global warming.
It is also moot to try to argue any single cause for global warming. In a 2004 article NAS article, the authors noted that besides volcanism :
Incidentally, as the earth cools, the plates shift, thus the above article also grapples with the question of a feedback loop.
Claims of political motivation for climate science should be referred to the British and Irish Meteorological agencies where Lamb did his work.
The OP is pure methane. Hubert Lamb, father of the volcanism theory for glaciation, is also the father CO2/greenhouse effect findings published at the IPCC First Assessment report in 1990.
It is also moot to try to argue any single cause for global warming. In a 2004 article NAS article, the authors noted that besides volcanism :
Incidentally, as the earth cools, the plates shift, thus the above article also grapples with the question of a feedback loop.
Claims of political motivation for climate science should be referred to the British and Irish Meteorological agencies where Lamb did his work.
The OP is pure methane. Hubert Lamb, father of the volcanism theory for glaciation, is also the father CO2/greenhouse effect findings published at the IPCC First Assessment report in 1990.
adoucette said:
You missed my point. I was only speaking to this particular data set, strictly from a data analysis point of view. The swings in temperature during the volcanoes noted are not significantly different in amplitude or curvature than every other fluctuation over the time span shown. Therefore, I would not have been able to conclude from this graph alone that volcanoes influenced temperature. In other words, I can not impute a correlation coefficient from this graph that affirms the conclusion. (Note, I am not denying that volcanism affects temperature.)
Indeed, SOx emission seems to have been ignored in the OP, where he attributes impact to the number of square miles of ejecta. The amplitude I was referring to is the amplitude of temperature change. I don't disagree with your point, just that his remarks about amplitude are not correct. Where I disagree with you is on correlation between the timing of Chichon's eruption and the timing of the swing on the graph, and the significant difference in comparison to the apparent time correlation with Pinatubo.adoucette said:
By "correlation" I was only referring to the calculated correlation coefficient.
The only linearity of interest is that of the correlation coefficient. I was referring to the elephant in the room, CO2 escalation, and noting that volcanism is not the leading cause.adoucette said:
For example, here is a USGS statement from the Hawiian Volcano Observatory, commenting on Kiluea's CO2 emissions:
@trippy
I might disagree in part as to the relevance of the political claims to the topic of science. For example, one might demonstrate the US political infiltration and manipulation of its National Academy of Sciences in the past decade, and the impact this had had in meeting stated objectives of various scientific communities in response to climate change. Other than that, I agree that the political diatribe is baloney.
Which is why I published other data sets that showed more directly the impact on Solar Forcing and the climate:
The correlation, which is to lower global temps (opposite the claim of the OP) has much more to do with SOx than it does with ejecta, but also with the season and the latitude of the volcano and other effects, like how far and fast the plume gets distributed based on height of eruption etc etc.
My bad, I thought you were saying that there wasn't a correlation between global CO2 rise and global Temperature rise.
Looking at the data, the only possible correlation with modern volcanic activity and CO2 that I can see is negative.
The cooling created by the increased sulfates appears to increase the uptake of CO2 by the biosphere (suspicion is that it would be because of slightly lower Sea Surface Temps)
PPM increase in CO2 from Mauna Loa
1981 1.43
1982 0.96 <== El Chichon
1983 2.13
1990 1.19
1991 0.99 <== Mt Pinatubo
1992 0.48
1993 1.40
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Last edited:
It will? Sounds great on paper, especially if you leave the health of the global economy out of your "equation for what is better".
...climate change is primarily a political issue; threatening others when they expose the true agenda behind its proponents does not change this fact.Trippy said:
Fair point, agreed. What bothers me is when people condescendingly frame the issue as Science vs Anti-Science but then, perhaps inadvertently, interject their own subjective, emotional and often self-serving conclusions into the discussion.
I mean, even if we were to all magically concur that the worst-case scenarios of AGW were true, the very conclusion that "something must be done" is not itself a scientific conclusion but rather simply an opinion.
As billvon said:
The science behind prediction of climate change is as well established as clocks governed by pendulums, it boils down to the same physics, simple harmonic motion.
It may have been politicized, but it is a scientific issue before it is a political one.
That wasn't what I was doing though, was it.
Is it? Or at some point does it become a matter of self preservation (self preservation being used here in a broader sense to include life styles, rather than neccessarily just the survival of the species).
Are you saying predicting climate change is a function of simple harmonic motion, or are you saying that the science behind that prediction is as well established and reliable as the physics behind clocks governed by pendulums? I would be surprised if you meant the former because that seems to be a stance against AGW, but I would also be surprised if you meant the latter because that is plainly ridiculous.
Ah! But the AGW alarmists are pursuing others to change their life styles today, which would have highly questionable effectiveness, based upon inconclusive data. IF it ever becomes clear that it's an issue of survival I assure you there won't be any resistance to changing our lifestyles.Trippy said:
(Also, this opens up a topic that I rarely see addressed but I do find it impossible to believe that the ONLY side effects of a warmer planet would be devastation. If anything, erratic swings in temperature are more stressful upon life in general, and green house gases basically act as a thermal insulator. I mean, despite evidence of large historical temperature swings, it's the very narrow global temperature band of today in which life must precariously reside??)
I am stating that the prediction that increasing ppCO[sub]2[/sub] will increase the amount of long wave thermal radiation re-radiated by the earth, being absorbed by the atmosphere is a prediction that comes out of simple harmonic motion (with the earth's thermal emission spectrum being goverend by gray body radiation). The prediction of greenhouse gasses predates the prediction that changing their levels could influence climate.
My point is nothing more than that there is some fairly basic, well established physics behind the predictions.
Where people tend to be quibbling (except for a few) are over the source of the CO[sub]2[/sub] in the first place, and what the flow on effects of that extra thermal energy are.
Is it really alarmisim to encourage people to lead lifestyles that have less of an impact on the environment? After all, we all want clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, lakes and rivers to swim in during the summer, good food to eat, and so on.
Standards of proof is a different issue.
Some history for you.
Carbon Dioxide as a greenhouse gas was first predicted as a possibility in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, he proposed changing carbon dioxide levels as a causal mechanism for the ice ages, which was slammed by Knut Angstrom in 1900, and in 1901 Arrhenius responded dismissing Angstroms claims, and went on to publish several books on the matter including Das Werden der Welten (English translation available here), in which he predicted that a doubling of CO[sub]2[/sub] levels would lead to a 5-6K rise in temperature, and halving it would lead to a 4-5K drop. Arrhenius also predicted that this much of a temperature rise would forestall the next ice age, and be neccessary to feed an ever increasing population of humans, he also predicted that the industrial age would cause such a rise - the first prediction of anthropogenic climate change:
Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.
Between 1900 and 1950, the idea that CO[sub]2[/sub] might cause climate change was disputed or ignored, and Arrhenius' calculations went largely forgotten. Adding to this was the fact that during this time lab results to measure IR absorption showed little change from varying CO[sub]2[/sub], and also showed significant overlap between the spectrum of water, and that of CO[sub]2[/sub].
Between 1950 and 1960, improvements in spectrography - ironically as a result of improved funding during teh cold war to keep a better eye on the russians, led to the realization that there wasn't as much water vapour in the upper atmosphere as first thought, and there was as much overlap between the absorption spectra for water and CO[sub]2[/sub] as first thought, we started using computers to develop better versions of Arrhenius' equations, and we discovered not only that CO[sub]2[/sub] wasn't absorbed immediately by the oceans, but that the oceans were not as efficient at doing so as originally supposed. In the 1960's we became aware of the role of sulfate aerosols, and other particulates as the coolings ide of the equation, and some began tow onder whether or not this would be sufficient to overcome the warming caused by CO[sub]2[/sub], however, by the 70's (inspite of the controversy generated by the media) the 'consensus' (in that it was the view expressed in the majority of papers published at the time) was that warming was going to occur.
In 1985 UNEP, WMP, and ICSU held a conference which concluded that greenhouse gasses are expected to cause significant warming over the next 100 years, and some warming was inevitable.
And then in 1988, Hansen gave his testimony to congress that ammounted to 'Not only could it happen, but it was already happening', and bought it to the attention of the general public in so doing. Also in 1988 the IPCC was established by the WMO with the support of UNEP.
It's not. Whether its long term effects are deleterious or advantageous depends very much upon where you live. Many of the predicted effects come about as a result of the rapidity of the change, or as secondary effects, rather than neccessarily the magnitude of the change, and in terms of human cost, it's generally expected (I believe anyway) that the cost of doing nothing will probably outweigh the costs of taking action, but to some extent it's like trying to convince a city council to invest in infratructure that doesn't need to be replaced yet.
Arrhenius himself thought that Anthropogenic global warming would be a good thing overall, and I'm sure I have seen at least one paper published recently that suggests that if we continue burning our fossil fuels, and modulate how we burn them appropriately, that we might be able to forestall the next ice age for as much as 250,000 years, and maintain our climate approximately where it is now throughout that time.
That's a fair post, Trippy. Please understand that I'm battle-hardened on the subject due to past exposure to true closet-socialists that have tried hijacking this issue for their own agendas. This dates to more than a decade ago, when Kyoto was being drafted in the late 90's during which 1991 was chosen as the "baseline" (btw, do you have any idea why that was? Because I'll be happy to explain it!)