 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 571/600) |
|
E.Furgal
|
MAY 09, 03:08 AM
|
|
|
outlaw volcano's as they put more co2 in the air DAILY than we ever could
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 09, 04:06 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by E.Furgal:
outlaw volcano's as they put more co2 in the air DAILY than we ever could |
|
And you figured this out by yourself? Excellent work.
Since I have no direct, personal access to any nearby, active volcanoes, I tried to see if I could make some sense of this online, using Google.
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (U.S. Geological Survey), from 2007
CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volc...e/2007/07_02_15.html
Scientific American, from 2009
CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together
http://www.scientificameric...volcanoes-or-humans/
The U.K. Guardian, from 2010
CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together
http://www.theguardian.com/...ano-climate-sceptics
Discovery News (associated with cable TV's Discovery Channel), from 2012
CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together
http://news.discovery.com/e...s-climate-110627.htm
LiveScience, from 2013
Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)
http://www.livescience.com/...-are-staggering.html
Whoa--let's have that last one again:
| quote | | Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed) |
|
So the outlier here--the seemingly minority view--and the sentiment just expressed by PFF's very own E.Furgal--is from Robin Wylie, who, at the time that the Wylie Op-Ed was published in LiveScience, was a doctoral candidate in volcanology at University College London.
Any follow up here, from anyone that is "into" this amazing discussion thread, which has garnered more than 5700 replies since the first post in 2008, about Robin Wylie and his thinking on this?
Snopes(.com) even weighed in on this, as recently as December 16, 2015. Not that I would present Snopes as a particularly reliable source of peer-reviewed scientific research; nevertheless, Snopes contributor Dan Evon lined up with this assessment:
| quote | | CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together |
|
http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/
"Believe it or not"[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2016).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 09, 05:50 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
Then how does the co2 get from the
atmosphere into the ocean. or to any
other carbon sink for that matter.
Are referring to the radiative cooling produced by co2
in both the mesosphere and thermosphere. Where CO2
actually acts as a coolant by shedding heat via infrared radiation.
too bad all that precipitation can't capture
and carry all that carbon back to the ocean and soil.
So to recap,
- We have CO2 that only moves up until it gets trapped
at all levels of the atmosphere. because there is not pause
or reduction in air current that will allow CO2 to yield to gravity.
- CO2 that can produce radiative heating or cooling
through infrared radiation.
- Water doesn't capture CO2 in the air but does when it
is a lake, river or ocean. |
|
You just said:
| quote | Are referring to the radiative cooling produced by co2
in both the mesosphere and thermosphere. Where CO2
actually acts as a coolant by shedding heat via infrared radiation. |
|
You are not surrounded by the mesosphere or the thermosphere. Those parts of the atmosphere are way up there--higher even than the stratosphere. You (and everyone else) lives their entire life immersed in the lowest part of the atmosphere--the troposphere. And that is where carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect.
As far as your other questions or comments, I have this to say: If you want to use scientific facts and principles as a way to challenge what many notable climate researchers are saying about AGW, you first have to understand the "blueprint" of AGW that has gained traction among climate researchers as something of a consensus position. You will never be able to understand the blueprint of AGW using this piecemeal, pick-and-poke, one question at a time kind of approach.
I think that all of this latest round of your questions or comments has been addressed in straightforward and eminently readable "Anglo Saxon", and you can find it online. This is the link:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/new...launch-press-kit.pdf
This is NASA's press kit from July 2014 for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (or OCO-2 satellite) Launch. It is in PDF format. If you have a desktop unit or a solid laptop PC or Mac, you could not do better for your part in this discussion than to download this PDF-format document and "peruse" it using Adobe Reader or any other software application that provides reading of PDF-format documents.
The entire document is only 37 pages long. If you were to drop down to the section that is bolded as "Why Study Carbon Dioxide?" (starts on page 17), these are the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs in sequence that you would encounter:
| quote | Carbon dioxide is the most significant human-produced
greenhouse gas. (Greenhouse gases contribute to
warming Earth’s atmosphere by absorbing radiation
emitted from Earth’s surface.) It is also the principal
human-produced driver of changes to Earth’s climate.
Carbon dioxide is a long-lived gas in Earth’s atmosphere.
While more than half of the carbon dioxide emitted
is removed from the atmosphere within a century,
about 20 percent remains in the atmosphere for thousands
of years.
Though generated at Earth’s surface, carbon dioxide
rises into the free troposphere, which begins at roughly
1.2 miles (2 kilometers) above the surface. There, winds
(weather systems and jet streams) transport it around
the globe, across oceans and continents. |
|
As an organization, NASA is mostly "in" with what I have described as "something of a consensus blueprint" for AGW.
This is your "AGW front line". Your "AGW combat" assignment. You will never "win" until you first read and understand this relatively straightforward material from NASA, and then--and only then--come up with your own strategy (and tactics, I suppose) to counter it.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2016).]
|
|
|
|
E.Furgal
|
MAY 09, 07:49 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
So the outlier here--the seemingly minority view--and the sentiment just expressed by PFF's very own E.Furgal--is from Robin Wylie, who, at the time that the Wylie Op-Ed was published in LiveScience, was a doctoral candidate in volcanology at University College London.
Any follow up here, from anyone that is "into" this amazing discussion thread, which has garnered more than 5700 replies since the first post in 2008, about Robin Wylie and his thinking on this?
Snopes(.com) even weighed in on this, as recently as December 16, 2015. Not that I would present Snopes as a particularly reliable source of peer-reviewed scientific research; nevertheless, Snopes contributor Dan Evon lined up with this assessment:
[QUOTE]CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together |
|
http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/
"Believe it or not"
[/QUOTE]
whom funded these studies??
funny thing about science, the outcome of the report always fits what the one pulling the purse strings whats..
odd..
|
|
|
|
fierosound
|
MAY 09, 10:03 AM
|
|
Forest Fires...
"Large-scale fires in western and southeastern states can pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a few weeks as the states' entire motor vehicle traffic in a year..."
It sounds like one fire can quickly "undo" any efforts a government forces on the citizens. 
Source: https://www.nsf.gov/news/ne...m.jsp?cntn_id=110580
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 09, 01:32 PM
|
|
"Overall, the study estimates that U.S. fires release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning."
According to that study (from 2007), the CO2 emissions from forest fires and wildfires could "undo" any modest national reduction in the amount of carbon emissions from fossil fuels reliance--"modest", as in a range of 4 to 6 percent--but that's the extent of it. If there were an aggressive reduction in the amount of carbon emissions form fossil fuels reliance, as many climate activists would like to see--like on the order of 25 or 50 percent--most of that would not be canceled out or nullified by the effects of forest fires and wildfires as averaged over a period of "good fire years" and "bad fire years".
Always remember to "Do the math" and never forget that "It is what it is"
 [This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2016).]
|
|
|
|
newf
|
MAY 09, 01:32 PM
|
|
|
nevermind. [This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-09-2016).]
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
MAY 11, 09:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 11, 10:48 PM
|
|
I think this is a more readable report on HOW*** Islamophobia is accelerating Global Warming
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2...g.html?intcmp=hplnws
*** Put me down as a "denier"... I mean "skeptic"[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-11-2016).]
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
MAY 12, 09:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|