Reply to: Myth 1 - Volcanoes release more CO2 than man

[xoggoth]

Water vapour accounts for 95% to 99% of greenhouse effect (ie why the earth is some 55'C hotter than it would be with no atmosphere or only N2/O2 in the atmosphere).

That does not mean that adding effect of CO2 on top of that is necessarily insignificant. A 2-3'C rise postulated is only 5% of the effect due mostly to water vapour. That 2-3% rise may be significant, and don't forget (if true) that would be ON TOP OF any peaks due to solar activity.

[EternalOptimist]

ok

why are you concentrating on CO2 as a greenhouse gas ? Is it because the main greenhouse gas , water vapour , cannot be blamed on human activity ?.

IIRC water vapour is 100 times more culpable than CO2, and there are other gases too.

[shaunbhoy]

In all this verbiage, I notice there are no specific criticisms/refutations/well thought out arguments.

They were contained in my first post which has probably been overwritten in your cranial buffer by now sg. Suffice it to say that only one of us feels the need to try and support their point by selectively cutting and pasting alleged "scientific" facts. Some of us can think for ourselves.

Topping yourself would certainly substantially reduce the hot air being released by humankind

Possibly, but by nowhere near the factor that topping YOU might harvest!

[sasguru]

I always hated relgious nuts with a cause, then I learned to hate PC tw@ts with a cause. I am starting to hate some 'scientists' who persue a cause.

Take you cause and shove it where the sunspots dont shine. Lets have a bit more objectivity and a little less fervour please.

I don't have a cause. The science of this is fascinating and incidentally raises some interesting issues about the scientific process when dealing with a complex issue aka Popper and Kuhn.
Please criticise the scientific arguments on a point by potint basis and leave the emotion behind.






[/QUOTE]

[sasguru]

Says someone who subscribes to the "Kings' New Clothes" mantra on anything more complex than Connect 4!


I have looked at the "science", and there are very few indisputable facts. That is why other factors and agendas must simultaneously be factored in and examined if we are to arrive at anything resembling the truth. If that process is, as seems to be the case, beyond you, then stick to less complex topics sg. It is not as if you are bringing much to THIS party with your selective ill-informed speculative gibberish riddled with "uncertainties" and "unknowns" anyway. Why not confine yourself to countering alexei's latest little suite of numbered puerile postings? That would seem to more accurately encompass your limited intellectual ceiling. Leave the tricky multi-faceted stuff to the grown-ups.

In all this verbiage, I notice there are no specific criticisms/refutations/well thought out arguments. Topping yourself would certainly substantially reduce the hot air being released by humankind.

[EternalOptimist]

I read them. Try doing so yourself.

I always hated relgious nuts with a cause, then I learned to hate PC tw@ts with a cause. I am starting to hate some 'scientists' who persue a cause.

Take you cause and shove it where the sunspots dont shine. Lets have a bit more objectivity and a little less fervour please.

[shaunbhoy]

Cut out the polemic and look at the science. You seem to mistake the use of long words as constituting an argument.

Says someone who subscribes to the "Kings' New Clothes" mantra on anything more complex than Connect 4!


I have looked at the "science", and there are very few indisputable facts. That is why other factors and agendas must simultaneously be factored in and examined if we are to arrive at anything resembling the truth. If that process is, as seems to be the case, beyond you, then stick to less complex topics sg. It is not as if you are bringing much to THIS party with your selective ill-informed speculative gibberish riddled with "uncertainties" and "unknowns" anyway. Why not confine yourself to countering alexei's latest little suite of numbered puerile postings? That would seem to more accurately encompass your limited intellectual ceiling. Leave the tricky multi-faceted stuff to the grown-ups.

[sasguru]

Just cut and paste science blogs from all over the net just like sasguru does

I read them. Try doing so yourself.

[andy]

Just cut and paste science blogs from all over the net just like sasguru does

[sasguru]

The whole GW issue is the cynical exploitation of shaky science by politicians viewing the whole thing as a cash cow for raising taxes. Let's face it, when you are producing computer models based on a whole series of variables then you can pretty much produce whatever results you wish to support your argument.
A whole collection of "scientists" see the promotion of the man-made argument as the very 'evidence' they need to ensure unlimited research funding emanating from this huge tax take. It is hard to seriously believe this lobby when their whole existence depends upon them convincing us of our culpability in this undoubted warming.
Ask yourselves this, what do the Oil companies that purportedly fund the contrary view really have to gain? Does anyone seriously think we won't continue to use up all the oil anyway, regardless of what else may emerge from the scientific community? No. It is also worth reflecting upon just why our political leaders are not banning the use of internal combustion engines if they are so harmful to our precious planet. They don't want to ban them, they simply want to tax them that is why.
Personally I don't find it to be such a huge quantum leap to believe that our planet's climate has always and will continue to be defined by the behaviour of the big glowing orb 93 million miles away, and unless we really go postal with our nuclear arsenals, man has very minimal effect.

Cut out the polemic and look at the science. You seem to mistake the use of long words as constituting an argument.

[andy]

They can't even predict next week's weather , forget about the next 50 years

[shaunbhoy]

The whole GW issue is the cynical exploitation of shaky science by politicians viewing the whole thing as a cash cow for raising taxes. Let's face it, when you are producing computer models based on a whole series of variables then you can pretty much produce whatever results you wish to support your argument.
A whole collection of "scientists" see the promotion of the man-made argument as the very 'evidence' they need to ensure unlimited research funding emanating from this huge tax take. It is hard to seriously believe this lobby when their whole existence depends upon them convincing us of our culpability in this undoubted warming.
Ask yourselves this, what do the Oil companies that purportedly fund the contrary view really have to gain? Does anyone seriously think we won't continue to use up all the oil anyway, regardless of what else may emerge from the scientific community? No. It is also worth reflecting upon just why our political leaders are not banning the use of internal combustion engines if they are so harmful to our precious planet. They don't want to ban them, they simply want to tax them that is why.
Personally I don't find it to be such a huge quantum leap to believe that our planet's climate has always and will continue to be defined by the behaviour of the big glowing orb 93 million miles away, and unless we really go postal with our nuclear arsenals, man has very minimal effect.

[Lucifer Box]

I shall shortly be introducing a tax on volcanoes. To be paid by the disgusting, polluting middle classes. After all, it's only fair.

Gordon Brown.

[The Lone Gunman]

There have been questions about whether the amount of CO2 released from the oceans is greater than amounts released by man, and the argument against the question would work against the idea of volcanic emissions.

Basically, the argument is this:

Carbon has three isotopes: C14 which has a half-life of ~5700 years and is replenished in the atmoshere by cosmic rays, and C13 and C12 which are stable. The photosynthetic process tends to prefer CO2 with a C12 atom.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from ~280ppm to nearly 380ppm in the last 150 years. The ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere has also increased in the same time (I didn't see any actual figures, and I didn't see any figures about how much the photosynthetic process "prefers" C12 to C13/C14 either). Since both fossil fuels and wood have more C12 than the general atmosphere, and the C12/C13 ratio has increased along with increases of atmospheric CO2, this suggests that the increase comes from burning fossil fuels and non-fossil fuels, not the ocean or volcanoes. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87)

Also, The Lone Gunman had a go at the article linked in the first post about CO2 emissions from volcanoes being "uncertain". Well, just about every scientific measurement has a degree of uncertainty. But the article states an estimate of CO2 released from volcanoes globally (both surface and underwater) and while it concedes the estimate is conservative, it is 150 times less than the amount released by man. It would have to be pretty damn uncertain to compare to that.

Thanks for that magnus. the C12/13 thing goes some way to proof.
Just a point about what I was saying.
I am amazed that anybody can use this article as fact.
1. It states that it has no idea how many under water vents there are.
2. It states that it estimates the emmisions from known vents based on samples taken miles away.

Now. My school boy physics tells me that heat rises, so I am assuming that most CO2 goes straight up with the other hot gasses (it is light enough to rise to the upper atmosphere is it not).

So they have based an estimate of total output based on estimated emissions from an unknown number of sources. How on earth can you support that.

You might as well say GW is cause by left handed lesbians farts.

[Churchill]

Has anybody asked WXMan about the effects on climate change?