It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions THE TRUTH.

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by juleol
 


we have also had ice ages hitting with co2 in thousands of ppm range.



If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate.


Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels.

There are many different factors to consider in climate, its not just about C02...
www.skepticalscience.com...
Read this to understand how glaciation is still possible even if co2 is at much higher levels than today.


edit on 10-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


How many large volcanic eruptions and degassings were there in 2010?

Are there other years of higher volcanic activity?

Is there a larger cycle of volcanic activity which has in the past dwarfed humanitys current emmisions of CO2?

Wouldnt comparing one year of activity be really pointless?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Every question you just asked is answered in detail in the pdf I linked in the op, you clearly have not read it.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Just been reading the post on 'skeptical science' called "how do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?" one sentence caught my eye " humans produce 29 gigatons, and 750 gigatons from the natural world"
I'm sorry, I have no idea how to create a link, I logged onto google and typed in 'human produced CO2,'
made quite interesting reading, I think I'll go back and see what the other rites have to read about.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Um, that isn't very nice, volcanoes emit atmospheric mercury ! and European aircraft flights produce more CO2 that the Iceland volcanoes, I don't feel like reading anymore!



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Nobody has convinced me yet that CO2 is bad... It makes plants grow better and create more Oxygen.

Build a "box" 1 mile by 1 mile.. by 25 feet tall... you can fit every living human on the Earth in it. We represent less than 1 part in almost 5 billion of the atmosphere... and anyone is going to convince me that we are changing the climate?.... Road apples!! (the falling produce of horses)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


The seas are not rising? Tell that to the Islanders of the South Pacific, the Maldives, and many other low island nations. The earth isn't warming? So the glaciers that are retreating quickly, as proven by photographs taken over decades, are all fakes. The North Pole isn't melting and the polar bears and walruses aren't losing their sea ice? Tell that to the ships that can only now get through the Arctic Northwest Passage. If ignorance is bliss you must be quite happy. How much we contribute is debatable. The FACT that changes are happening rapidly, is NOT. Do you read only opinions or actual scientific data sources? The amount of evidence is huge. Let denial only be a River in Africa.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Your source has it backwards. You need to reconsider your sources.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


how long do you think before the technology will advance and make the whole discussion meaningless? Then in the end what i have said will be true... volcanic activity will last longer than our thirst for fossil fuels.

Alot of the article clearly states that not enough is known to make a clear picture of the cycle of glaciation. If fluctuations are common then this will be a blip smaller than any others on the record.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 
There are natural and human caused carbon dioxide sources. The natural sources are much larger than human sources. However, over geologic time (billions of years) the natural sources have managed to balance themselves out so that life as we like it can survive. Maintaining this balance is part of the carbon cycle. Changing the CO2 balance is a big deal.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by pikestaff
 
There are natural and human caused carbon dioxide sources. The natural sources are much larger than human sources. However, over geologic time (billions of years) the natural sources have managed to balance themselves out so that life as we like it can survive. Maintaining this balance is part of the carbon cycle. Changing the CO2 balance is a big deal.




Yet CO2 is still less than one percent of the total atmosphere, how can so little have so much effect?
I never see an answer to that question.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Technology is now meaningless 'in terms of helping us halt climate change'. The earth is reverting to a hotter state as a direct result of our activity on the planet. No amount of renewable energy sources or electric cars,or trying to live your life with a low carbon footprint is going to help. We are now going along for the ride, and during the transition from our current climate to a hotter one many of us are probably not going to make it. The world population may be as low as 1 billion by the turn of the next century.

Politicizing climate change was the worse thing that could have happened, As with most things governments get involved in. They are using it as another means to tax people and generate more wealth. Even some scientists are guilty of fudging data to fit the governments agendas. But there are still independent scientists who have no agenda, and present the facts as they are, James lovelock is the foremost amongst this camp, and what he says about global warming should be listened to very carefully.




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 




I never see an answer to that question.
Have you looked for an answer to that question? Just by doing a quick google search I can see enough information on the subject to keep me busy for weeks



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 
By backwards, I take it you believe volcanos produce more co2 than human activity? Rather than post some elusive single sentence response, show me a peer reviewed scientific paper backing up your opinion.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaxnmarko
reply to post by auraelium
 


The seas are not rising? Tell that to the Islanders of the South Pacific, the Maldives, and many other low island nations. The earth isn't warming? So the glaciers that are retreating quickly, as proven by photographs taken over decades, are all fakes. The North Pole isn't melting and the polar bears and walruses aren't losing their sea ice? Tell that to the ships that can only now get through the Arctic Northwest Passage. If ignorance is bliss you must be quite happy. How much we contribute is debatable. The FACT that changes are happening rapidly, is NOT. Do you read only opinions or actual scientific data sources? The amount of evidence is huge. Let denial only be a River in Africa.


Climate changes all the time - sometimes very rapidly. You are merely cherry picking those effects that warmists pick on to scare people! and ignoring all the changes that suggest cooling.

One thing that can't be so easily obfuscated is sea level change: - sure you look at the graphs they produce after they have added all their 'fixes' to the data and it will show about 3mm per yr - without all the fudges and fixes it is STATIC! .- ie you are being deliberately conned!



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 

There are many things wrong with what you say there, but rather than drone on in some monlogue explaining them, I will ask you a simple question. How do you explain the huge hole in the ozone layer? Its been proven beyond doubt that the ozone hole was caused by manmade CFCs. How is that possible? if like you say we can have no direct effect on our enviroment?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Do you realize that even the LARGEST swings in global CO2 only resulted in a temp increase on average of a few degrees?

Why are you so fixated on everyone dying because we burned some fossil fuels for a few hundred years? It seems very illogical.... Its almost as if this is what you WISH would happen.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by expat2368
Nobody has convinced me yet that CO2 is bad... It makes plants grow better and create more Oxygen.


When CO2 mixes with water, it makes the water acidic. Acidic water kills plants and animals.


Originally posted by expat2368
Build a "box" 1 mile by 1 mile.. by 25 feet tall... you can fit every living human on the Earth in it. We represent less than 1 part in almost 5 billion of the atmosphere... and anyone is going to convince me that we are changing the climate?.... Road apples!! (the falling produce of horses)


Ok lets see you fit all the cars, trucks, aircraft, factories, and burning forests into that box...

We humans have a huge impact on the atmosphere. It's our machines and activities that are larger than us that we have to worry about.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Atzil321
 

Do you realize that even the LARGEST swings in global CO2 only resulted in a temp increase on average of a few degrees?


Thank you for confirming and agreeing that CO2 "swings" do effect temperatures.

Now imagine those swings getting larger and larger because the human population is getting larger and larger and there is no end in sight to our increasing production of CO2... there will be huge problems.

I suggest you read this:
Why do small changes in the Earth's temperature have a big impact?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium
Both are irrelevant because Co2 doesnt warm the earth to any great degree.


....to any great degree??

You just admitted that it does warm the Earth, just not "to any great degree". What is your definition of "great degree"?

It has already been proven over and over that increasing greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere will increase the temperature. That is a solid undeniable fact.


Originally posted by auraelium
The Elephant in the room for a long time now and AGW doomsayers have been burying their heads in the sand over it for years is that Co2 doesnt cause warming ...but warming causes Co2.


You are wrong... CO2 does BOTH. CO2 causes warming, and warming causes CO2. It's called a positive feedback loop.

The positive feedback loop is one of the main fears. An increase in CO2 levels will increase temperatures which then causes the oceans to release more CO2 which causes more warming and more CO2 to be released, and that continues in a loop.... it's a positive feedback loop.


edit on 13-9-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join