It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Grimpachi
A little bit of an update on the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes.
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
Thank you for the update but I think that was already factored however going from 100 million to 200 million metric tons probably isn't going to move the scale much when we are dealing with numbers like 440 billion metric tons.
Here is an interesting site. It is pretty up to date.
edit on 31-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
I think you might be confusing your numbers a little.
The link you posted is for cumulative carbon dioxide in the air.
Estimated cumulative emissions from fossil fuel use, cement production and land-use change since industrialization began are
Now this is the number since idustrialization began. And exactly when was that you might ask?
The first Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s, while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.
The article that I produced said that the volcanic CO2 output per year was believed to be 200 million tons a year, but now the output is now believed to be around 600 million tons a year. With new data came new higher numbers. Now take that number and myltiply it by the amount of years since the indutrial revolution began. It is a quite a bit there.
Notice the "per year" in the estimate
I was only pointing out in my original post that the amount of CO2 believed to come from volanoes, the estimates have risen six fold since rhe article you posted earlier in the thread.
Now I know, because of the education I got from ATS , that fossil fuel CO2 can be distinguished from natural CO2, and I realize that we are pumping more than that into the atmosphere. With that being said, the volcanoes are billowing out alot of CO2 at a constant rate. Which they did help to instigate "climate change" in the past.
reply to post by Skymon612
Just another foolish document produced by the IPCC with lots of doom porn ...Anyone believing this crap care to answer me this one question ...When did AGW start ?...Peace
In a scant 500m years, without any influence from humanity, the sun's output will disable photosynthesis and any plant life still hanging around will go extinct. The oceans will evaporate and the earth will again become a molten rock of lava. Eventually, maybe 1.7 billion years from now, the sun will consume our planet, and it will be gone forever, BUT much more of our solar system will become more conducive for life, and the cycle will continue.
The first report, released last September in Stockholm, found humans were the "dominant cause" of climate change, and warned that much of the world's fossil fuel reserves would have to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.
I wish people would look at the data before automatically thinking it is BS.
What If it isn't? are you willing to bet your grandkids future on it?.
Why would I have to bet my grandchildren's future on it?
Why can we not adapt to the changing climate? Um like our ancestors had to do.
To think we can keep the climate the same just for us is cimpletely arrogant.
Mankind has survived in the past. We can survive in the future.
If we can "fix it" then I am sure we can find a way to live in a changing environment.
reply to post by xuenchen
Last time I checked plants, and trees need co2 to 'breathe'.
Makes more sense to plant more trees than to tax people in to oblivion.
I think you've stated some things as fact which are in fact debatable but I'm willing to guess that we both know what the other would say so I agree with you on there being no need to go into that and I will also ignore the appeal to emotion.
I've read and re-read your post and the argument you've made is Malthusian and that has far more to do with scarcity than it does with climate, you seem to me to be advocating a population cap. If I got that part wrong please feel free to elaborate.
Money is not just a "piece of paper", it is an abstraction of someone's education and labor. Confiscation isn't justified without a clear understanding of what is happening and how it can be fixed, or even if it can be fixed.
reply to post by Phage
Well you are correct about not much debating because the AGW team wont show the data to the skeptics and just want us to trust them .As you have claimed to be a denier I hardy see any sense in discussing things with you .You are pretty sure of yourself and have already responded to one of my simple questions in a manner that showed you didn't want to answer genuine way ...peace
I'll quote one of the smartest people on the planet here again.
MICHIO KAKU, PHYSICIST: Climate change is the 800-pound gorilla in the living room that the media dances around. But in the scientific community it's a settled question: 95 percent of scientists believe this is happening with 100 percent confidence temperatures are rising.
With 90 percent confidence, we believe it's human activity and not natural cycles that is driving the increase in temperature on the Earth.