CDZ Climate Change Question

[pauls]

That the climate is changing is a fact. The climate on earth has been in constant change since the beginning. That mankind is a factor in that change is not only in question and unproven but an arrogance that supersedes any of mankind's arrogances to date.
A volcano erupts 451 times each year. source: Volcanic Explosivity Index - John Seach
Each eruption can put many times the amount of CO2 and sulfur dioxide into the air per day than mankind contributes in a year.
Underwater earthquakes can release millions of tons of Methane gas trapped in frozen slush at the bottom. Insects generate more CO2 than the entire human population of earth. The sun is in the last half of it's life and will continue to get hotter over the millennial

Tell me again how global climate change can be caused or corrected by mankind....

 

[mamooth]

Each eruption can put many times the amount of CO2 and sulfur dioxide into the air per day than mankind contributes in a year.

Completely wrong. Compared to human output, volcanoes emit insignificant amounts of CO2.

Tell me again how global climate change can be caused or corrected by mankind....

You don't understand how an equilibrium system works.

If I make $1000 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account stays the same.

If I make $1010 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account goes up steadily. It doesn't matter that the increase in my income was only 1%. My bank account still goes up, and keeps going up.

Same with CO2. It was in equilibrium. Humans added to the output, so now CO2 levels are steadily going up. It doesn't matter that human sources are less than natural sources, it only matters that humans added to the output and ended the equilibrium.

 

[pauls]

Insignificant amounts of CO2? The opinion of the USGS seems to differ.
Source: Impact of Volcanic Gases
"The concentrations of different volcanic gases can vary considerably from one volcano to the next. Water vapor is typically the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Other principal volcanic gases include hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride. A large number of minor and trace gases are also found in volcanic emissions, for example: hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and volatile metal chlorides.
A significant component of volcanic gas research involves measuring the quantities of gas that volcanoes release into the atmosphere. Huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere during major explosive eruptions. Some gases, such as carbon dioxide, are greenhouse gases that promote global warming..."

Have you looked at data that shows CO2 levels over the last 100 million years? There has never been any "equilibrium" in the levels of gases in the earth's atmosphere. CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today at times when life on earth was flourishing.
Source: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C01/E4-03-08-02.pdf
With an average CO2 concentration for the entire Phanerozoic of 0.10 to 0.15%, there are at least six maxima in CO2
concentration exceeding this average value. In this case, during the Phanerozoic an average CO2 concentration turned out to be very close to its optimum to start photosynthesis.

The CO2 levels were more than 5 times what they are today yet life, both animal and plant, was both diverse and abundant. High CO2 levels were necessary to begin and promote photosynthesis, leading to more plant life production.

 

[Muhammed]

I used to understand the concept of Global Warming, i.e., that the Earth's atmosphere was increasing in temperature due to a buildup of carbon dioxide and/or other gasses/pollutants. Now that this concept has been replaced with Climate Change, I am uncertain as to what, exactly, is being described and what causal factors are involved.

Could someone please explain this in layman's terms?

The best website for you to peruse.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

No. It a bunch of bullshit.

 

[Muhammed]

Why would the dominant liberal media adopt this new term if it was designed to undercut one of their major issues?

Pretty obvious. The media is rather conservative, and slavishly repeated whatever the Bush administration asked of them. See "War, Iraq".

A more likely explanation is that global warming predictions (e.g., "hockey stick") were failing to materialize and that a less factually challengeable substitute had to be found in order to preserve support for carbon tax credits and other economically destructive policies.

That's a bizarre conspiracy theory, which is flatly contradicted by all the actual evidence. That's why only a few right wing fringe extremists are willing to push it. It takes a willful disregard of facts, evidence and logic to embrace such a conspiracy theory. There is no VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot, and that whole conspiracy is literally as nutty as the birther, flat earth, antivaxxer, 9/11 truther, alien abduction or JFK conspiracy theories.

A lot of idiots try to conflate well-documented conspiracies with ridiculous things like 911 trutherism, JFK assassination, flat earth, extratrerristial UFO aliens, moon landing was in Arizona and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Why do they do that?

Don't they comprehend how stupid it makes them appear?

 

[mamooth]

Insignificant amounts of CO2? The opinion of the USGS seems to differ.

The USGS just said volcanoes emit CO2. It did not quantify the amount. The amount would be about 1% of the human contribution, and that would be insignificant in comparison.

Have you looked at data that shows CO2 levels over the last 100 million years? There has never been any "equilibrium" in the levels of gases in the earth's atmosphere. CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today at times when life on earth was flourishing.

100 million years ago, the sun was 1% cooler, requiring more CO2 on earth to keep the same temperature.

And it's the rate of change that kills. Human civilization evolved around certain stable climate patterns. If they change slowly, humans can adapt. If they change fast, the humans die. Populations of many millions can't pick up and move. If more farmland opens up in Siberia, the Russians aren't going to allow the whole population of Bangledesh move there.

 

[JoeMoma]

Insignificant amounts of CO2? The opinion of the USGS seems to differ.

The USGS just said volcanoes emit CO2. It did not quantify the amount. The amount would be about 1% of the human contribution, and that would be insignificant in comparison.

Have you looked at data that shows CO2 levels over the last 100 million years? There has never been any "equilibrium" in the levels of gases in the earth's atmosphere. CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today at times when life on earth was flourishing.

100 million years ago, the sun was 1% cooler, requiring more CO2 on earth to keep the same temperature.

And it's the rate of change that kills. Human civilization evolved around certain stable climate patterns. If they change slowly, humans can adapt. If they change fast, the humans die. Populations of many millions can't pick up and move. If more farmland opens up in Siberia, the Russians aren't going to allow the whole population of Bangledesh move there.

The sun was 1% cooler 100 million years ago! How can anyone possibly know that?

 

[mamooth]

Argument by incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Stellar physics. Main sequence stars slowly get brighter. Hydrogen fuses to helium, the star gets a little denser, that makes the fusion in the core a little more efficient, and they heat up.

Sun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
---
At present, it is increasing in brightness by about 1% every 100 million years
---

 

[JoeMoma]

Argument by incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Stellar physics. Main sequence stars slowly get brighter. Hydrogen fuses to helium, the star gets a little denser, that makes the fusion in the core a little more efficient, and they heat up.

Sun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
---
At present, it is increasing in brightness by about 1% every 100 million years
---

"At present", is an extremely small snapshot of time to base an estimate of what the hotness or brightness of the sun was 100 million years ago. Perhaps it is true but it can not be proven, unless you have access to a flux capacitor.

 

[pauls]

from the AGU site:

"Emission Rates, Pre-eruption Gas-Saturation and Ascent Degassing During the 2004-2005 Eruption of Mount St. Helens"
Intermittent airborne measurements of volcanic gases began on 27 September 2004 during the initial unrest.
Target gases included CO2, SO2 and H2S. The average emission rates through the end of July 2005 were approximately 650 metric tons/day (t/d) CO2 and 100 t/d SO2; H2S was always <8 t/d.


I would think that 650 tons of CO2 per day over a year would be a substantial amount. (650 x 365 = 237250 metric tons for the year)
That is just one of the average 451 volcanoes that erupt each year.
You are probably right - no significant contribution.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, I am right. The volcanic contribution of CO2 is insignificant compared to the human contribution.

Comment Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide The missing science EARTH Magazine
---
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.
---

 

[MarathonMike]

Global Warming was too specific. Liberals don't like specifics, they like vague terms so that they can pretty much use anything that happens to support their position. It's like the old joke of going to the Race Track and betting on all the horses and then cheering "Come On Anybody!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Global Warming was too specific. Liberals don't like specifics, they like vague terms so that they can pretty much use anything that happens to support their position. It's like the old joke of going to the Race Track and betting on all the horses and then cheering "Come On Anybody!"

Liberals don't like specifics, they like vague terms so that they can pretty much use anything that happens to support their position.


No kidding. Hope and change!

 

[mamooth]

Only the deniers here will keep saying that cooling might mean warming. They're kind of odd that way. Here on the rational side, we always point out that warming means warming.

That's one of the many things that shows how denialism is pseudoscience. I ask deniers over and over what could disprove denialism, and they never answer. After all, in the minds of the religious, nothing can disprove their religion. In direct contrast, we here on the rational side have often listed many directly measurable things that could disprove global warming science. Since it's actual science, it can be disproved.

Also, only the deniers here try to make everything political, constantly raving about their liberal bogeymen. Deniers aren't shy about showing how it's entirely about politics with them. Every single one of them is proud to say they're part of a right-wing-fringe political cult. In contrast, the rational people here talk about the science, not politics. Global warming science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, because it's science, not politics.

 

[pauls]

It's not political! It is a financial venture. A few will become very wealthy trading carbon "dollars" while the consumers pay for it all.
Simple economics. Find or fabricate a need, sell or trade, at a profit, a way to fulfill that need and smile all the way to the bank.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only the deniers here will keep saying that cooling might mean warming. They're kind of odd that way. Here on the rational side, we always point out that warming means warming.

That's one of the many things that shows how denialism is pseudoscience. I ask deniers over and over what could disprove denialism, and they never answer. After all, in the minds of the religious, nothing can disprove their religion. In direct contrast, we here on the rational side have often listed many directly measurable things that could disprove global warming science. Since it's actual science, it can be disproved.

Also, only the deniers here try to make everything political, constantly raving about their liberal bogeymen. Deniers aren't shy about showing how it's entirely about politics with them. Every single one of them is proud to say they're part of a right-wing-fringe political cult. In contrast, the rational people here talk about the science, not politics. Global warming science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, because it's science, not politics.

I ask deniers over and over what could disprove denialism, and they never answer.

I often wonder, if we can blame our release of CO2 for warming, as well as cooling, droughts and floods, and now, extreme weather events, is there anything that can't be blamed on CO2?
After all, when in human history have we avoided those events?

How will we know when we've been successful? When we prevent all those from happening?

 

[pauls]

What is a "denier"?
Is it someone that believes that climate change is not occurring?
If that is the case then I would say that deniers are wrong. the climate has changed, is changing now and will continue to change until we are absorbed or vaporized by the end throws of our sun.
If a "denier" is someone who wants evidence that humans are the cause or even majority cause of climate change then they are not deniers but only people trying to use the scientific method to make a determination.
It is yet to be proven that humanity is the root or major cause of climate change on earth. Past history as recorded in glaciers and the ground show that the climate has had extreme swings in the past that occurred extremely fast on the geological scale. Over the past million years we have had swings from warm enough to make the alps passable by Hannibal to cold enough to freeze sea ice in the arctic to make the waterways impassable and the Alps a glaciated mountain range. Now the glaciers are melting back in the alps but they are not gone as they were when Hannibal took his elephants and army across them.

I am asking for scientific evidence that this is not just another cycle of life on earth and is in fact being caused by mankind. So far we are experiencing no changes that are unknown. It has all happened before and is likely to happen again.

 

[jwoodie]

Only the deniers here will keep saying that cooling might mean warming. They're kind of odd that way. Here on the rational side, we always point out that warming means warming.

That's one of the many things that shows how denialism is pseudoscience. I ask deniers over and over what could disprove denialism, and they never answer. After all, in the minds of the religious, nothing can disprove their religion. In direct contrast, we here on the rational side have often listed many directly measurable things that could disprove global warming science. Since it's actual science, it can be disproved.

Also, only the deniers here try to make everything political, constantly raving about their liberal bogeymen. Deniers aren't shy about showing how it's entirely about politics with them. Every single one of them is proud to say they're part of a right-wing-fringe political cult. In contrast, the rational people here talk about the science, not politics. Global warming science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, because it's science, not politics.

Your reliance on name-calling indicates a insecurity in your own beliefs, compounded by your lack of logical thinking. For example, your reference to disproving "denialism'" is nothing more than "proving a negative" fallacious reasoning. In reality, it is your belief in "global warming" which is being scientifically disproven (i.e., the Earth is not getting warmer). Finally, your assertion that "deniers" are using this issue for political purposes is also the complete opposite of reality: It is your ilk who are pushing this issue as a rationale for implementing carbon tax credits as a huge new source of government revenue and control over the economy.

 

[mamooth]

When I point out you're driven by politics, responding again with a political conspiracy theories further proves my point.

Since the earth has strongly warmed and all the predictions made by the climate science consensus have come to pass, human-caused warming has clearly met the bar for being proven. The science has such credibility because it's been getting it right for decades. The many things that could disprove it ... haven't happened.

Now that the burden of proof has been met, the onus is on deniers to come up with a better theory to explain the observed physical data. They won't even try. Some of them will wave their hands around wildly and squeak out "It's natural cycles!", but that fails as an explanation, being that "natural cycles" are contradicted by the observed physical data. "Natural cycles" do not explain the stratospheric cooling, decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 bands, or increase in backradiation.

 

[HenryBHough]

Written history suggests that climate has been cyclical.

Cave drawings over thousands of years suggest that climate has been cyclical.

Archeological evidence, including ice cores, prove that climate has been cyclical from back far beyond the time the first humans soiled the ground.

That climate change occurs is not in question. What is at hand is a recent belief that humankind is SO powerful that it has the power to interrupt the natural cycles.

Which is understandable because those who accept that are willing to surrender control of their lives to an elite who crave power for power's sake. Those arrogant folks will perish. In the fullness of time. Just as have all previous populations (animals, plants gone extinct) and they'll go to the soil thinking they can save the planet. When they can't even save their own sorry asses.