• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?


  • Total voters
    115

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
29,081
Reaction score
8,160
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Really, it seems to me that the only way to completely determine one way or another would be to:

Place temperature, pressure, energy, and molecular (as in, what molecules are in the area) sensors on a 25 meter (or would 250 meter be more reasonable?) spacing in a 3-D grid covering the entire surface of the earth and extending up to geosynchronous orbit.

Tie it to the Sats there with large ribbons.

Of gold foil covered cloth, to protect against sunlight.

Shiny.

Use data collected from such to prove or disprove theories as to how various gasses produced (or not) by man are causing an effect which the earth cannot correct for on its own, and without any other than very minor changes outside the normal shifts in temperature, atmospheric makeup, and such.

Hope that the sensors all stay where they are supposed to be, functioning normally, despite the normal (and drastically adverse to such a system) changes in weather around the globe.

Of course, you could use sensors in space, on the ground, and floating on balloons to do the same…to an extent.

But it wouldn’t be anywhere near as accurate…

Thoughts on my idea?

:mrgreen:
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Quotes from Scientist that you will not address because only the liars of the IPCC and NASA matter.

Ignore them then if you don't trust them and give me documentation for your position from any scientific body of national or international standing.

I'll wait!
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Really, it seems to me that the only way to completely determine one way or another would be to:

Place temperature, pressure, energy, and molecular (as in, what molecules are in the area) sensors on a 25 meter (or would 250 meter be more reasonable?) spacing in a 3-D grid covering the entire surface of the earth and extending up to geosynchronous orbit.

Tie it to the Sats there with large ribbons.

Of gold foil covered cloth, to protect against sunlight.

Shiny.

Use data collected from such to prove or disprove theories as to how various gasses produced (or not) by man are causing an effect which the earth cannot correct for on its own, and without any other than very minor changes outside the normal shifts in temperature, atmospheric makeup, and such.

Hope that the sensors all stay where they are supposed to be, functioning normally, despite the normal (and drastically adverse to such a system) changes in weather around the globe.

Of course, you could use sensors in space, on the ground, and floating on balloons to do the same…to an extent.

But it wouldn’t be anywhere near as accurate…

Thoughts on my idea?

:mrgreen:

If that is what you need to do, please let us know of your results. :mrgreen:

In the meantime for myself, I am satisfied with the findings by every scientific organization of National or International standing through decades of study as shown here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/66084-global-warming-myth-59.html#post1058572693
 
Last edited:

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think we have already gone past the tipping point of global warming get a helmet.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
15,485
Reaction score
11,256
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Quotes from Scientist that you will not address because only the liars of the IPCC and NASA matter.

The biggest problem most people have when talking about Global Warming is that they do not really comprehend that they are only talking about a theory.

Now Climate Change and Global Warming as a trend is a fact, that is known simply because ice sheets no longer cover huge areas of North America, Europe, and Asia. Nobody disputes that the Earth is growing warmer, and has been doing so since our most advanced tool was a rock.

However, Man Made Global Warming is simply a theory. It is no more of a fact then what the Universe was like before the Big Bang or the ultimate fate of the Universe ("Big Crunch" or "Big Freeze").

And the biggest problem for people like me in accepting that "Man Made Global Warming" is simply the small amount of true empirical data we have. Most of our "true" data really only dates back 100 years or so. We have some other data that goes back another 100-200 years beyond that, but it is spotty at best. Other climate speculations are just that, speculation.

However, we do know that during the last ice age, North Africa was a lush wetland. Death Valley was a massive lake at the time of the fall of the Roman Republic. And a huge number of paleolithic American Indian sites are inaccessable because they are now located under water, covered by the rising ocean level since the last ice age ended.

100 or so years of data is not enough to accurately determine facts in the cause and effect of something like the climate and weather patterns over the entire planet. And the fact that "Global Cooling" has become "Global Warming" has become "Climate Change" shows how little most scientists really understand such things, reguardless of what some want people to think.

To me, the only honest scientists are the ones that say "We do not know, but we suspect..." To me anybody that claims they know for sure is a liar.
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The biggest problem most people have when talking about Global Warming is that they do not really comprehend that they are only talking about a theory.

Now Climate Change and Global Warming as a trend is a fact, that is known simply because ice sheets no longer cover huge areas of North America, Europe, and Asia. Nobody disputes that the Earth is growing warmer, and has been doing so since our most advanced tool was a rock.

However, Man Made Global Warming is simply a theory. It is no more of a fact then what the Universe was like before the Big Bang or the ultimate fate of the Universe ("Big Crunch" or "Big Freeze").

And the biggest problem for people like me in accepting that "Man Made Global Warming" is simply the small amount of true empirical data we have. Most of our "true" data really only dates back 100 years or so. We have some other data that goes back another 100-200 years beyond that, but it is spotty at best. Other climate speculations are just that, speculation.

However, we do know that during the last ice age, North Africa was a lush wetland. Death Valley was a massive lake at the time of the fall of the Roman Republic. And a huge number of paleolithic American Indian sites are inaccessable because they are now located under water, covered by the rising ocean level since the last ice age ended.

100 or so years of data is not enough to accurately determine facts in the cause and effect of something like the climate and weather patterns over the entire planet. And the fact that "Global Cooling" has become "Global Warming" has become "Climate Change" shows how little most scientists really understand such things, reguardless of what some want people to think.

To me, the only honest scientists are the ones that say "We do not know, but we suspect..." To me anybody that claims they know for sure is a liar.

No honest scientist will claim to know for certain anything.However nobody disputes greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.Also nobody disputes man makes greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere.

So if your going de despute man made global warming you are at least not saying it doesent exist but saying its not significant.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
29,081
Reaction score
8,160
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If that is what you need to do, please let us know of your results. :mrgreen:

In the meantime for myself, I am satisfied with the findings by every scientific organization of National or International standing through decades of study as shown here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/66084-global-warming-myth-59.html#post1058572693

But I am not.

  1. I want to see:
  2. What their data was/is.
  3. Where and how they collected it.
  4. How and why they processed it as they did.
  5. Where their funding came/comes from.
  6. And, finally, I want to understand the math so that I can duplicate their findings myself.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
15,485
Reaction score
11,256
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No honest scientist will claim to know for certain anything.However nobody disputes greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.Also nobody disputes man makes greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere.

So if your going de despute man made global warming you are at least not saying it doesent exist but saying its not significant.

Fair enough. And kindly pass along to those that do believe in it that we are not all "Republican Idiots" or "Tools of the Corporations".

I am an intelligent person, and have reached my own conclusions after a great many years of looking into the available facts and trends for myself. Nobody tells me what to think or believe. And frankly, I find it insulting when somebody implies that I do.

And to deny that Global Warming even exists requires a real moron. Most of us do not question if it is happening, only the cause.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
But I am not.

  1. I want to see:
  2. What their data was/is.
  3. Where and how they collected it.
  4. How and why they processed it as they did.
  5. Where their funding came/comes from.
  6. And, finally, I want to understand the math so that I can duplicate their findings myself.


My suggestion then would be to get a copy of the all the studies referenced in the link below and study them and research their funding. You may find it a bit daunting to duplicate the decades of research, thousands of in the field data collections, and observations from space. But if you have a big enough budget and a scientific background perhaps you can duplicate their finding yourself. Of course if the scientific community is correct in their current findings, it will be too late for the earth to act upon your findings and you will have doomed future life on the planet.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

For myself, since I do not believe that every scientific organization of national or international standing on the planet have been conspiring for decades, I will go with their consensus.

Best of luck to you in your scientific endeavors! Hope you do not mind if we do not wait on you to take action to protect our environment from further degradation in the meantime.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
29,081
Reaction score
8,160
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
My suggestion then would be to get a copy of the all the studies referenced in the link below and study them and research their funding. You may find it a bit daunting to duplicate the decades of research, thousands of in the field data collections, and observations from space. But if you have a big enough budget and a scientific background perhaps you can duplicate their finding yourself. Of course if the scientific community is correct in their current findings, it will be too late for the earth to act upon your findings and you will have doomed future life on the planet.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

For myself, since I do not believe that every scientific organization of national or international standing on the planet have been conspiring for decades, I will go with their consensus.

Best of luck to you in your scientific endeavors! Hope you do not mind if we do not wait on you to take action to protect our environment from further degradation in the meantime.
I forgot that I need to invent a time machine so that I can put my previously mentioned climate monitoring system into place sometime around 1 million years ago.
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Nasa does a pretty good job of explaining the science in layman's terms:

NASA - Global Warming

The EPA site does a solid job of breaking the state knowledge down into three categories:

  • What's Known
  • What's very likely
  • What's not certain

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

We know what the theory is. You don't have to keep explaining it to us.

The whole point of this thread and the debate surrounding AGW is that not everyone agrees. I know that's hard for some alarmists to accept - that some people might actually question a scientific theory - but eventually they'll just have to accept the fact that not everyone who questions AGW is a giant ignoramus, and that the debate is hardly over, despite what Al Gore has to say about it. He's not the king of science, and neither is NASA.

By the way, which year was the hottest in the US? 1998 or 1934? Maybe you can ask NASA...

Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error | Environment | The Guardian
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
15,485
Reaction score
11,256
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
My suggestion then would be to get a copy of the all the studies referenced in the link below and study them and research their funding. You may find it a bit daunting to duplicate the decades of research, thousands of in the field data collections, and observations from space. But if you have a big enough budget and a scientific background perhaps you can duplicate their finding yourself. Of course if the scientific community is correct in their current findings, it will be too late for the earth to act upon your findings and you will have doomed future life on the planet.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

For myself, since I do not believe that every scientific organization of national or international standing on the planet have been conspiring for decades, I will go with their consensus.

Best of luck to you in your scientific endeavors! Hope you do not mind if we do not wait on you to take action to protect our environment from further degradation in the meantime.

Those are both good references. However, the first one still tries to absolutely link Global Warming with rising CO2 levels.

We had rising temperatures of a much larger scale between the end of the last ice age and the start of the industrial revolution, without such an increase in CO2 levels. So the link is not as concrete as some would have us think. And they do not explain how the present heating cycle started, nor how it will end.

For many of us in the 1970's, we were instructed in other things that would affect such trends. One of which was how the melting of ice sheets by itself increases global warming.

Ice sheets (be they polar or the continental ones like during an ice age) reflect a large amount of heat back into space. And unlike the surface they do not retain such heat. This is why a few years of increased snow fall creates glaciers.

And once those sheets start to melt, less heat and light is reflected back into space, so the warming trend accellarates. And this can also be alleviated by the increased land being used by large plants, which captures and traps increasing amunts of CO2.

But these are cycles that cover tens and hundreds of thousands of years, over an area the size of our planet. For anybody to claim they really understand them is extreme vanity.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Those are both good references. However, the first one still tries to absolutely link Global Warming with rising CO2 levels.

We had rising temperatures of a much larger scale between the end of the last ice age and the start of the industrial revolution, without such an increase in CO2 levels.

Yes we did have previous warming periods before the industrial revolution but they have been attributed to increased volcanic activity and the release of increased CO2. We have had no such increased volcanic activity during this warming period. But we have had man-made sources of CO2 added to the ambient levels that dwarf what the volcanoes released back then.

"Today we’re speaking with climate scientist Peter Huybers of Harvard. Dr. Huybers received a 2009 genius grant from the MacArthur Foundation. He spoke with EarthSky about why the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago.

Peter Huybers: I think ice ages are really the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences presently.

Scientists have scrutinized the evidence for ice ages in Earth’s past. Dr. Huyber’s recent research focused on one possible factor triggering the end of an ice age – volcanic activity.

Peter Huybers: The major finding was that there was a dramatic uptick in volcanic activity during the last deglaciation.

Volcanoes can cause carbon dioxide, or CO2 – a greenhouse gas – to increase in Earth’s atmosphere.

Twelve thousand years ago, volcanoes might have caused warming and melting ice. In some places on Earth, melting ice sheets might have taken a load off rock below. That might have increased volcanic activity even more – which means more CO2 – and more warming.

Peter Huybers: In so much as volcanoes played an important role in providing a feedback in past climate, we can then contrast that with the even much stronger control of CO2, which humans are exerting.

In other words, volcanoes at the end of the last ice age were releasing about three-tenths of a gigaton of CO2 each year. Today, humans are releasing about a hundred times more."

Peter Huybers: 'Ice ages are the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences' | EarthSky
 
Last edited:

EnigmaO01

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
16,007
Reaction score
8,534
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes we did have previous warming periods before the industrial revolution but they have been attributed to increased volcanic activity and the release of increased CO2. We have had no such increased volcanic activity during this warming period. But we have had man-made sources of CO2 added to the ambient levels that dwarf what the volcanoes released back then.

"Today we’re speaking with climate scientist Peter Huybers of Harvard. Dr. Huybers received a 2009 genius grant from the MacArthur Foundation. He spoke with EarthSky about why the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago.

Peter Huybers: I think ice ages are really the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences presently.

Scientists have scrutinized the evidence for ice ages in Earth’s past. Dr. Huyber’s recent research focused on one possible factor triggering the end of an ice age – volcanic activity.

Peter Huybers: The major finding was that there was a dramatic uptick in volcanic activity during the last deglaciation.

Volcanoes can cause carbon dioxide, or CO2 – a greenhouse gas – to increase in Earth’s atmosphere.

Twelve thousand years ago, volcanoes might have caused warming and melting ice. In some places on Earth, melting ice sheets might have taken a load off rock below. That might have increased volcanic activity even more – which means more CO2 – and more warming.

Peter Huybers: In so much as volcanoes played an important role in providing a feedback in past climate, we can then contrast that with the even much stronger control of CO2, which humans are exerting.

In other words, volcanoes at the end of the last ice age were releasing about three-tenths of a gigaton of CO2 each year. Today, humans are releasing about a hundred times more."

Peter Huybers: 'Ice ages are the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences' | EarthSky

I see you're still trying to get pigs to fly. :mrgreen:
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I see you're still trying to get pigs to fly. :mrgreen:

LOL! Perhaps more open minded lurkers will be able to learn something. I have grandchildren, so its a more pressing topic to me than who is ahead a point or two in the most recent poll as far as who will be president in 2012.
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
LOL! Perhaps more open minded lurkers will be able to learn something. I have grandchildren, so its a more pressing topic to me than who is ahead a point or two in the most recent poll as far as who will be president in 2012.

Your hubris is quite impressive.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
15,485
Reaction score
11,256
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I see you're still trying to get pigs to fly. :mrgreen:

I have to agree. Because at least during my lifetime, the eruption of volcanos tends to be followed by further cooling.

So they both warm and cool the earth at the same time, interesting. I guess they are like giant thermos bottles. :mrgreen:
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So they both warm and cool the earth at the same time.

Not at the same time, but yes they can do either. Only problem is there has been no major volcano activity during this warming period.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
29,081
Reaction score
8,160
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not at the same time, but yes they can do either. Only problem is there has been no major volcano activity during this warming period.
Thanks to you and various other poster's links, I've taken in some interesting information on the AGW/ACC issue lately.

But not enough proof to counter my ingrained skepticism of the theory.

I view it as an example of the infamous “slippery slope” argument/fallacy.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope]Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

If we don’t do X, Y1,Y2, and Y3, followed by ever increasing Y’s, will occur.

Now, I am aware some consider enough proof exists that not doing X will cause Y1, Y2, Y3…..and so on.

But I have not seen such.

Or rather, the proof that some claim exists has come under suspicion.

I would not go as far as some, and claim the argument for doing X is completely dead…but I consider it damaged.

Of course, I am biased because I have always been skeptical of it.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
15,485
Reaction score
11,256
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not at the same time, but yes they can do either. Only problem is there has been no major volcano activity during this warming period.

Krakatoa? Pinitubo? Santorini? Tamboura and "The Year Without A Summer"? Toba?

The eruption lasted perhaps two weeks, but the ensuing "volcanic winter" resulted in a decrease in average global temperatures by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years. Greenland ice cores record a pulse of starkly reduced levels of organic carbon sequestration. Very few plants or animals in southeast Asia would have survived, and it is possible that the eruption caused a planet-wide die-off.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba]Lake Toba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The Toba eruprion is the one that pushed humans to the brink of extinction (some estimate as few as 14,000 humans were left before things got back to normal).

I would say those are pretty major.

So tell me, can you give some documentation of a volcano warming the Earth? Because you agree with something I said in sarcasm, and I have never seen anything to show that warming occurs after a volcano eruption.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
15,485
Reaction score
11,256
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Or rather, the proof that some claim exists has come under suspicion.

I would not go as far as some, and claim the argument for doing X is completely dead…but I consider it damaged.

Of course, I am biased because I have always been skeptical of it.

With me the initial skepticism came about when I saw the "Global Cooling" of the 1970's flip into the "Global Warming" of the 1990's. Such a radical change told me that they likely did not know what they were talking about, but shifting their theories to match current trends.

And it is still evident to me today. They will often claim A, then when B happens they mostly say "Oh, B happened because of A" (extreme cold in winter, why that is global warming!).

Not to mention that a sample of even 25, 50, 100, or 500 years really means nothing when we are thousands of years past the last ice age.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I watched very carefully today and can tell you that, based on my observations, the sun goes around the earth. So much for those liberal eggheads Copernicus and Galileo! Their reign of error is over!
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Krakatoa? Pinitubo? Santorini? Tamboura and "The Year Without A Summer"? Toba?

The eruption lasted perhaps two weeks, but the ensuing "volcanic winter" resulted in a decrease in average global temperatures by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years. Greenland ice cores record a pulse of starkly reduced levels of organic carbon sequestration. Very few plants or animals in southeast Asia would have survived, and it is possible that the eruption caused a planet-wide die-off.

Lake Toba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Toba eruprion is the one that pushed humans to the brink of extinction (some estimate as few as 14,000 humans were left before things got back to normal).

I would say those are pretty major.

So tell me, can you give some documentation of a volcano warming the Earth? Because you agree with something I said in sarcasm, and I have never seen anything to show that warming occurs after a volcano eruption.

No one is discounting volcanoes potential for changes to the climate. And I already provided documentation that volcanoes can cause global heating:

"Today we’re speaking with climate scientist Peter Huybers of Harvard. Dr. Huybers received a 2009 genius grant from the MacArthur Foundation. He spoke with EarthSky about why the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago.

Peter Huybers: I think ice ages are really the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences presently.

Scientists have scrutinized the evidence for ice ages in Earth’s past. Dr. Huyber’s recent research focused on one possible factor triggering the end of an ice age – volcanic activity.

Peter Huybers: The major finding was that there was a dramatic uptick in volcanic activity during the last deglaciation.

Volcanoes can cause carbon dioxide, or CO2 – a greenhouse gas – to increase in Earth’s atmosphere.

Twelve thousand years ago, volcanoes might have caused warming and melting ice. In some places on Earth, melting ice sheets might have taken a load off rock below. That might have increased volcanic activity even more – which means more CO2 – and more warming.

Peter Huybers: In so much as volcanoes played an important role in providing a feedback in past climate, we can then contrast that with the even much stronger control of CO2, which humans are exerting.

In other words, volcanoes at the end of the last ice age were releasing about three-tenths of a gigaton of CO2 each year. Today, humans are releasing about a hundred times more."
Peter Huybers: 'Ice ages are the outstanding mystery in Earth sciences' | EarthSky

Here is another excellent discussion of this very issue:

" According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Human Emissions Also Dwarf Volcanoes in Carbon Dioxide Production
Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”

Do Volcano Eruptions Cause Global Cooling?
Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

Scientists tracking the effects of the major 1991 eruption of the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo found that the overall effect of the blast was to cool the surface of the Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius a year later, even though rising human greenhouse gas emissions and an El Nino event (a warm water current which periodically flows along the coast of Ecuador and Peru in South America) caused some surface warming during the 1991-1993 study period.

Volcanoes May Melt Antarctic Ice Caps from Below
In an interesting twist on the issue, British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica—but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above."
Volcanoes and Greenhouse Gases - Do Volcanoes Generate More Greenhouse Gas Than Humans?
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thanks to you and various other poster's links, I've taken in some interesting information on the AGW/ACC issue lately.

But not enough proof to counter my ingrained skepticism of the theory.

I view it as an example of the infamous “slippery slope” argument/fallacy.
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we don’t do X, Y1,Y2, and Y3, followed by ever increasing Y’s, will occur.

Now, I am aware some consider enough proof exists that not doing X will cause Y1, Y2, Y3…..and so on.

But I have not seen such.

Or rather, the proof that some claim exists has come under suspicion.

I would not go as far as some, and claim the argument for doing X is completely dead…but I consider it damaged.

Of course, I am biased because I have always been skeptical of it.

You open mindedness and honesty is appreciated! :)
 
Top Bottom