Human Caused Global Warming

[cultsmasher]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth. During this time the poles were ice free and there was little if no ice on earth. The paleo climate records shows us that CO2 followed the warmth and was not a driver as water vapor increased. The planets temperature did not leave the 22 deg C average high at any time. It did not runaway.. Showing that despite 7,000ppm + the earth did not cataclysmicly warm.

You should listen to you sister and not the shills we have for climate scientist these days

 

[Crick]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

 

[Billy_Bob]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

There are rates of rise well over the current 50 year trend. The problem you seem to have is the resolution in the graphing. This is not an uncommon flaw among warmists. Michal Mann used 10 year spans to create his hockey stick and promote a rapid rise while the rest of his graph was in 300 year plots. Had Mann or you plotted the average in equal resolution your myth would simply vanish..

Love that 1st year statisticians parlor trick... but its still crap and a deceitful misrepresentation.

 

[elektra]

Human caused idiocy, on both sides of the issue.

 

[Crick]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

There are rates of rise well over the current 50 year trend. The problem you seem to have is the resolution in the graphing. This is not an uncommon flaw among warmists. Michal Mann used 10 year spans to create his hockey stick and promote a rapid rise while the rest of his graph was in 300 year plots. Had Mann or you plotted the average in equal resolution your myth would simply vanish..

Love that 1st year statisticians parlor trick... but its still crap and a deceitful misrepresentation.

Please identify the time at any point in the Phanerozoic Era (the previous 549 million years) wherein the geological record shows a rate of either temperature or CO2 rise exceeding that of the last 50 years.

Can we assume, Billy Bob, by your comment "Love that 1st year statisticians parlor trick", that you have more than a year's education in statistics?


I'm hoping that you are not confused about the term "rate of rise".
Rate:
a certain quantity or amount of one thing considered in relation to a unit of another thing and used as a standard or measure:
ex: at the rate of 60 miles an hour. Or, at the rate of 0.8 ppm per year. A rate is a ratio. It requires two values in comparison.

 

[Zander]

The measuring devices used during the Phanerozoic Era were not as accurate as the ones we use now. Also, the SUV's were electric powered.

 

[2aguy]

The measuring devices used during the Phanerozoic Era were not as accurate as the ones we use now. Also, the SUV's were electric powered.

I think you really hit the right point...our ability to predict the change in climate is only accurate when we look at our instruments and our ability to understand the historical record/trends....we are just now beginning to get tools that might allow us, one day, to accurately measure temperature in the present....no one can accurately say what happened that far in the past....to say they can is silly...

 

[Crick]

The measuring devices used during the Phanerozoic Era were not as accurate as the ones we use now. Also, the SUV's were electric powered.

I think you really hit the right point...our ability to predict the change in climate is only accurate when we look at our instruments and our ability to understand the historical record/trends....we are just now beginning to get tools that might allow us, one day, to accurately measure temperature in the present....no one can accurately say what happened that far in the past....to say they can is silly...

We can currently measure temperatures to certain resolutions with certain accuracies. Those abilities will improve with time and technological development. But there is no point where we will pass from inaccurate to accurate. To a limited extent the same is true of paleoclimatic data, though in those cases the limiting factor is not so much technological as the quality of the proxy material available to us. Clever scientists occasionally think of new proxies with improved performance such as the replacement of carbon 14 by beryllium 10 as a proxy of solar activity. The passage of time, however, produces an unavoidable degradation in all such measurements. We will never be able to determine climatic parameters from a billion years in the past as accurately as we can determine them from the past millenia.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is no such thing as human caused global warming

 

[cultsmasher]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth. During this time the poles were ice free and there was little if no ice on earth. The paleo climate records shows us that CO2 followed the warmth and was not a driver as water vapor increased. The planets temperature did not leave the 22 deg C average high at any time. It did not runaway.. Showing that despite 7,000ppm + the earth did not cataclysmicly warm.

You should listen to you sister and not the shills we have for climate scientist these days

Billy_Bob,
You say that both of my points are incorrect. But I made more than a couple points. If you have something to disagree with, you should be a little more specific. Also, you made me go back and look at a lot of the various graphs that show CO2 levels and temperatures throughout history. I didn't see anything to refute the points I made. Except that instead of one hundred million years ago, it was closer to five hundred and fifty million years ago that atmospheric CO2 levels were really high.

Though some of the graphs I saw are highly suspect. Because there are a lot of people with a lot of money who pay scientists to show things the way they would like them to be. You know, like what tobacco companies used to pay scientists to do. Also, in the documentaty "Greedy Lying Bastards," The CEO of Exxon admitted at a shareholders meeting that global warming was real.

Also, though I am not a geologist, I don't think we can really use the past as a measure of the present. Because in the past, many wild things happened. As with super eruptions that went on for thousands of years or asteroid impacts. I also mentioned that a lot of the CO2 from volcanoes goes directly into the oceans. But despite that, it is apparently the CO2 that humans put out that is causing the oceans to warm.

There is something else that I said that you might be able to find a scientist to refute. Which is that as far as our present biosphere goes, we are in uncharted territory. I have seen people punch holes in the ice on lakes and set the escaping gasses on fire. From what I have seen, scientists are monitering methane releases. Which is one thing to be happy about. As far as any cataclysm with runaway temperatures in the past goes, I am not in a position to say. For example, I don't know what caused the great Permian extinction. But I wouldn't bet that it couldn't happen again.

You also brought up the point of how at one time there were no ice caps. Because global temperatures were higher. But as things stand now, at times and in various places, it can be unbearably hot. I wouldn't look forward to temperatures getting much higher. Despite the benefits to some for a thriving economy. That is as most peoples' perception of a thriving economy now stands.

 

[Crick]

What is needful is to keep the planet within the state space it has occupied during the reign of human culture. In particular it would be nice to maintain the sort of conditions under which modern culture, with our large populations and enormous infrastructure has developed. And, if change is unavoidable, it would be nice were it to take place at the sort of rates seen in the geological record, not at the pace it has been running for the last 150 years. Human culture could fairly easily handle change as change has taken place in the distant past, when it has taken millions of years for CO2 to rise to a 1000 ppm or temperatures to climb by 8-10C. Changes like that taking place in a ten-thousandth the time will not be so easy to cope with.

 

[cultsmasher]

What is needful is to keep the planet within the state space it has occupied during the reign of human culture. In particular it would be nice to maintain the sort of conditions under which modern culture, with our large populations and enormous infrastructure has developed. And, if change is unavoidable, it would be nice were it to take place at the sort of rates seen in the geological record, not at the pace it has been running for the last 150 years. Human culture could fairly easily handle change as change has taken place in the distant past, when it has taken millions of years for CO2 to rise to a 1000 ppm or temperatures to climb by 8-10C. Changes like that taking place in a ten-thousandth the time will not be so easy to cope with.

Crick,
It gets pretty annoying when people ignore the truth. Isn't it. It is easy to look up a graph of how much CO2 has gone into the air since the beginning of the industrial revloution. And how much more sharply it rises the closer to the present it gets. But what can you do.

 

[whitehall]

Nothing has changed. We have the usual weather patterns for this time of the year but the usually cool refreshing temperatures of mid September are producing rather cold temperatures substantial snow. Your senses might tell you that we might be in for a severe winter but if you subscribe to the global warming religious philosophy you are free to ignore your senses if you have faith in the doctrine. If your faith is strong enough you can convince yourself that frigid temperatures are really a sign of global warming and the decadence of selfish Americans is to blame.

 

[Crick]

Rossby waves. The world is not getting colder.

 

[cultsmasher]

Nothing has changed. We have the usual weather patterns for this time of the year but the usually cool refreshing temperatures of mid September are producing rather cold temperatures substantial snow. Your senses might tell you that we might be in for a severe winter but if you subscribe to the global warming religious philosophy you are free to ignore your senses if you have faith in the doctrine. If your faith is strong enough you can convince yourself that frigid temperatures are really a sign of global warming and the decadence of selfish Americans is to blame.

whitehall,
Did you not read my post? All the volcanoes on earth put out an esitmated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. But each year, humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons. There isn't anything religious about those numbers. I also mentioned to someone that in the documentary, "Greedy Lying Bastards," they show the CEO of Exxon at a shareholders meeting saying that global warming was a reality. And he had every reason to lie about it.

Also, I was watching something about weather patterns around the northern hemisphere. It being cool here just meant that it was warmer in Siberia. There is just too much evidence that things are warming up to go into. But you can believe what you want. Also, you bring up the decadence of Americans. But a lot of that is driven by what companies want to sell. Another thing is that, if I'm not mistaken, China has surpassed the U.S. in putting out pollution. Apart from the desire of U.S. companies to have wage slaves, China's lax environmental laws is just one of the reasons why it was a bad idea to send our jobs over there. Unfortunately, the pollution created there isn't going to effect only China.

 

[flacaltenn]

The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.

Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.

 

[Zander]

The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.

Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.

That is far too rational, stop before you scare the AGW cultists. They prefer hyperbole and fear mongering.

 

[konradv]

All the volcanoes on earth put out an esitmated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. But each year, humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons.

Where'd you get those figures? Humans emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. The human contribution is on the order of 35 gigatons, while volcanoes contribute about 0.2.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

All the volcanoes on earth put out an esitmated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. But each year, humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons.

Where'd you get those figures? Humans emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. The human contribution is on the order of 35 gigatons, while volcanoes contribute about 0.2.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

Rare opportunity for a handshake here and a buddy hug. .2Gigaton is about 200Million.. Glad to help ya out.

Probably tho -- this isn't counting all the discovered and undiscovered undersea volcanic vents and nat gas fissures that END up being "natural" CO2 by the time it gets to the surface..