Global Warming

Recommended Videos

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,853
0
0
paypuh said:
Oh we know the numbers and all that and could compare our CO2 output with volcanoes for all day long.

What I'm saying is that we don't know the effect it has. In complex systems, even a miniscule change in one direction can lead to great consequences. Like an avalanche can be triggered by a single snowflake falling to a wrong place. In complex systems we cannot accurately predict outcomes even on short term, not to mention long term.

You ask which is it? WE DON'T KNOW! We have the historical data, but that is no guarantee of future data. Having -55 C the next winter in Alaska might the the first indication of a cooling period or it might be a fluke, jsut as having + 40 C at your local town this summer might be a statistical anomaly or one of the first indicators that something is about to go hell in a handbasket. The trend is clearly visible only after the fact.

Sometimes you just have to accept that there is no certainty. Study some quantum mechanics and you'll soon get used to the feeling.
 

Low Key

New member
May 7, 2009
2,503
0
0
SakSak said:
paypuh said:
Oh we know the numbers and all that and could compare our CO2 output with volcanoes for all day long.

What I'm saying is that we don't know the effect it has. In complex systems, even a miniscule change in one direction can lead to great consequences. Like an avalanche can be triggered by a single snowflake falling to a wrong place. In complex systems we cannot accurately predict outcomes even on short term, not to mention long term.

You ask which is it? WE DON'T KNOW! We have the historical data, but that is no guarantee of future data. Having -55 C the next winter in Alaska might the the first indication of a cooling period or it might be a fluke, jsut as having + 40 C at your local town this summer might be a statistical anomaly or one of the first indicators that something is about to go hell in a handbasket. The trend is clearly visible only after the fact.

Sometimes you just have to accept that there is no certainty. Study some quantum mechanics and you'll soon get used to the feeling.
Please show me these sources you have that equate our CO2 production with the amount given off by volcanoes.

But you are right, there is no certainty. There is no certainty if we become the most efficent life form ever, or if we pollute to our heart's content. Worrying about global warming is like being a hypochondriac, therefore, I see no point in stressing about it.
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,853
0
0
paypuh said:
Please show me these sources you have that equate our CO2 production with the amount given off by volcanoes.
Can't be exactly done (every eruption depends of so many variables), but here's some material.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/632130/volcano/24453/Volcanic-eruptions

"The most common volcanic gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Small quantities of other volatile elements and compounds also are present, such as hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury. The specific gaseous compounds released from magma depend on the temperature, pressure, and overall composition of the volatile elements present. The amount of available oxygen is of critical importance in determining which volatile gases are present. When oxygen is lacking, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide are chemically stable, but when hot volcanic gases mix with atmospheric gases, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are stable.

Some volcanic gases are less soluble in magma than others and therefore separate at higher pressures. Studies at Kilauea in Hawaii indicate that carbon dioxide begins to separate from its parent magma at depths of about 40 km (25 miles), whereas most of the sulfur gases and water are not released until the magma has nearly reached the surface."

From wikipedia, volcanoes.

"Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the stratosphere to heights of 16?32 kilometres (10?20 mi) above the Earth's surface. The most significant impacts from these injections come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the Earth's albedo?its reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space - and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years ? sulfur dioxide from the eruption of Huaynaputina probably caused the Russian famine of 1601 - 1603.

Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year"

One teragram is 1 000 000 000 kg or 1 000 000 metric tons, equalling these numbers to 130 to 230 million metric tons.

And of mud volcanoes: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v2v02q5176q64161/

"Global gas emissions are provisionally estimated to exceed 27 billion cubic metres per year, of which more than 23 billion (15.8 Tg) is methane. More than 70% of this is from short-lived eruptions, about 30% of which ignite to produce flames tens or hundreds of metres high. The majority of the methane is emitted by submarine mud volcanoes, most in deep water. About 11.4 Tg per year is lost to the hydrosphere, but a tentatively estimated 3.6 Tg per year escapes to the atmosphere"

And from a NASA article:

http://geology.com/nasa/human-carbon-dioxide/

"Human activities add a worldwide average of almost 1.4 metric tons of carbon per person per year to the atmosphere. Before industrialization, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million. By 1958, the concentration of carbon dioxide had increased to around 315 parts per million, and by 2007, it had risen to about 383 parts per million. These increases were due almost entirely to human activity."

That 1.4 metric tons per person adds up to (6.77 billion humans assumed) 9 478 000 000 metric tons or 9.487 billion metric tons of carbon/year.

If even 10% of that carbon produced by human activity is in the form of carbon dioxide, we are still talking about 4 to 7 times to production of volcanic eruptions.

And carbon dioxide actually weights more than just carbon, so if the given output of human activity was pure carbon, the numbers are skewed even more to the side of human activity. One carbon-12 atom weighs around 12 g/mol, carbon dioxide weighs 44,0 g/mol. 12 grams of carbon therefore translates to 44 grams of carbon dioxide. or every gram of carbon translates to 3,667 grams of carbon dioxide.

This means that 900 million metric tons (slightly less than 10% of total human activity carbon production) of carbon, when combined with oxygen, is 3 300 000 000 metric tons or 3.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. That is over ten times that of estimated maximum average volcanic activity produces (that was 230 million metric tons).
 

Anomynous 167

New member
May 6, 2008
404
0
0
Fightgarr said:
Okay look. Volcanoes produce a lot of carbon, this is true. Its part of the reason our planet has an atmosphere. The actual human-caused part of carbon emissions is about 2% of global emissions from all sources. The thing is, its that extra 2% that is causing problems.

So for all of you that think volcanoes are a reason to stop worrying about the environment? Do some fucking research.

I honestly think its a bit sickening when people write off environmental issues because its not convenient to them. I'm not saying you necessarily are, but a lot of people just write them off so they don't have to worry about the environment and, to me, that's disgusting.
No
We write off enviromental issues because that issue is a load of bullshit.
THE EARTH HAS BEEN COOLING FOR 11 YEARS AND YOU STILL THINK IT'S GETTING WARMER?

Question
What is the hottest year on record?
Say 1998 and you have proven to fall for the scam.
Say 1934 and you have done your research.

On a side note, I just read all the other 24 posts. And I now feal redundant.
 

Mockingjay

New member
Mar 3, 2009
1,019
0
0
I believe the changes the earth is going through currently is natural, as do many scientists however, I also believe a little bit of stewardship wouldn't hurt anyone but as for the hype, it's clearly bullshit.
 

Lonan

New member
Dec 27, 2008
1,242
0
0
Anomynous 167 said:
Fightgarr said:
Okay look. Volcanoes produce a lot of carbon, this is true. Its part of the reason our planet has an atmosphere. The actual human-caused part of carbon emissions is about 2% of global emissions from all sources. The thing is, its that extra 2% that is causing problems.

So for all of you that think volcanoes are a reason to stop worrying about the environment? Do some fucking research.

I honestly think its a bit sickening when people write off environmental issues because its not convenient to them. I'm not saying you necessarily are, but a lot of people just write them off so they don't have to worry about the environment and, to me, that's disgusting.
No
We write off enviromental issues because that issue is a load of bullshit.
THE EARTH HAS BEEN COOLING FOR 11 YEARS AND YOU STILL THINK IT'S GETTING WARMER?

Question
What is the hottest year on record?
Say 1998 and you have proven to fall for the scam.
Say 1934 and you have done your research.

On a side note, I just read all the other 24 posts. And I now feal redundant.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610?blend=1&ob=4#play/uploads/5/y15UGhhRd6M
 

Lonan

New member
Dec 27, 2008
1,242
0
0
Obama Osama Llama Diorama said:
Anyone else think it's made up?
I feel like Gore just wanted attention and so he told us our atmosphere is dissolving
turns out our own planet is doing more to damage the ozone: a volcano near Alaska is producing more carbon than the whole state of new york could put out in 50 years
and by the way polar bears aren't stupid or helpless
they CAN swim and don't wait til they're stuck on some tiny ass iceberg in the middle of the ocean
and one more thing
antarctic ice sheet is the largest it's ever been
so is this actually a problem?
I'm all for the environment and being green
but should we really be freaking out?
Here's a video for the Antarctic ice sheet crock. http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610?blend=1&ob=4#play/uploads/15/2nruCRcbnY0
*edit*
This is the one which explains why the South Pole colls as the North Pole warms.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610?blend=1&ob=4#play/uploads/13/G0HGFSUx2a8
*edit*
This guy debunks all the climate change denial crocks. Another great website is www.bravenewclimate.com, and
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html
I hope this helps.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Izlude_Magnus said:
Not real. In fact I burned a DVD of An Inconvenient Lie Truth. Just to piss off some hippies, but unfortunately they don't know. In fact most competent scientists say we are in a global cooling phase.

P.S. And by burned I mean set on fire.
No. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf
 

The Blue Mongoose

New member
Jul 12, 2008
537
0
0
Obama Osama Llama Diorama said:
Anyone else think it's made up?
I feel like Gore just wanted attention and so he told us our atmosphere is dissolving
turns out our own planet is doing more to damage the ozone: a volcano near Alaska is producing more carbon than the whole state of new york could put out in 50 years
Ok the Ozone layer is a separate thing to global warming.

Global Warming: increase in CO2 leading to an increase in global temperatures because the polar bonds in CO2 absorb infrared radiation. This raises the molecules kinetic energy, an increase in molecular kinetic energy IS an increase in heat. (At least that's what I was taught in chem and physics).

Ozone Depletion is caused by O3 (ozone) reacting with things like Cl and Br.

Separate issues people, let's keep this in our heads.


Kwil said:
CO2 does reflect both ways, but remember, the heat energy that stays in the system.. well.. stays in the system, and bounces back and forth while even more heat energy is added to our system. Increase the reflectiveness and while we get less initially, what stays inside stays inside for even longer

That said, the natural suspects of global warming (solar variations, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity) have all been conspicuous in their absence over the last three decades during which warming has occurred. This is the big problem that those who argue against global warming have yet to explain. It isn't the sun. We have measurements of the sun's activity during which warming has occurred, and it's gone down. It isn't volcanic eruptions, there really hasn't been much volcanic activity to speak of. It isn't the natural cycle, as that suggests we should be cooling right now. While eliminating all of these doesn't necessarily mean that it's our CO2 production, it's currently the best fit theory for the empirical observations that have been obtained.
Firstly, CO2 reflects nothing. See above.

Secondly, during the industrial revolution we pumped out CO2 in huge ammounts, more than ever before. During this period global temperatures fell.

We're coming out of a "mini-iceage" or similar.

The frequency of sunspot appearences correllates more closely with changing global temperatures than change in CO2 level.

There are plenty of explanations, Global Climate Change is one of them. It is the most popular, but we hear less and less about it as we hear more about the "Economic Crisis". Just like we don't hear about terrorism anymore, soon we will get over it.

However, I agree that we should look for alternate fuels... after all fossil fuels are far from "clean".
 

Zombie_Fish

Opiner of Mottos
Mar 20, 2009
4,584
0
0
The world heats up and cools down over periods, as fossil fuels are dead plants which have turned CO[small]2[/small] into oxygen over the years before becoming oil/ coal/ as, being burned and cotributing back to the atmosphere.

The problem with that though is because of humans burning fossil fuels too quickly, the temperature is rising too quickly, so animals and habitats can't adapt fast enough. The result being that we need to worry about global warming, and we need to now.

We may only contribute 2% but 2% does make a difference.

Obama Osama Llama Diorama said:
turns out our own planet is doing more to damage the ozone: a volcano near Alaska is producing more carbon than the whole state of new york could put out in 50 years
Whilst I'm at it: OZONE IS A GREENHOUSE GAS! Carbon dioxide doesn't damage the ozone layer (Neither does carbon itself, and volcanoes don't make carbon on its own whilst I'm at it), chlorofluorocarbons do that, and that is a bad thing because as well as recycling about 2% of the earth's heat, the ozone layer stops UV rays from the sun getting through to earth. UV rays are what cause sun burns and skin cancer, thus why that needs to be protected.

I hate it when ozone layers are mentioned in threads about global warming as they have almost nothing to do with it.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
By the way:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
 

magnuslion

New member
Jun 16, 2009
898
0
0
I want my share of the global warming. it snows here a lot during the winter and I hate snow. so I'll take ours, Texas', and anybody else that does'nt want their fair share, ship it here.
 

Virus49

New member
Jul 7, 2009
188
0
0
Global warming is bullshit. Made up just so some people can make some more money. y2k is another example of this, it caused people to panic buy a hell of a lot of things making certain people very rich. But when it came down to it nothing was ever going to happen.
 

space_oddity

New member
Oct 24, 2008
514
0
0
Whether climate change is a product of human industialisation, a stage in a natural global cycle or a combination of both is irrelevant.
We cant do anything to inhibit it in any way. If it is indeed man made the only way stop it from getting worse would be a complete halt in all industrial activity. Not a reduction, a halt. Any changes already in effect are irreversable.
If it is part of a natural cycle then we cant, and shouldnt try and influence it.

On a side note; does anyone really think climate change will suddenly wipe out the human race in a week? We are humanity. We are the single most adaptive species that exhibit conciousness in the discovered universe.
Sea levels rise? We will build houses on fuckning stilts.
Damaged ecosytem destroys livestock? We will eat fucking leaves.

Man up.
 

Faps

New member
Jul 27, 2008
412
0
0
Firstly, I'm loving all the sources being shown here, it really shows that people can form a valid argument rather than just spouting their own opinion that have no basis.

Anyhoo the green movement should be seized upon by both global warming believers and deniers as it gives us a chance to move away from having an energy economy that is practically dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia. I'm sure everyone can agree that it's better to have wind, geo-thermal and tidal sources of energy that we own and control rather than relying on a foreign country to provide it.

The Human impact on the global warming effect is visible and undeniable, you cannot expect to produce billions of extra tonnes of CO2 each year without it having an adverse effect on the planets temperature. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the more of it in the atmosphere there is, the warmer the planet will get. This is a fact.
 

Gaderael

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,549
0
0
I started to look up research that supports global warming claims, but then thought, why bother? Those that do not believe it will not have their minds changed no matter how much evidence is shown to them, just as those who do believe in it will not listen to the deniers.

Global Warming Theory supporters and deniers have shifted it from a scientific to a religious debate.

Personally, I don't see why we cannot just err on the side of caution and try to produce cleaner technologies. It's not going to hurt anything in the end and we'll end up with some really cool gadgets.
 

Panzer_God

Welcome to the League of Piccolo
Apr 29, 2009
1,070
0
0
Oh boy, this could get ugly. I see it like this, we don't have nearly enough data to viably say that we have/do not have an environmental affect. You guys argue with what scientists say, one problem with that, the scientists are way out of their league when it comes to climate. I'm just gonna sit back, keep doing what I'm doing and if the world suddenly raises 20 degrees I'll become as green as the next person but there won't be enough solid data until generations after we're dead.
 

Geamo

New member
Aug 27, 2008
801
0
0
Al Gore likes and has used Futurama to great effect with his campagin. That means he is awesome.