AGW: atmospheric physics

[IlarMeilyr]

Rolling Fart:

repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here is a link to the United States Geological Survey:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate)·······0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected)····························35.0

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2····························700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2·············3500
.

I don't think anyone here but oldierocks is fixated on volcanoes as part of the conundrum. However -- you probably ought to look at how much CO2 is emitted by the oceans and the land every year.. Granted -- they are sinking more CO2 than they emit --- however THOSE emissions are on the order of 20 times the man-made contributions. And if we're off by 10% on those estimates of balance in the CO2 cycle --- well ----- you do the math..

PS -- you got a handle on the CO2/methane emissions for termites??? It'll jar your solid faith in witchcraft..

 

[RollingThunder]

repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.

I posted the science. You post discredited claptrap. Too bad you're soooooo retarded that you can't tell the difference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll take AGW seriously when the Warmers stop posting about it

 

[numan]

'
It is a matter of simple physics that this build-up of carbon dioxide must produce an increase in the greenhouse effect. Only if there were opposite physical effects, such as an increase in the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere, or an increase in cloud cover, could global warming not occur. But the world is, in fact, warming measurably.

Indeed, other effects promote global warming, they do not counter it. Ice cover in the arctic is disappearing. The white ice used to reflect sunlight back into space; now the dark, open waters absorb the sun's rays, increasing the temperature of the ocean.

In Siberia and the Canadian North, the permafrost is melting, releasing carbon dioxide and methane; this will lead to a run-away greenhouse effect: more heat, more carbon dioxide and methane; more methane and carbon dioxide, more heat.

Back in the late 1960's, I remember reading an article in Scientific American magazine which discussed the issue of the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The authors of the article noted that the oceans could absorb vastly more carbon dioxide than humanity could ever produce. They thought, therefore, that global warming would not occur. They were right about the physics, but wrong about the rate of absorption. The oceans will, eventually, take up all the carbon dioxide produced by man: but, by that time, the Web of Life will have been torn asunder, and the survival of the human race become problematical.
.

 

[westwall]

'

Saigon knows a lot about politics. The problem is that everything he knows is wrong. It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.

Well -- especially in the USA -- there must be very few people whose brains aren't pickled in some form of propaganda.

It's too bad more people don't try to see through the propaganda and make some effort to re-hydrate their brains.

· · ·

Yes, I suggest you that. In the real world of science when a theory is not supported by observation IT IS WRONG!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0]Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube[/ame]

 

[minimalist]

The price to pay for our planet in terms environmental and social to maintain a consumerist lifestyle and to wonder whether all those things that we believe are essential to really, begin to see things from a different prospective and with a minimalist lifestyle is rewarding to know that we do good even a little to our planet.

Google MINIMALIST GENERATION

 

[IlarMeilyr]

repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.

I posted the science. You post discredited claptrap. Too bad you're soooooo retarded that you can't tell the difference.

No. You post discredited AGW Faither claptrap.

It has little relationship to actual science.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.

I posted the science. You post discredited claptrap. Too bad you're soooooo retarded that you can't tell the difference.

^ doesn't have the first clue of how massively ridiculous he is to defend the voodoo bullshit that poses as "science."

You have FAITH, little feller. Faith is fine, but it's not science.

 

[Old Rocks]

repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.

I posted the science. You post discredited claptrap. Too bad you're soooooo retarded that you can't tell the difference.

^ doesn't have the first clue of how massively ridiculous he is to defend the voodoo bullshit that poses as "science."

You have FAITH, little feller. Faith is fine, but it's not science.

Well, dumb fuck, post some science of your own. You do know what peer review means, correct?

 

[SSDD]

'
It is a matter of simple physics that this build-up of carbon dioxide must produce an increase in the greenhouse effect.

You say that and yet, there doesn't exist a single shred of actual observed evidence to support the claim.

.[/QUOTE]

 

[Saigon]

'
It is a matter of simple physics that this build-up of carbon dioxide must produce an increase in the greenhouse effect.

You say that and yet, there doesn't exist a single shred of actual observed evidence to support the claim.

.

[/QUOTE]

you mean there doesn'r exists a single shred of actual observed experience that you will not ignore.

For anyone else there are rising temperatures, melting glaciers, the collapse of the Arctic, increased patterns of droughts and floods.....

It is important that you can separate out your own politically based opinions from actual facts.

 

[Saigon]

Saigon knows a lot about politics. The problem is that everything he knows is wrong. It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.

And I am sure you can explain why books and dictionaries agree with me - and not with you.

Because it's not as if the fact that you hold such extreme political views that you have stated monarchy is a better system of government than democracy could be considered "pickled", is it?

 

[bripat9643]

Saigon knows a lot about politics. The problem is that everything he knows is wrong. It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.

And I am sure you can explain why books and dictionaries agree with me - and not with you.

It has already been established that they don't all agree with you. However, all the books you read agree with you. That's why you read those books.

Because it's not as if the fact that you hold such extreme political views that you have stated monarchy is a better system of government than democracy could be considered "pickled", is it?

Yes, monarchy has proven to be a better system than democracy. Tax rates were far lower under democracy and economic growth was higher. The standard of living improves faster under a monarchy than under democracy. All the worlds leading democracies are headed swiftly towards economic collapse. That's no accident.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Given that you hold far, far more extreme political views than I do - why do you not think that extremism has "pickled" your owns views - particularly given no dictionaries or history books back your case?


It always seems so funny to me that you lbal anything everything around you as 'leftist' and 'pinko', despite the fact that you must know that they aren't. It really is just any excuse at all NOT to read, isn't it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Saigon knows a lot about politics. The problem is that everything he knows is wrong. It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.

And I am sure you can explain why books and dictionaries agree with me - and not with you.

It has already been established that they don't all agree with you. However, all the books you read agree with you. That's why you read those books.

Because it's not as if the fact that you hold such extreme political views that you have stated monarchy is a better system of government than democracy could be considered "pickled", is it?

Yes, monarchy has proven to be a better system than democracy. Tax rates were far lower under democracy and economic growth was higher. The standard of living improves faster under a monarchy than under democracy. All the worlds leading democracies are headed swiftly towards economic collapse. That's no accident.

I suggest you apply for Saudi citizenship. You certainly will never be happy here in America.

 

[westwall]

BriPat -

Given that you hold far, far more extreme political views than I do - why do you not think that extremism has "pickled" your owns views - particularly given no dictionaries or history books back your case?


It always seems so funny to me that you lbal anything everything around you as 'leftist' and 'pinko', despite the fact that you must know that they aren't. It really is just any excuse at all NOT to read, isn't it?

When are you going to answer my question on what your goals are to "control" CO2? Then we'll see who the REAL EXTREMISTS are...won't we.

 

[numan]

'
As usual, humans have dawdled and lied to themselves. Beyond the political trivialities, the raw facts emerge: we are all doomed. May the Fat Earth Goddess have mercy on our souls.

Point of No Return for the Arctic Climate?

In the case of the Arctic, that could mean a complete disappearance of ice in the region during the summer months. Such an eventuality would then further magnify global warming, due to the fact that bright white ice reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere, whereas dark colored land and ocean absorbs heat....

"In the case of Arctic Sea ice, we have already reached the point of no return,"....

The waters around the North Pole are heavily influenced by the currents coursing through the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Those currents are driven by conflicting atmospheric pressure systems over each ocean: in the Pacific, the low pressure zone located near the Aleutian Islands extending west from Alaska is doing battle with a subtropical high pressure zone further south; in the Atlantic the currents are determined by the Azores High and the Icelandic Low.

Winter in the Arctic has long been determined by what researchers refer to as a "tri-polar" pattern. The interaction among the Icelandic Low, the Azores High and the subtropical high in the Pacific led to primarily east-west winds, a pattern which effectively blocked warmer air from moving northward into the Arctic region.

But since the beginning of the decade, the patterns have changed. Now, a "dipolar" (bipolar) pattern has developed in which a high pressure system over Canada and a low pressure system over Siberia have the say. The result has been that Artic winds now blow north-south, meaning that warmer air from the south has no problem making its way into the Arctic region. "It's like a short-circuit," ....

 

[numan]

'
I hope that readers here have enough knowledge and/or imagination to realize how appalling this news is. Accelerating and irreversible warming in the Arctic means that that melting of the permafrost will release more and more carbon dioxide and methane, creating run-away global warming.

The future effects are well known: sea rise, flooding of sea coasts, climate disruptions unparalleled in human history, environmental disasters, massive stress to the biosphere and species extinctions, etc. The speed at which these processes will occur guarantees that homeostasis cannot be maintained. "Discontinuities" will occur which will destroy the present order (or disorder) of human society.

Moreover, global warming is hardly the only crisis facing us. The mainstream rhetoric about global warming, perhaps purposely, crowds many other environmental problems out of the mass consciousness: deforestation, destruction of aquifers, soil destruction, paving over with cities the most fertile areas of the planet, human over-population, resource depletion, suicidal over-harvesting of the oceans, and on and on.

Most of these problems were well understood in the 1960's. If humans really deserved their epithet of being "sapiens", at that time they would have conceived and implemented the "one family, one child" policy which China has pursued with only partial success.

Whatever the intelligence of individual humans may be, the intelligence of the species as a whole is infinitesimal. I know that in the 1960's I was ready to change my habits and strive to preserve what was of value in human society and the world as a whole. Obviously, my fellow hominid anthropoids were not.

Too bad -- our numbers were half of what they are today. We would have had a fighting chance then.
.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

'
I hope that readers here have enough knowledge and/or imagination to realize how appalling this news is. Accelerating and irreversible warming in the Arctic means that that melting of the permafrost will release more and more carbon dioxide and methane, creating run-away global warming.

The future effects are well known: sea rise, flooding of sea coasts, climate disruptions unparalleled in human history, environmental disasters, massive stress to the biosphere and species extinctions, etc. The speed at which these processes will occur guarantees that homeostasis cannot be maintained. "Discontinuities" will occur which will destroy the present order (or disorder) of human society.

Moreover, global warming is hardly the only crisis facing us. The mainstream rhetoric about global warming, perhaps purposely, crowds many other environmental problems out of the mass consciousness: deforestation, destruction of aquifers, soil destruction, paving over with cities the most fertile areas of the planet, human over-population, resource depletion, suicidal over-harvesting of the oceans, and on and on.

Most of these problems were well understood in the 1960's. If humans really deserved their epithet of being "sapiens", at that time they would have conceived and implemented the "one family, one child" policy which China has pursued with only partial success.

Whatever the intelligence of individual humans may be, the intelligence of the species as a whole is infinitesimal. I know that in the 1960's I was ready to change my habits and strive to preserve what was of value in human society and the world as a whole. Obviously, my fellow hominid anthropoids were not.

Too bad -- our numbers were half of what they are today. We would have had a fighting chance then.
.

Don't fret, noman. Nobody WITH a brain buys your alarmist AGW Faither nonsense.

,