finally some sense about global warming

[roberth]

It is naive to think that all the shit we pump into the atmosphere is not having an effect.

One volcano puts more stuff into the atmosphere than mankind has to this point in history and beyond.

I think we should take all the climate change idiots and stuff them into Mauna Loa so they do their part to stop climate change.

[Marlin]

That's what the hole in the ozone over the antartic is for,,,, pressure relief...

[DeusExMachina]

One volcano puts more stuff into the atmosphere than mankind has to this point in history and beyond.

I think we should take all the climate change idiots and stuff them into Mauna Loa so they do their part to stop climate change.

Got a source for that?

Do volcanos cut down the forests that process CO2, too?

[roberth]

Got a source for that?

Do volcanos cut down the forests that process CO2, too?

Not at the moment I don't.

I am going to have to spend some time looking up the claims for mankind's output and volcanic output. I may be wrong.

[sniper7]

Got a source for that?

Do volcanos cut down the forests that process CO2, too?

watched a show on discovery or history that said the trees in the very north and very south part of the hemisphere put out more oxygen than all humans could use, so I guess that is a good thing with all the deforestation going on.


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/

factcheck says volcanoes on average don't do as much as humans do.

''150,000 to 300,000 tons of CO2 per day at the height of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption''

"But the European Union’s air travel, which was shut down for days during the eruption, accounts for 3 percent of the EU’s total CO2 emissions, which according to the European Environment Agency was about 4,089 billion tons in 2008"

info from USGS:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."

the biggest threat from volcanoes is the massive amount of gasses that come out in large quantities. their relative percentages compared to the air we breathe, even in downtown smog filled cities can be pretty harmful.


Over the last 100 years a lot of really good progress has been made as far as emissions go from airplanes and cars and boats and powerplants etc etc.
but the number of the vehicles and planes and plants in use has also gone up.

unfortunately, that is the way it is. people can bitch and moan and complain all they want. I fly jets, I drive my big 4x4's and ride my 4 wheelers and do what I want to do. I pay for it. I use the technology that is available. until the costs come down and the availability of new technology comes about, ain't shit gonna change.

[DeusExMachina]

The important thing is to make further progress. Besides environmental costs, the economic and political costs of using fossil fuels is huge.

I had a discussion with a friend the other day, we could do a lot of damage to the middle east if we can get off oil as quickly as possible. We can also beat out China, who has a huge dependance on oil.

I'm not some drippy hippy saying we need to ban gasoline or something, but in the name of progress and our future it would be a very good idea to be wary of how much we dump into the atmosphere, and work on alternative energy.

[DeusExMachina]

I've got some source for you:

Fact, greenhouse gasses account for less than 2% of the global climate model, which has not changed. It was the same when I was in school, when you were in school, but it isn't curriculum anymore, because it conflicts with the religion of carbon-cause climate change according to the profit (oop, sorry, prophet) with financial motives, al-gore, and those like him. Data on the other 98% of the climate model isn't even historically available.

Fact, of that 2%, carbon dioxide is a minority contributor. METHANE is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. If you believe CO2 is causing "climate change", then PETA is correct and its actually cows causing it.

Fact: We have less than 40 years of global data that can be considered scientifically accurate, but "climate change" scientists make broad statements on how things have been, or how they will be, based on less than four decades of evidence. This is akin to seeing a single frame of a movie, one sixtieth of a second, and telling everybody what the plot is going to be, and how it ends.

Fact: It's scientifically impossible to determine actual temperature prior to phsyical measurement and recording. All that is possible is "guessing", with HUGE margins of error. Find the 10,000 year temperature graphs that you so diligently base your faith in your religion in. Notice they say accuracy to (1/10th of a degree) or some other load of horse crap. Now, look at scientific charts from other points of view, and notice they have as much as 10 degrees of variation, but show the general peaks and lands and still claim 1/10th of a degree of accuracy. Guess what, both are bullshit. Through all means, they are LUCKY, and I mean LUCKY, if they get a margin of error that's 5-10 degrees. Yet their entire "cooling" and "warming" trends are by the tenth of the degree. Can you not smell the bullshit? And no, I don't mean cavemen didn't have thermometers. I mean the vibration of atoms leaves no record. All they have to go on is barometric pressures in bubbles, size of tree rings, etc. Do you honestly think you can guess the temperature to a tenth of a degree by looking at a flipping tree ring? So, each side (pro global warming, anti global warming) looks at the same set of data, and "interprets" it to the extreme ends of the margin of error to prove a point... they call it valid because its "inside the margin of error" but it is not science. It's perception.

But, I do believe in the free expression of religion, so carry on. Don't try to pretend its anything more than blind faith in a "theory", because the real evidence doesn't exist (and it doesn't exist either way).

And don't call for evidence disproving it as there is no evidence proving it in the first place. The burden of proof rests on the theory, not the status quo. I could make up a theory that three legged aliens live in the core of the earth, are you supposed to believe it with blind faith just cause I said so? Or should I have to prove it before its made into curriculum in the K-12 educational system.

Last fact: Carbon caused "climate change" is an invented assumption that has its roots mostly driven by politics, it demonizes the things that certain people want to be demonized; also people that tend to already dislike those things (factories, oil, etc.) will tend to believe it just for that fact. Instant followers of a religion.

Oh and ETA: Don't make any assumptions as to my bias with things. I actually KNOW a way to get us off oil dependance, but I don't think I'll ever see it in my lifetime, despite how much I'd like to see it realized. The difference is, I want it because its politically and economically beneficial. How would you like to drive across country for $20-$40 instead of $1500 and not have to worry about international issues? This is called intelligence.

Doing something because "herpa derp I'm reducin' emissions" is just peons of a religion.

You didn't link any sources.

[DeusExMachina]

Measurements from Antarctic ice cores show that before industrial emissions started atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and stayed between 260 and 280 during the preceding ten thousand years.[34] Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by approximately 35 percent since the 1900s, rising from 280 parts per million by volume to 387 parts per million in 2009. ...

Because of the way air is trapped in ice (pores in the ice close off slowly to form bubbles deep within the firn) and the time period represented in each ice sample analyzed, these figures represent averages of atmospheric concentrations of up to a few centuries rather than annual or decadal levels.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of most of the greenhouse gases have increased. For example, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by about 36% to 380 ppmv, or 100 ppmv over modern pre-industrial levels. The first 50 ppmv increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; however the next 50 ppmv increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.[38]

Recent data also shows that the concentration is increasing at a higher rate. In the 1960s, the average annual increase was only 37% of what it was in 2000 through 2007.

Emissions are rising at an unprecedented rate.

Also, methane degrades into water and CO2 in a relatively short time. Compared to:

Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[61] Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.

Believing that we are not having an effect on our planet is just sticking your thumbs in your ears and going "la-la-la"...

[funkfool]

Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1 -4%.

-------------------
Atmospheric gases are often divided up into the major, constant components and the highly variable components, as listed below:

Constant Components. Proportions remain the same over time and location.
Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Neon, Helium, Krypton 0.0001%

Variable Components. Amounts vary over time and location.
Carbon dioxide (CO2)0.038%
Water vapor (H20)0-4%
Methane (CH4)trace
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)trace
Ozone (O3)trace
Nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, N2O)trace

0.039% CO²
Almost four one-hundreths of ONE PERCENT of our 'air'.
Yeah... we're killin' ourselves.

[ChunkyMonkey]

la la la la la