cantgetaname said:
Ok the volcano thing is kinda annoying me, how can (what max 10 major eruptions a year?) be more then the constant burning of fossil fuels that humans do? Yes volcanoes may put out a lot all at once, but just basic estimation can tell that people put out more DURING A YEAR.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value into the atmosphere every yea
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/
Comon some BASIC Goolging AT LEAST before you say something
that took me like 5 minutes
but there's two problems with the "yearls average temperature" thing. The problem is that each new "spike" in average temperatures coincides with more accurate ways to measure temperatures. Case in point: the greatest leap in history of global temperatures was in the 1970's. the 1970's was also the decade we began to launch weather satellites which could take more detailed readings of the global temperature of the earth. Not only was it far more accurate, but it also allowed us to gather information from the oceans, an area that was vaguely studied in terms of temperatures. It was then discovered that oceans were vastly more warm than previously thought, and since oceans make up roughly 3 quarters of the world, by implication the world is vastly warmer.
Further proof of climate change being wrong is looking at it climatologically, over the course of thousands of years. When viewed in this light, it becomes clear that we've been going through natural cycles (this would also explain why, 40 years ago, the majority of scientists thought we were going through global cooling). It is not in dispute whether or not humans are altering the climate; the dispute is how fast. the majority of scientists believe that drastic changes won't occur for another 100-500 years. How does that account for things like the polar ice caps melting? They melt due to other factors, such as a rise in CO2 in the oceans, and arctic plate instability.
it's also worth noting that in the last decade, when more carbon dioxide was released than in any previous decade, the global temperature has actually gone down almost as much as it rose in the 30 years prior (leading many to conclude that the idea of the earths climate as cyclical to be correct).
Lastly, it is also interesting to note that CO2, the greatest pollutant, is also the weakest in terms of green house effect. The reality is that global warming activist do not actually believe themselves that CO2 raises temperatures, but rather that CO2 can have adverse effects on things like the ocean, where too much CO2 can disrupt natural ocean currents; if these currents collapsed, no warm water would reach the poles, causing the ice caps to grow - sparking a new ice age. Further proof of CO2's inability to effect the climate can be found in the fact that the vast majority gets absorbed into the oceans. If CO2 is all under water, how is it that it can raise atmospheric temperatures? Put simply, it can't.
What people don't realize is almost everything global warming activists throw at them is either simply a half truth or an oversimplification of the real problem. Frankly, I don't disagree with their methods because having to explain that "CO2 doesn't cause air to warm but fucks up the ocean!" is a lot harder than saying, "CO2 WILL FRY YOUR MUFFIN TOPS RIGHT OFF YOUR JEANS IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL!" Who cares about the ocean? but when everything from storms to droughts to increased asthmatics can be explained by increased temperatures and "green house gases", it's a much easier ploy.
The problem I have is with the histeria around it. Global warming exists, yes; Florida, however, will not be under water in a few decades. Try a few Centuries. and I'm hoping by then I'll be a brain in a floating vesicle living in a brain-retirement-home somewhere on the Citadel. heheh.
