God is dumping tons of pollutants in our atmosphere!!!

[Rasputin_Vol]

But don't worry, this volcano will not create climate change... :ermm: Say what? How can that be? We've been told that coal burning and fossil fuels cause climate change, but an event like this which is on a grander magnitude than any manmade calamity will simply be shrugged off by Mother Gaia? Interesting...

Will the Iceland Volcano Change the Climate? | LiveScience

If the eruptions continue and get bigger — a possibility given the explosive history of Iceland's volcanoes — even the global climate could be affected. But the current eruption is too wimpy to have any significant impact, scientists say.

But then again, we have this little nugget...

How an Icelandic volcano helped spark the French Revolution | World news | The Guardian

 

[TennTradition]

Do you even know what you are talking about? The CO2 being released by this volcano doesn't even make a small dent in annual human emissions of CO2. The sulfur oxides being released could make an impact on climate (by lowering temperature), but there isn't a lot of oomph behind this volcano, so the particles are not getting very high into the atmosphere and will thus rain out more quickly, only being in the atmosphere for a month or two.

The quote you even give doesn't say that volcanoes can't impact climate...but that this eruption isn't big enough to make a significant impact. We know that volcanoes can impact climate. Pinatuba in the early 90s is believed to have lowered global temperatures by about 10% for a year or so.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Hollywood is being inconvenienced...

Hollywood vs. The Volcano: Ash disrupts celebs

 

[TennTradition]

It's certainly wreaking some havoc, no doubt. What's crazy is that it is a relatively small eruption for what that volcano could do. Europe can't be too happy about that...

 

[Velo Vol]

Are there gays in the U.K.? Perhaps they are to blame.

 

[Co. Aytch]

Rasputin,

I gotta hand it to ya, you bring a good game on posts. I enjoy all your reads and links. V,B.

 

[TennTradition]

 

[IPorange]

I know we discussed this in a thread before. I am starting to think no one reads my posts. Volcanoes contribute a lot less than human activity, and are part of the natural order anyway.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I know we discussed this in a thread before. I am starting to think no one reads my posts. Volcanoes contribute a lot less than human activity, and are part of the natural order anyway.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

And yet, one volcano can actually change the climate for 1-2 years after they erupt... yet you minimize volcanoes' effects on the environment. Interesting...

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

And yet, one volcano can actually change the climate for 1-2 years after they erupt... yet you minimize volcanoes' effects on the environment. Interesting...

He ignores everyone that types anything that doesn't agree with HIS assessment of climate change. Even I understand that it's happening, but trying to blame mankind for why the Earth's climate is changing is silly. Once again, Mother Nature shows us that she is in charge and there is nothing that we can do to change it. Now, as far as REAL pollution goes, we need to do better and not kill ecosystems with our trash and what not.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

He ignores everyone that types anything that doesn't agree with HIS assessment of climate change. Even I understand that it's happening, but trying to blame mankind for why the Earth's climate is changing is silly. Once again, Mother Nature shows us that she is in charge and there is nothing that we can do to change it. Now, as far as REAL pollution goes, we need to do better and not kill ecosystems with our trash and what not.

Good Sense: Compare Garbage After Tea Party Vs. Obama Inauguration

 

[TennTradition]

And yet, one volcano can actually change the climate for 1-2 years after they erupt... yet you minimize volcanoes' effects on the environment. Interesting...

A very severe volcano, like Pinatubo, can have effects lasting for a year or so. No one is saying that isn't the case.

Volcanoes emissions of CO2 are very small compared to man's emissions of CO2. Therefore, their effect on climate due to CO2 is minimal. This effect is completely offset by their cooling effect, due to sulfur oxides, for example.

Here is the biggest kicker though. Volcanoes can have a significant cooling effect if they are powerful enough, because unlike CO2, sulfur oxides have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere UNLESS they are injected at very high altitudes. Thus, when man sends sulfur oxides up a smokestack, they don't reach a very high altitude and rain out as acid rain (or drop out on other particles) fairly quickly (month or so). On the other hand, some volcanoes (not this one), like Pinatubo, are strong enough to send the particles sufficiently high that they will hang around to affect climate for a year or so. It's the same particles, just a longer lifetime.

Also, I noticed you said environment and not climate in this post. Volcanoes can have massive effects on local and regional environments - higher than man's day-to-day activities for sure. Global climate (or regional climate) are different than general environmental effects, such as poisonous gases and ash plumes.

 

[TennTradition]

He ignores everyone that types anything that doesn't agree with HIS assessment of climate change. Even I understand that it's happening, but trying to blame mankind for why the Earth's climate is changing is silly. Once again, Mother Nature shows us that she is in charge and there is nothing that we can do to change it. Now, as far as REAL pollution goes, we need to do better and not kill ecosystems with our trash and what not.

It's not like it's an unfounded assessment, Eric. The original post, IMO, makes no sense. I'm being as fair as I can be here. Read my last post. To make the case that is made there is silly.

You act like IP ignores everything that is written that he doesn't agree with and that you don't. I've seen IP come back to posts that he doesn't agree with and make well-reasoned scientific assessments of why he disagrees with it. That doesn't sound like ignoring something to me. I actually agree with him that a lot of the points that he or I have tried to make are (often) ignored (by many) and then followed by some sort of 'follow the money' or 'misguided liberal sheep' argument. I'm serious, though, I honestly think that the stuff that is typed about this doesn't even register half the time.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

A very severe volcano, like Pinatubo, can have effects lasting for a year or so. No one is saying that isn't the case.

Volcanoes emissions of CO2 are very small compared to man's emissions of CO2. Therefore, their effect on climate due to CO2 is minimal. This effect is completely offset by their cooling effect, due to sulfur oxides, for example.

Here is the biggest kicker though. Volcanoes can have a significant cooling effect if they are powerful enough, because unlike CO2, sulfur oxides have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere UNLESS they are injected at very high altitudes. Thus, when man sends sulfur oxides up a smokestack, they don't reach a very high altitude and rain out as acid rain (or drop out on other particles) fairly quickly (month or so). On the other hand, some volcanoes (not this one), like Pinatubo, are strong enough to send the particles sufficiently high that they will hang around to affect climate for a year or so. It's the same particles, just a longer lifetime.

Also, I noticed you said environment and not climate in this post. Volcanoes can have massive effects on local and regional environments - higher than man's day-to-day activities for sure. Global climate (or regional climate) are different than general environmental effects, such as poisonous gases and ash plumes.

But natures effect on C02 is MUCH greater than man's ever thought about being. Until we start adding MUCH MUCH MUCH greater CO2 into the atmosphere, we will NEVER come close to what nature releases. So, why are people that believe in MMGW focusing on a group of 3%, and not the other 97%?? Easy, it's easier to legislate man, than it is to convince people that it's not real (MMGW) or stop putting your hand in the cookie jar for tax money.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

It's not like it's an unfounded assessment, Eric. The original post, IMO, makes no sense. I'm being as fair as I can be here. Read my last post. To make the case that is made there is silly.

You act like IP ignores everything that is written that he doesn't agree with and that you don't. I've seen IP come back to posts that he doesn't agree with and make well-reasoned scientific assessments of why he disagrees with it. That doesn't sound like ignoring something to me. I actually agree with him that a lot of the points that he or I have tried to make are (often) ignored (by many) and then followed by some sort of 'follow the money' or 'misguided liberal sheep' argument. I'm serious, though, I honestly think that the stuff that is typed about this doesn't even register half the time.

That maybe so, but I've even seen ryemyss come in here and discuss things with him, and he has for the most part ignored it. He might take a snippet here and one there and go with it, but for the most part he is very absorbed in what he thinks, and to hell with the rest of us. Like I said, I know climate change is happening, but instead of saying there is a 3% chance of the reason, I am going with the 97% chance of why it's happening. Every statistician out there understands this. Now, if it was 30% us and 70% nature, we would probably need to look at curtailing emissions somewhat to balance things back to nature, but even you know the percentages and know that we are even close to that point yet. If money wasn't involved, this wouldn't be a national story.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I also think that some people have seen "The Day After Tomorrow" one too many times.

 

[TennTradition]

But natures effect on C02 is MUCH greater than man's ever thought about being. Until we start adding MUCH MUCH MUCH greater CO2 into the atmosphere, we will NEVER come close to what nature releases. So, why are people that believe in MMGW focusing on a group of 3%, and not the other 97%?? Easy, it's easier to legislate man, than it is to convince people that it's not real (MMGW) or stop putting your hand in the cookie jar for tax money.

That can be discussed here if you want, but it wasn't the point being made in the original post. I'm only making a big deal out of that because it just doesn't make sense, especially when the implied argument that volcanoes can't cause a change in climate hasn't been made by those of us who tend to post about these issues here.

Now to the point you make here....man's effect on CHANGES in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere can be larger than nature's - and we have seen that over the last 60 years. Yes, there is MUCH more CO2 going into the atmosphere from natural sources than man is releasing. However, there was a relatively equal amount of CO2 going back into the ground/ocean each year as well - meaning CO2 concentrations were relatively stable.

---
Side note: Natural anomalies, like a string of volcanic eruptions, can perturb that a certain amount - but volcanoes don't release that much CO2, so you wouldn't really see that large of an effect on global CO concentrations (in a year, for example, that has above-average volcanic activity), but you could see some effect.
---

Now, back to the main point. Despite the fact that the source (earth's CO2 emissions) and sink (earth's ability to take back up that CO2) flow terms are very large compared to man's current emissions, it hasn't stopped the fact that man's emissions are large enough to result in observable accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is this change in concentration that presents the concern about climate change.

Extending this observable effect to concerns over climate change would take something like the following path (and I'll state it as a matter of inquiry rather than fact). If we double CO2, we may cause warming, which may increase water and CO2 concentrations further (due to ocean response), which may cause additional warming. In doing this, we may increase temperatures enough such that there will be negative environmental effects. We may want to consider avoiding this situation, as to not further exacerbate the earth's own natural climate cycles.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I want to know something, how in the world can we know where EXACTLY a gaseous compound comes from, when it's in the atmosphere?? Are they labeled for record keeping purposes?? See, we are so infant in climate change study, that some are willing to draw early conclusions, than to gather info over 50+ years, and form a more solid hypothesis. We all know that the planet isn't going to stop existing by then, and we also know that as technology gets better, we can more accurately assess what we are ACTUALLY doing and if it is helping at all with the theories MMGW scientists are creating. So, I think that people need to stop worrying about it honestly, and let scientists on both sides do their jobs. Now, that doesn't mean that they need to tax us and businesses to death to do so either, which is probably the biggest issue in this argument. So, if climate is something that is measured over the course of time, and we can't forecast weather as accurately as we would like over the course of 5 days, then there is no way that the study of the past 10 years is going to yield us long term answers. If there is anyone that actually believes it can, they should be stripped of all educational achievements and drove into the ground. My climate here hasn't change since I have been alive, but the landscape has in some parts by man.

 

[TennTradition]

That maybe so, but I've even seen ryemyss come in here and discuss things with him, and he has for the most part ignored it. He might take a snippet here and one there and go with it, but for the most part he is very absorbed in what he thinks, and to hell with the rest of us. Like I said, I know climate change is happening, but instead of saying there is a 3% chance of the reason, I am going with the 97% chance of why it's happening. Every statistician out there understands this. Now, if it was 30% us and 70% nature, we would probably need to look at curtailing emissions somewhat to balance things back to nature, but even you know the percentages and know that we are even close to that point yet. If money wasn't involved, this wouldn't be a national story.

It depends on what you mean by responsible for temperature or climate change. The earth largely set's its temperature (relative to the cold rock it would otherwise be) through it's atmosphere, with water vapor being the biggest player in that. We are talking about roughly 100 degrees of climate here. When compared to this temperature, man's effect on the total number is small. However, that is not the end of the story. We are talking about climate *change*, not absolute climate. The percentage of the climate change observed over the last 60 years or so that is believed to be attributable to man actually is a significant percentage. Maybe IP knows the number, but I'm thinking over 50%.

Perhaps it would be useful to spend just a minute talking about why in the world we would care about changes of a few degrees when climate has been dynamic over thousands of years. It's generally true that the climate can make large changes on its own, but this could potentially be catastrophic considering just how many people live on the earth today and how stretched many resources are. The question is then, do we want to bring that type (or some type) of change upon ourselves?

World population centers have been built and grown considerably over the last 150 years (throwing that number out there) in what has been a relatively stable climate. They are quite adapted to teh current climate, and changes can present significant stress. For example, there are large populations that rely on snow melt through the spring and summer to provide them water during their drought seasons. This works because the mountains get enough snow in the winter to stock up water for them later in the year. If we bring on warming that changes this, we have presented a very troubling situation.

The earth/sun climate system could do this on its own. Without a doubt. It could also revert toward an ice age. However, I'm not completely sold yet on the argument that because the earth *can* do this that we shouldn't worry about man doing it. I get the argument...but I'm not sold on it.

I take the whole issue seriously and don't try to BS anyone about it. It's an incredibly interesting case study in the mixture of science and policy and I hope we learn (a lot) from the process we are going through here once we're on the back end of it.

 

[TennTradition]

I want to know something, how in the world can we know where EXACTLY a gaseous compound comes from, when it's in the atmosphere?? Are they labeled for record keeping purposes?? See, we are so infant in climate change study, that some are willing to draw early conclusions, than to gather info over 50+ years, and form a more solid hypothesis. We all know that the planet isn't going to stop existing by then, and we also know that as technology gets better, we can more accurately assess what we are ACTUALLY doing and if it is helping at all with the theories MMGW scientists are creating. So, I think that people need to stop worrying about it honestly, and let scientists on both sides do their jobs. Now, that doesn't mean that they need to tax us and businesses to death to do so either, which is probably the biggest issue in this argument. So, if climate is something that is measured over the course of time, and we can't forecast weather as accurately as we would like over the course of 5 days, then there is no way that the study of the past 10 years is going to yield us long term answers. If there is anyone that actually believes it can, they should be stripped of all educational achievements and drove into the ground. My climate here hasn't change since I have been alive, but the landscape has in some parts by man.

This isn't my field, so I could be wrong on this...maybe IP can confirm/squash it...but:

Different sources of CO2 have different isotopic signatures. There are three isotopes (varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom) of carbon: carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14, where the number is indicative of the atom's atomic weight. Fossil fuels (and burning forests) have a fairly specific isotopic signature because their plant-mater origins, that is, they are more highly enriched in carbon-12 relative to carbon-13 than other sources of CO2. So, when we burn fossil fuels, the resulting CO2 has a lower ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 than most naturally-released CO2. By observing changes in the ratio of 13CO2 to 12CO2 in the atmosphere, we can get an idea of what is causing the changes in overall CO2 concentration. Because the ratio of 13CO2 to 12CO2 has been falling, it is believed that the CO2-source causing the observed increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels.

I will say that I have not studied this enough to know what the signatures of other sources look like and how the process works - but this is how the scientists who work in this area try to understand what is responsible for observed increases.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Here's the deal though, no matter what is REALLY going on, there is no way to determine what this planet will do in the future, with such a relatively small data set, that has been admitted to have been tampered with in the first place to achieve desired results. If something is TRULY wrong with what we are doing as a people, then over time and not legislation, companies will understand this and move away from what they were doing and get cleaner. So, until some controlled and non-tampered data sets to study, then there is no conclusive decisions that can be made at this point, and we aren't at a critical point right now. There is also NO conclusive evidence that if we all change our ways, that there will be an actual change in global temperature. I stand by, and will always maintain, that the sun is the biggest driver in the global temperature seat, and everything else pails in comparison to that big ball of fire in the sky.

 

[TennTradition]

A problem with the "companies will do it if it needs to be done" line of thought is that companies that do think it needs to be done cannot afford to do it unless others do it along with them. A case for government regulation can be made from that standpoint alone. Obviously if it were an open and shut case with no doubt, then the ones that didn't would suffer consequences. However, a very good job has been done to plant doubt (by active efforts of some groups and stupid decisions by others), and as a result, companies will not suffer any consequences for not acting. Shoot, we very well may be able to keep on trucking right along with no severe consequences. I hope so...because I'm not sure we're going to draw back our CO2 emissions any time soon.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

A problem with the "companies will do it if it needs to be done" line of thought is that companies that do think it needs to be done cannot afford to do it unless others do it along with them. A case for government regulation can be made from that standpoint alone. Obviously if it were an open and shut case with no doubt, then the ones that didn't would suffer consequences. However, a very good job has been done to plant doubt (by active efforts of some groups and stupid decisions by others), and as a result, companies will not suffer any consequences for not acting. Shoot, we very well may be able to keep on trucking right along with no severe consequences. I hope so...because I'm not sure we're going to draw back our CO2 emissions any time soon.

Radical environmentalists lack the patience needed for us to develope the technology for VIABLE energy alternatives. Realistically, we will be on fossil fuels for the next 75 years. We have nuclear available, but again, you have the radicals out there that are hamstinging us on that with their China Syndrome scare tactics and rants about "what will we do with the waste" (which is a relatively trivial concern).

 

[IPorange]

At the world's current growth rate of consumption, something will have to give before 75 years from now. And that has nothing to do with environmental concerns.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

At the world's current growth rate of consumption, something will have to give before 75 years from now. And that has nothing to do with environmental concerns.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

We have plenty of coal reserves in the US and we haven't even made a dent in nuclear potential.