Despite what you hear here, Old Rocks ISN'T alone. 
Broad Public Backing for Greenhouse Gas Regulation - The Numbers
Broad Public Backing for Greenhouse Gas Regulation - The Numbers
71% of Americans view AGW with concern
- Thread starter konradv
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
Here's the other side of the story. Typically, it's all declarations with no supporting data. 
Global Warming: It's A Crock
Global Warming: It's A Crock
Score one for the ministry of Truth's propaganda campaign. What is the actual cost, not only in dollars, but rejection of common sense??? How long must CO2 be held hostage??? Every living being, plant and animal, hold your breath on three. ... ready.... one... two..... three!!!!.....
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The Stern report on the costs of addressing and failing to address the costs of climate change was issued in 2006. While not updated, the author of that report says that is underestimated the costs of the climate change.
It will be interesting to compare what he wrote with what actually happens. For I do not see mankind addressing this problem at all.
Global warming 'will be worse than expected' warns Stern | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Politicians have failed to take on board the severe consequences of failing to cut world carbon emissions, Nicholas Stern, the economist who warned the government of the high cost of climate change, said today.
Stern told a meeting of climate change scientists in Copenhagen that the effects of global warming would be worse than he predicted in his seminal 2006 report on the economics of the problem. He said policy-makers needed to think more about the likely impact of severe temperature rises of 6C or more.
Speaking after a keynote speech at the conference, Stern said: "Do the politicians understand just how difficult it could be? Just how devastating 4, 5, 6 degrees centigrade would be? I think not yet. Looking back, the Stern review underestimated the risks and underestimated the damage from inaction."
It will be interesting to compare what he wrote with what actually happens. For I do not see mankind addressing this problem at all.
Global warming 'will be worse than expected' warns Stern | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Politicians have failed to take on board the severe consequences of failing to cut world carbon emissions, Nicholas Stern, the economist who warned the government of the high cost of climate change, said today.
Stern told a meeting of climate change scientists in Copenhagen that the effects of global warming would be worse than he predicted in his seminal 2006 report on the economics of the problem. He said policy-makers needed to think more about the likely impact of severe temperature rises of 6C or more.
Speaking after a keynote speech at the conference, Stern said: "Do the politicians understand just how difficult it could be? Just how devastating 4, 5, 6 degrees centigrade would be? I think not yet. Looking back, the Stern review underestimated the risks and underestimated the damage from inaction."
- Thread starter
- #5
Score one for the ministry of Truth's propaganda campaign. What is the actual cost, not only in dollars, but rejection of common sense??? How long must CO2 be held hostage??? Every living being, plant and animal, hold your breath on three. ... ready.... one... two..... three!!!!.....
You don't really get the point of the discussion, do you? It's laughable that you'd talk about common sense and then post something so clueless!
- Thread starter
- #7
Logic is clueless?!?!
The heat-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.
The concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
Find the flaw in that and then get back to me.
The heat-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.
The concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
Find the flaw in that and then get back to me.
It goes up every time a volcano blows too Einstein.
It goes up every time the sun sets and photosynthesis stops. 
- Thread starter
- #10
It goes up every time a volcano blows too Einstein.
That's irrelevant to the discussion and doesn't address the syllogism I presented. Please try again. As for volcanoes, humans relase more GHGs in a day than all the volcanoes in the world do in a year.
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?
- Thread starter
- #11
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
It goes up every time a volcano blows too Einstein.
Intense, I thought you knew more than this. We put out between 130 and 150 times as much CO2, on an annual basis, as all the volcanos in the world, combined. That is a USGS figure.
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview
Do the Earths volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, No. Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the worlds degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes.
The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 123 to 378 million metric tons per year [Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001]. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than this range of estimates for global volcanic CO2 emissions. The anthropogenic rate is 138 times larger than the preferred global estimate of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998) of 264 million metric tons per year, which falls close to the middle of the range of global estimates.
Normally, there are about 50-60 active subaerial volcanoes at the present time. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscapethe equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoesto scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.
Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain and variable, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate
It goes up every time a volcano blows too Einstein.
Intense, I thought you knew more than this. We put out between 130 and 150 times as much CO2, on an annual basis, as all the volcanos in the world, combined. That is a USGS figure.
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview
Do the Earths volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, No. Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the worlds degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes.
The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 123 to 378 million metric tons per year [Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001]. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than this range of estimates for global volcanic CO2 emissions. The anthropogenic rate is 138 times larger than the preferred global estimate of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998) of 264 million metric tons per year, which falls close to the middle of the range of global estimates.
Normally, there are about 50-60 active subaerial volcanoes at the present time. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscapethe equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoesto scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.
Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain and variable, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate
Hey what can I say, buy a season bus pass, swim, don't fly.
Planes or Volcano?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,082
- 78,304
- 2,645
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #16
Again, the echo chamber speaks (of course, all in one voice). As usual one very good investigative technique is, follow the money: who benefits? Scientists (LOL) or industrialists?
Long ago people shit in the rivers from which they drank; those who deny that human activity impacts the ecology negatively are as ignorant. Worse, those who deny climate change today are willfully ignorant, for political partisan reasons or too stupid to see what is happening around the globe.
To them, one data point (gee, it's cold today) is sufficent to disprove something is happening. Those who suggest it's not human activity, but a natural set of events, hold opinions manufactured for them by those whose sole purpose in life is wealth and power (and most of the echo chamber claim to be 'independent thinkers', they are not independent, nor are they thinkers).
Long ago people shit in the rivers from which they drank; those who deny that human activity impacts the ecology negatively are as ignorant. Worse, those who deny climate change today are willfully ignorant, for political partisan reasons or too stupid to see what is happening around the globe.
To them, one data point (gee, it's cold today) is sufficent to disprove something is happening. Those who suggest it's not human activity, but a natural set of events, hold opinions manufactured for them by those whose sole purpose in life is wealth and power (and most of the echo chamber claim to be 'independent thinkers', they are not independent, nor are they thinkers).
Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic mythsClimate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption
(4) (101)Tweet this (90)Comments (180)
The volcano in southern Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull glacier sends ash into the air just before sunset. Photograph: Brynjar Gauti/AP
Along with the ash and lava, there have been many interesting asides tossed into the air for our consideration by the Eyjafjallajokull volcano. We have noticed just how reliant our globalised systems are on air travel. We have been reminded of nature's brute force and primordial beauty. And we have been intrigued by what a wonderfully complex language Icelandic appears to be – to Anglo-Saxon ears, at least.
But one opportunity the volcano has gifted us in particular is the chance to put to bed once and for all that barrel-aged climate sceptic canard which maintains that volcanoes emit far more carbon dioxide than anthropogenic sources. It's always been a favourite, but has been pushed even further up the charts of popularity in recent months by the repeated claims of Ian Plimer, the Australian mining geologist who wrote the climate sceptic bible Heaven and Earth last year.
Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:
The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. 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.
John Cook of the increasingly popular Skeptical Science website currently lists the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" viewpoint as number 54 on his ever-growing list - 107, to date - of debunked sceptic arguments.
It was also a point picked up by my colleague James Randerson when he interviewed Plimer last December. In Heaven and Earth, Plimer says: "Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." Randerson challenged Plimer on this point, stating that the US Geological Survey (USGS) states: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes."
Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:
I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.
Despite having seemingly lanced this festering boil for good, the focus on Eyjafjallajokull over the past week has allowed this question to bubble back up to the forefront of people's minds. It was enough to trigger the Paris-based AFP news agency to seek some answers:
Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday.
Assuming the composition of gas to be the same as in an earlier eruption on an adjacent volcano, "the CO2 flux of Eyjafjoell would be 150,000 tonnes per day," Colin Macpherson, an Earth scientist at Britain's University of Durham, said in an email.
Patrick Allard of the Paris Institute for Global Physics (IPGP) gave what he described as a "top-range" estimate of 300,000 tonnes per day.
Both insisted that these were only approximate estimates.
Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development.
A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005.
Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount – less than a third of one percentage point – of global emissions of greenhouse gases.
So, please, can we now put this hoary old chestnut to bed?
One extra volcano-related aside: with European carbon market prices fluctuating around the €14 per tonne mark at present, this would mean that Eyjafjallajokull would theoretically be liable to a maximum daily bill of €4.2m if it were a fully fledged, carbon-trading nation or corporation. But who would dare get close enough to present it with an invoice?
Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic myths | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk
(4) (101)Tweet this (90)Comments (180)
The volcano in southern Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull glacier sends ash into the air just before sunset. Photograph: Brynjar Gauti/AP
Along with the ash and lava, there have been many interesting asides tossed into the air for our consideration by the Eyjafjallajokull volcano. We have noticed just how reliant our globalised systems are on air travel. We have been reminded of nature's brute force and primordial beauty. And we have been intrigued by what a wonderfully complex language Icelandic appears to be – to Anglo-Saxon ears, at least.
But one opportunity the volcano has gifted us in particular is the chance to put to bed once and for all that barrel-aged climate sceptic canard which maintains that volcanoes emit far more carbon dioxide than anthropogenic sources. It's always been a favourite, but has been pushed even further up the charts of popularity in recent months by the repeated claims of Ian Plimer, the Australian mining geologist who wrote the climate sceptic bible Heaven and Earth last year.
Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:
The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. 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.
John Cook of the increasingly popular Skeptical Science website currently lists the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" viewpoint as number 54 on his ever-growing list - 107, to date - of debunked sceptic arguments.
It was also a point picked up by my colleague James Randerson when he interviewed Plimer last December. In Heaven and Earth, Plimer says: "Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." Randerson challenged Plimer on this point, stating that the US Geological Survey (USGS) states: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes."
Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:
I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.
Despite having seemingly lanced this festering boil for good, the focus on Eyjafjallajokull over the past week has allowed this question to bubble back up to the forefront of people's minds. It was enough to trigger the Paris-based AFP news agency to seek some answers:
Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday.
Assuming the composition of gas to be the same as in an earlier eruption on an adjacent volcano, "the CO2 flux of Eyjafjoell would be 150,000 tonnes per day," Colin Macpherson, an Earth scientist at Britain's University of Durham, said in an email.
Patrick Allard of the Paris Institute for Global Physics (IPGP) gave what he described as a "top-range" estimate of 300,000 tonnes per day.
Both insisted that these were only approximate estimates.
Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development.
A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005.
Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount – less than a third of one percentage point – of global emissions of greenhouse gases.
So, please, can we now put this hoary old chestnut to bed?
One extra volcano-related aside: with European carbon market prices fluctuating around the €14 per tonne mark at present, this would mean that Eyjafjallajokull would theoretically be liable to a maximum daily bill of €4.2m if it were a fully fledged, carbon-trading nation or corporation. But who would dare get close enough to present it with an invoice?
Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic myths | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,082
- 78,304
- 2,645
Is there one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows these instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes by increasing CO2 by 200PPM? Just one? Should be easy to repeat in a lab if that how things work, no?
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Projection, non sequitur and ad hominem.
Congratulations, Francis, you've hit today's logical fallacy trifecta!
Similar threads
