So much for global warming.

[volfanjustin]

So then what is different about tons and tons of gasses and particulate being released into the atmosphere by a volcano, and the tons and tons released into the air by cars, factories, and industry?

1 volcano eruption puts out way more gasses then we as humans could. I am not willing to completely collapse the American and the other major countries economies to try to correct a problem where there is not one. This hoax is about 2 things, making environmentalist rich by making us think we are destroying the earth by driving a car and they want to take from developed countries and give to under developed ones.

 

[IPorange]

1 volcano eruption puts out way more gasses then we as humans could. I am not willing to completely collapse the American and the other major countries economies to try to correct a problem where there is not one. This hoax is about 2 things, making environmentalist rich by making us think we are destroying the earth by driving a car and they want to take from developed countries and give to under developed ones.

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, 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)

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

So much for that blind assertion.

 

[volfanjustin]

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

So much for that blind assertion.

I am sure I could find just as many scientists who disagree. You care to elaborate on my other points?

 

[IPorange]

I am sure I could find just as many scientists who disagree. You care to elaborate on my other points?

Feel free to find and link to them.


What other points? The thing about there being a "conspiracy?" I am not a fan of most government policy, and Cap and Trade is no exception. It doesn't make science go away. Ultimately, I think Cap and Trade would lead to more emissions due to political blow back and economic desperation in the long term. The fact is, in recent decades it has become clear that the more economically successful a country is, the more it's citizens demand it's industry to become "green." That is a good reason not to hamstring developed economies, and to find other means to reduce, offset, and limit emissions, including consumer choice and capitalism itself.

As far as developed vs. developing countries, they honestly have no means to address the issue. Does that mean they should be given a pass? I don't think so,. Especially in the case of China and India. China is actually the world leader in air and water pollution, as well as green house gas emissions. Them being left out of any international agreement would be a huge mistake. While developed countries can handle the transition easier, some sort of plan has to be applied to developing nations as well, even if it is more staggered.

But there is no conspiracy or trick in the larger sense, There are a few who are scheming for profit and power like there always are. That's a problem anytime authoritative legislation is involved.

 

[volfanjustin]

Feel free to find and link to them.


What other points? The thing about there being a "conspiracy?" I am not a fan of most government policy, and Cap and Trade is no exception. It doesn't make science go away. Ultimately, I think Cap and Trade would lead to more emissions due to political blow back and economic desperation in the long term. The fact is, in recent decades it has become clear that the more economically successful a country is, the more it's citizens demand it's industry to become "green." That is a good reason not to hamstring developed economies, and to find other means to reduce, offset, and limit emissions, including consumer choice and capitalism itself.

As far as developed vs. developing countries, they honestly have no means to address the issue. Does that mean they should be given a pass? I don't think so,. Especially in the case of China and India. China is actually the world leader in air and water pollution, as well as green house gas emissions. Them being left out of any international agreement would be a huge mistake. While developed countries can handle the transition easier, some sort of plan has to be applied to developing nations as well, even if it is more staggered.

But there is no conspiracy or trick in the larger sense, There are a few who are scheming for profit and power like there always are. That's a problem anytime authoritative legislation is involved.

There is not consesus on the science, for every scientist that says global warming or climate change, whatever its called this week, is real there is one that says it is a hoax.

 

[KB5252]

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

So much for that blind assertion.

I am no expert and certainly not trying to be argumentative but one thing in the article you posted bothers me. It states that it includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in fairly equal equal amounts but there are many more volcanoes at the bottom of the sea then there are subaerial. In fact we know astonishingly little about much of the underwater volcanoes and vents and their output, not to mention the frequency of eruptions. It would seem to me that trying to compare the two and coming up with a fairly equal amount would send up an immediate red flag or am I missing something?

 

[IPorange]

There is not consesus on the science, for every scientist that says global warming or climate change, whatever its called this week, is real there is one that says it is a hoax.

Patently false. Maybe for every 10 scientists who says GCC, there is one. And usually that one has questionable motives. It's big business to discredit GCC, too.

Regardless, you reasoned that humans can't cause changes to climate, partly because volcanoes release more gasses every year than people. I showed that the USGS data and the broader scientific community disagrees. Do you have some legitimate source that disagrees with either the amount of volcanic emissions, or with human emissions? If not, that's one reason to doubt what you're being told by "skeptics."

 

[IPorange]

I am no expert and certainly not trying to be argumentative but one thing in the article you posted bothers me. It states that it includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in fairly equal equal amounts but there are many more volcanoes at the bottom of the sea then there are subaerial. In fact we know astonishingly little about much of the underwater volcanoes and vents and their output, not to mention the frequency of eruptions. It would seem to me that trying to compare the two and coming up with a fairly equal amount would send up an immediate red flag or am I missing something?

C02 dissolves in sea water as carbonic acid. only a small part of gasses released from seamounts actually reach the surface as air bubbles and enter the atmosphere, which is what the number was totaling. The ocean is a net carbon sink (at present.)

 

[TennTradition]

There is not consesus on the science, for every scientist that says global warming or climate change, whatever its called this week, is real there is one that says it is a hoax.

That is not correct at all.

 

[volfanjustin]

Patently false. Maybe for every 10 scientists who says GCC, there is one. And usually that one has questionable motives. It's big business to discredit GCC, too.

Regardless, you reasoned that humans can't cause changes to climate, partly because volcanoes release more gasses every year than people. I showed that the USGS data and the broader scientific community disagrees. Do you have some legitimate source that disagrees with either the amount of volcanic emissions, or with human emissions? If not, that's one reason to doubt what you're being told by "skeptics."

I can't blame big business for not wanting to be taxed to hell and back.

If this is the case then why have we been cooling since 1998, are people driving less, are there less factories? Coming into today if DC gets 9 more inches this would be the most snow fall there ever. I just don't buy that we as people can alter the earth's temp one way or the other. I believe the earth can regulate itself.

 

[KB5252]

C02 dissolves in sea water as carbonic acid. only a small part of gasses released from seamounts actually reach the surface as air bubbles and enter the atmosphere, which is what the number was totaling. The ocean is a net carbon sink (at present.)

I see, you learn something new every day.

What about the eruptions of methane that appear to be more common than previously thought in certain areas?

 

[IPorange]

I can't blame big business for not wanting to be taxed to hell and back.

If this is the case then why have we been cooling since 1998, are people driving less, are there less factories? Coming into today if DC gets 9 more inches this would be the most snow fall there ever. I just don't buy that we as people can alter the earth's temp one way or the other. I believe the earth can regulate itself.

Two part answer:

10 years isn't long enough to get a true climatic trend. The trend over the last 150 years is definitely that of warming. In fact, many of those years since 1998 are still some of the top 20 hottest years on record-- which leads to part two of the answer:

1998 was a crazy hot year, global temperature-wise. It is basically tied for the hottest year globally ever recorded (so, from perhaps the 1890's, when there started being enough information from all over the globe to get a handle on this sort of thing- admittedly not super long). The year it is tied with is 2005. Since those are the two hottest years ever, then by definition there would be a "cooling trend" by there not being new record breakers in 2006, 2007, 2008, and so on. Those were still above average years, but not as hot as 1998.

It would be like saying there is a downward trend in Crompton's touchdowns last season, because he started out with the most he had in the first game- six. And yet we know that he clearly got better as the season progressed.

They never mention that about the "cooling trend," do they?

 

[IPorange]

I see, you learn something new every day.

What about the eruptions of methane that appear to be more common than previously thought in certain areas?

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and in fact the most powerful on a molecule to molecule basis. But it also quickly either breaks down or gets stored and doesn't stay circulating in the atmosphere. It also if often produced in processes that remove other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (like in a swamp environment, all those plants taking in CO2, storing them as plant material, and then dying and decomposing under the surface, being broken down into methane.

But life and times of methane on Earth does need a lot more study.

 

[volfanjustin]

Global Warming Petition Project

over 31,000 scientists.

 

[IPorange]

As far as snowfall Justin, snowfall isn't necessarily indicative of cooler temps. You need a "sweet spot" of 20 to 32 degrees surface temperature with saturated moist air to get the epic snow falls we're seeing on the East coast. That's actually on the warm side for January and February for some of those places.

In Tennessee, when it gets down into the teens or single digits, how often does it snow? Hardly ever, because that means we have a high pressure polar air mass over us from Canada. That air is going to be dry. You need a low pressure system that is mixing moist air from the subtropics with the colder polar air to get those snow storms.

This being an El Nino year also factors in.

 

[IPorange]

Global Warming Petition Project

over 31,000 scientists.

There are a whole lot of "MD's" on that list. Look for yourself.

In any case, that has been around awhile and has been thoroughly debunked. It was partly funded by Exxon.

Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

debunking / Oregon Petition

Hardly any of those people have anything to do with a relevant field, many are things like orthopedics or obstetricians, and some don't even exist.

 

[MG1968]

why is being "funded by Exxon" such a disqualifier?

can you point to any kind of data manipulation? is Exxon's money somehow different than taxpayer money?

Al Gore's "consensus" also contains a boatload of so-called experts such as economists, biologists, and Sean Penn.

 

[IPorange]

You would mention if a study that found that "carbon credits" were greatly effective in curbing emissions was funded by Al Gore. The reason I mention Exxon is obvious. They have a vested interest. That doesn't automatically invalidate something, but it is worth noting.

I can point to data manipulation. Most of those "scientists" aren't scientists. Many don't even exist. The petition got caught trying to pass off certain papers as being affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences and got called on it.

While Al Gore distorts some things, the majority of scientists in relevant fields seeing anthropogenic GCC as a real problem isn't one of them.

It's funny that you mentioned biologists as a slam against Gore. Subtract all the MD's DVM's, and people from biological fields and see how big that list is on that GW petition. That's over a fifth of the petition.

 

[MG1968]

I also mentioned East Anglia and I should have mentioned the Indian glacier and Netherlands underwater fiascoes.

if the AGW crowd could extricate itself from leftist politicians (for the most part) and anti-capitalist forces around the world, I would take them a little more seriously. However, all I really see are a bunch of politically motivated charlatans whose primary motivation is scoring some more taxpayer money while at the same time decrying capitalism and the alleged excesses of the United States.

 

[IPorange]

I also mentioned East Anglia and I should have mentioned the Indian glacier and Netherlands underwater fiascoes.

if the AGW crowd could extricate itself from leftist politicians (for the most part) and anti-capitalist forces around the world, I would take them a little more seriously. However, all I really see are a bunch of politically motivated charlatans whose primary motivation is scoring some more taxpayer money while at the same time decrying capitalism and the alleged excesses of the United States.

I can see where you are coming from to an extent on the second paragraph, although one could say that about any issue.

As far as the first paragraph, the stolen emails were taken out of context, with portions omitted. That is a fact. There are plausible explanations for each one of the "smoking guns" that you hear about. I know that if one has already made up their mind they don't want to even hear it, and pretend like it doesn't matter that they were hacked and stolen, but that's another matter.

The Himalayan glacier error was detected, reported, and corrected by scientists who are in the GCC camp. Not really sure how that is an indictment against the science. If anything, quite the contrary. It is interesting that something like that was right there in the open to be picked up or caught by skeptics, but they failed to do so for 15 years.

As far as the Netherlands underwater fiasco, they are famous for their below-sealevel areas created by dikes. Clearly any kind of sea level change would be a concern to them. I don't prescribe to the more catastrophic sea level change predictions, but it is a safe bet that there will be some rise and it could pose a problem for them.

 

[gsvol]

I can see where you are coming from to an extent on the second paragraph, although one could say that about any issue.

As far as the first paragraph, the stolen emails were taken out of context, with portions omitted. That is a fact. There are plausible explanations for each one of the "smoking guns" that you hear about. I know that if one has already made up their mind they don't want to even hear it, and pretend like it doesn't matter that they were hacked and stolen, but that's another matter.

The Himalayan glacier error was detected, reported, and corrected by scientists who are in the GCC camp. Not really sure how that is an indictment against the science. If anything, quite the contrary. It is interesting that something like that was right there in the open to be picked up or caught by skeptics, but they failed to do so for 15 years.

As far as the Netherlands underwater fiasco, they are famous for their below-sealevel areas created by dikes. Clearly any kind of sea level change would be a concern to them. I don't prescribe to the more catastrophic sea level change predictions, but it is a safe bet that there will be some rise and it could pose a problem for them.

Bringing you up to date:

It was only a short time ago

that climate rationalists were told they were factually wrong, that their skepticism was evil, their views were akin to Holocaust denial, and that they should be tried for crimes against humanity. However, Climategate emails show that the coterie of two dozen leading climate comrades shared this skepticism in private — yet denounced skeptics in public. Various cap-and-trade systems have been shown to be an extra tax, which may end up being distributed by the sticky fingers of the UN.

Even more disturbingly, Climategate emails show two decades of systematic willful fraud. Since then, there has been the farce of Copenhagen, which the UK Taxpayers’ Alliance found cost the GDP of Malawi. (If such funds were used to provide electricity and potable water to Malawians, then this would have been a demonstration of true environmentalism.)

The allotted 10-minute speaking time for President Hugo Chavez became a one-hour rant against capitalism. He received a standing ovation. This is what Copenhagen was about.

Since Copenhagen there have been weekly revelations that the IPCC used non-valid sources for some of its exaggerated claims. If such activities took place in the corporate world, the courts would be full. All the poster displays of a forthcoming climate catastrophe such as Himalayan glaciers, Amazonian forests, inexorable rise in global temperature, Arctic ice, polar bears, retreating Kilimanjaro ice, etc., have been shown to be implausible, wrong, or fraudulent.

The lead actor in the Climategate scam, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, has admitted that some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organized. Presumably he refers to the primary data that he did not destroy in attempts to avoid submitting data in response to Freedom of Information requests.

He stated that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warmings to the latest warming.

After years of hectoring skeptics, Jones now suggests that there has been no statistically significant warming, but like a drowning man clinging to a straw he still claims — contrary to his own evidence — that the recent warming is predominantly man-made. Jones just happened to omit that the rate of warming in 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1976-1998 were exactly the same. The only warming derived from industrialization could be 1976-1998, and yet his own data suggests that all these events were natural. Furthermore, Jones conceded that it was warmer in Roman and Medieval times — when there was no heavy industry.

I fingered Jones for fraud on pp. 481-482 in my book Heaven and Earth. If investigative journalists had not been advocates for the climate industry, they would have followed my lead and scooped the world. They didn’t because they were too busy trying to frighten us.

-----------------------------------------

Cap-And-Trade: The Grand Canyon State avoids a big economic hole by suspending its participation in a multistate initiative to fight climate change. As climate fraud is exposed, economic reality sets in. Will California follow?

(Utah already has followed Arizona in pulling out of such an irrational, idiotic policy.)
--------------------------------------

Climategate Headline Roundup II

‘There has been no global warming for 15 years’...
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: The great climate change retreat

Signs of “Snow-Munity”
Signs of “Snow-Munity”

Blizzard of Lies: Debunking The Warm-Air-Holds-More-Moisture Defense
Blizzard of Lies: Debunking The Warm-Air-Holds-More-Moisture Defense

Earlier Climategate and Snowmageddon Headline Roundup:
Blizzard of Lies: Debunking The Warm-Air-Holds-More-Moisture Defense

No Snow? Global Warming! Too Much Snow? Global Warming!
No Snow? Global Warming! Too Much Snow? Global Warming!

RUSH IN A HURRY — Flashback: Liberals Said NO Snow Proved Global Warming
RUSH IN A HURRY -- Flashback: Liberals Said NO Snow Proved Global Warming
[Transcripts in posts following article.]
Also included: “Senator Rockefeller said, ‘Obama’s beginning to not be believable to me.’

Gore’s Profits Of Doom
Gore's Profits Of Doom

Sloppy Paper Keeping on the Global-Warming Hockey Stick?
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits vital...
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost (or destroyed) the relevant papers.

What to say to a ‘warmer’ (ClimateGate and its baby gates from the IPCC et al.)
What to say to a 'warmer' (ClimateGate and its baby gates from the IPCC et al.)

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT! [Big Letters in Drudge]
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

UN climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw...
U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw | Reuters

Utah delivers vote of no confidence for ‘climate alarmists’...
Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists' | Environment | The Guardian

Durbin: DC residents panic as if snowstorm is ‘nuclear attack’...
Durbin: D.C. residents panic as if snowstorm is 'a nuclear attack' - TheHill.com

Rare snowflakes start falling from Miss. to Fla....
Rare snowflakes start falling from Miss. to Fla.

Youtube collection on ClimateGate
What to say to a 'warmer' (ClimateGate and its baby gates from the IPCC et al.)

Dr. Murari Lal, the “scientist” who included the 2035 glacier apocalypse in the IPCC report, told Britain’s Mail on Sunday that he knew it wasn’t based on “peer-reviewed science” but “we thought we should put it in”—for political reasons.

 

[bam15]

Interesting read

Global Warming -- Snowmageddon

 

[MG1968]

Global warming causes a lack of moisture, which turns lush tropical rainforests into deserts.

Global warming causes increased moisture, which turns into snow and rain and turns barren deserts into lush rainforests.

A bunch of hurricanes in 2005 is caused by global warming.

A lack of hurricanes in 2009 is caused by global warming.

The Haiti earthquake was caused by global warming.

George W. Bush is an evil SOB and he possesses a global warming/earthquake generating device in the basement of his Crawford, TX ranch.

blah, blah, blah

 

[gsvol]

Interesting read

Global Warming -- Snowmageddon

Bull crap is interesting to some, to others it's still just bull crap.