Climate change legit after all! Who woulda thunk it?

[GunsRCool]

This is completely inaccurate. Total CO2 discharge from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption was 50 million tonnes (50,000,000). Total SO2 discharge was 20 million tonnes (20,000,000). (The SO2 caused the short-term effects.)

Total CO2 discharge from humans in 2010 was 35 billion tonnes (35,000,000,000). That's 700 times as much as Mt. Pinatubo.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

Very misleading numbers here. They are actually taking into count people exhaling. They are estimating the toll of human development.
With their supposed science there are many ways to skew the true impacting numbers.

 

[CampingJosh]

Very misleading numbers here. They are actually taking into count people exhaling. They are estimating the toll of human development.
With their supposed science there are many ways to skew the true impacting numbers.

OK, then let's back it down to only the emissions from fuel combustion. That number is still 32,200,000,000. That's still 644 times as much.

Please tell me how else we can work this to get 644 times as much each year down to below 1/200th as much, as it would take for the claim that Mt. Pinatubo did more than the entirety of humans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We're talking about being wrong by a factor of 128,800.

 

[CampingJosh]

Still wondering how they measured something accurately that they can't get close to like a volcano. Just curious.

You can measure accurately enough by checking concentration levels before and after.

Similar to testing the water in a pool, if you know the chlorine level before, and you know the chlorine level after, and you know the volume of the pool, then you can calculate how much chlorine was added. It's just algebra. Solve for X.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...8800-report-no-global-warming-228-months.html

 

[Woobie]

This is completely inaccurate. Total CO2 discharge from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption was 50 million tonnes (50,000,000). Total SO2 discharge was 20 million tonnes (20,000,000). (The SO2 caused the short-term effects.)

Total CO2 discharge from humans in 2010 was 35 billion tonnes (35,000,000,000). That's 700 times as much as Mt. Pinatubo.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

Its interesting that they point out that they haven't been able to draw a link between the CO2 discharged during a volcano and global warming. Such a massive spike should surely have some effect.

Maybe volcanic CO2 is environmentally friendly, while human CO2 is destructive.

 

[Woobie]

By the way, I would like to hit the pause button for a moment.

I think Josh has done a wonderful job in this thread of calmly defending what is an unpopular position around here. If the rep system weren't useless, I would be giving him all I could.

I disagree with his position, but I admire the way he has defended it.

[Bell rings] aaaaand fight!

 

[hoosierdoc]

Its interesting that they point out that they haven't been able to draw a link between the CO2 discharged during a volcano and global warming. Such a massive spike should surely have some effect.

Maybe volcanic CO2 is environmentally friendly, while human CO2 is destructive.

yep, different when a volcano spews it compared to when capitalism spews it.

volacanoes drop temperatures. Humans raise it. It volacnoes had money they'd be evil too

 

[CampingJosh]

Its interesting that they point out that they haven't been able to draw a link between the CO2 discharged during a volcano and global warming. Such a massive spike should surely have some effect.

Maybe volcanic CO2 is environmentally friendly, while human CO2 is destructive.

The amount of CO2 put out from volcanoes is between 0.13 and and 0.44 gigaton annually. The amount from fuel combustion by humans is 32.2 gigaton. It's not a massive spike.

The Mt. St. Helens eruption put out 10 million tons in 9 hours. And that was a big eruption; one that size occurs about once per decade.

Humans put out that same amount every 2.5 hours.

Same source: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

 

[CampingJosh]

By the way, I would like to hit the pause button for a moment.

I think Josh has done a wonderful job in this thread of calmly defending what is an unpopular position around here. If the rep system weren't useless, I would be giving him all I could.

I disagree with his position, but I admire the way he has defended it.

[Bell rings] aaaaand fight!

Thanks, Woobie. I don't want to be part of a fight, but I do enjoy the discussion.

I was skeptical about it until about a year ago. Then I started to do a lot of reading. I've come to the conclusions that (1) the earth is warming in a way that does not match up with we would expect from historical data, and that (2) human activity is very likely contributing to the warming.

 

[Woobie]

The amount of CO2 put out from volcanoes is between 0.13 and and 0.44 gigaton annually. The amount from fuel combustion by humans is 32.2 gigaton. It's not a massive spike.

The Mt. St. Helens eruption put out 10 million tons in 9 hours. And that was a big eruption; one that size occurs about once per decade.

Humans put out that same amount every 2.5 hours.

Same source: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

I read the same part. But your inference is flawed. .13 to .44 gigatons is an annual average made by taking a very few massive ejections of CO2 in a very short time and dividing it out over years.

 

[CampingJosh]

I read the same part. But your inference is flawed. .13 to .44 gigatons is an annual average made by taking a very few massive ejections of CO2 in a very short time and dividing it out over years.

It's counting all of the roughly 60 to 80 volcanic eruptions per year. It includes the massive ones, but it also includes all of the smaller eruptions that happen on a regular basis. That's why there is a range.

I guess I'm not sure what I'm inferring that could be mistaken. What I wrote there was straight from the USGS:

The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens vented approximately 10 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in only 9 hours. However, it currently takes humanity only 2.5 hours to put out the same amount. While large explosive eruptions like this are rare and only occur globally every 10 years or so, humanity's emissions are ceaseless and increasing every year.

 

[Woobie]

But that is the measurement of all human activity across the planet. This would still be a significant amount, in addition to the normal, and concentrated in one small area. How does that not cause problems?

If Exxon ejected 10 million tons of CO2 in 9 hours, the CEO would be testifying before congress, and the media would be calling for his head. Why? The climate, which Mt. St.Helens is incapable of damaging.

 

[CampingJosh]

But that is the measurement of all human activity across the planet. This would still be a significant amount, in addition to the normal, and concentrated in one small area. How does that not cause problems?

Yes, 10 million tonnes in a concentrated area has a devastating effect. It does cause problems. That's (part of) why it's unsafe to be around a volcano when it erupts.

But it dissipates much too quickly to affect a long-term trend such as climate.

If Exxon ejected 10 million tons of CO2 in 9 hours, the CEO would be testifying before congress, and the media would be calling for his head. Why? The climate, which Mt. St.Helens is incapable of damaging.

Perhaps it's just that we cannot control the emissions of a volcano, nor can we hold a volcano accountable for what it has done. The volcano doesn't have agency.

If a wave hits and tips my canoe, I'm silly to be mad at the wave. When my brother grabs the side of the canoe and tips it, I'm not wrong to be upset.

 

[printcraft]

.....If a wave hits and tips my canoe, I'm silly to be mad at the wave. When my brother grabs the side of the canoe and tips it, I'm not wrong to be upset.

Your brother is part of nature as well.

 

[Woobie]

Perhaps it's just that we cannot control the emissions of a volcano, nor can we hold a volcano accountable for what it has done. The volcano doesn't have agency.

If a wave hits and tips my canoe, I'm silly to be mad at the wave. When my brother grabs the side of the canoe and tips it, I'm not wrong to be upset.

But the article said the volcano does not contribute to global warming. This speaks to the politicizing of the facts. If the wave tipping you over doesn't get you wet, then neither does your brother when he tips the canoe. But we want it both ways. Waves don't get us measurably wet, but our brother drenches us. So we get mad at the brother and charge him Carbon Credits.

 

[seedubs1]

Lots around here aren't interested in facts unless they're "facts" from right leaning media. Emissions and the impact on the earth are issues that should not be politicized and split down the isle into "believers" and "non-believers."

Hell, look at China. Anyone who's been to the big cities there (I'm one of them) will tell you that it is inconceivable that there are "non-believers" in man made climate change. What humanity is doing to the earth via pollution is absolutely undeniable. Now, you come back here and talk to people that have never left Indiana, where we have some nice forests and clean air, and they're going to look at you like you're nuts when you tell them that humans are making the earth uninhabitable.

As well, lots on this site would argue for getting rid of any regulations on emissions (industrial, vehicular, etc...). They'll tell you "The market will take care of it. People won't buy from the companies that pollute." It's hog wash. People won't do the right thing, and we've proven that with China. We keep buying from them even though we know it's terrible and causing awfulness. In the end, most people are only concerned with themselves and saving a buck by shopping at Walmart and buying Chinese made crap that's killing the planet.

It's counting all of the roughly 60 to 80 volcanic eruptions per year. It includes the massive ones, but it also includes all of the smaller eruptions that happen on a regular basis. That's why there is a range.

I guess I'm not sure what I'm inferring that could be mistaken. What I wrote there was straight from the USGS:

 

[CampingJosh]

Your brother is part of nature as well.

Agency.

The volcano doesn't have a choice. You can't reasonably be mad at something that doesn't have a choice.

 

[CampingJosh]

But the article said the volcano does not contribute to global warming. This speaks to the politicizing of the facts.

Wrong. The first sentence of the article is "Volcanoes can impact climate change."

 

[Woobie]

Lots around here aren't interested in facts unless they're "facts" from right leaning media. Emissions and the impact on the earth are issues that should not be politicized and split down the isle into "believers" and "non-believers."

Hell, look at China. Anyone who's been to the big cities there (I'm one of them) will tell you that it is inconceivable that there are "non-believers" in man made climate change. What humanity is doing to the earth via pollution is absolutely undeniable. Now, you come back here and talk to people that have never left Indiana, where we have some nice forests and clean air, and they're going to look at you like you're nuts when you tell them that humans are making the earth uninhabitable.

As well, lots on this site would argue for getting rid of any regulations on emissions (industrial, vehicular, etc...). They'll tell you "The market will take care of it. People won't buy from the companies that pollute." It's hog wash. People won't do the right thing, and we've proven that with China. We keep buying from them even though we know it's terrible and causing awfulness. In the end, most people are only concerned with themselves and saving a buck by shopping at Walmart and buying Chinese made crap that's killing the planet.

Now hold on a second. Don't conflate pollution with CO2 climate change.

I mean, we set the Cuyahoga river on fire some years back. Pollution is real. But is Silverado (but not Corolla) exhaust and cow farts really what is causing the planet to warm?

 

[spencer rifle]

So I'm curious - why have all the doom-and-gloom predictions, based on "scientific" models, not come to pass? Is the climate too chaotic a system to model effectively, or are the models wrong, or is the political process corrupting the relay of reliable information? And are we expected to believe what the models tell us even though the real world continues to defy prediction?