Global warming

[JustinW]

I wasn't aware there was global ecological crisis. It's like Dennis Miller said on his HBO special. It could be 75 degrees in New York in december and someone would surely be out playing golf. It just goes to show you that one man's global warming is another man's " Hey, it's a nice f***in day".

[IM Egdall]

I wasn't aware there was global ecological crisis. It's like Dennis Miller said on his HBO special. It could be 75 degrees in New York in december and someone would surely be out playing golf. It just goes to show you that one man's global warming is another man's " Hey, it's a nice f***in day".

 

Who are you going to believe -- a comedian or the overwhelming majority of climate scientists? I'll take the scientists -- who say global warming is real and human-induced climate change is highly likely the biggest contributor. It seems to me we ignore global warming at our own peril -- more severe droughts, more weather extremes, more floods, more intense heat waves, rising ocean waters --all on a global scale. Frankly it scares the hell out of me, and I am so frustrated that so many people fight or ignore what the scientists are telling us. My poor grandchildren --what kind of world will they be facing?

 

Sorry for the rant -- its really a subject for another thread.

Edited December 16, 2011 by IM Egdall

[JustinW]

who say global warming is real and human-induced climate change is highly likely the biggest contributor.

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period. The largest green house gases, from what I hear, is water vapor. What do you plan to do about that.

 

I say, take it as it comes. Whether it's man made or not, the cycle is already in motion. All we can really do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

Sorry for the off topic commentary.

 

 

O.K. so second order is about acceleration.

I thought the second order was motion not necessarily acceleration. Or the state of going from static to acceleration. And the observer from the inside should still see a round ball. The outside world would turn elliptical to that observer. Is this a correct assumption or did I miss something?

[IM Egdall]

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period. The largest green house gases, from what I hear, is water vapor. What do you plan to do about that.

 

I say, take it as it comes. Whether it's man made or not, the cycle is already in motion. All we can really do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

Sorry for the off topic commentary.

 

 

Please take a look at recent articles in Scientific American. They give the predictions of climate scientists on global warming/climate change, and show how a number of these predictions are already coming true. (Read my blog on this forum for some examples). More and more doubting scientists have -- after studying the detailed climate record -- changed their minds and come out in support of human-induced global warming.

 

If you want absolute proof, you would have to have two Earths -- one with human activity and one without. Then you would compare the difference human activity makes on our climate over time. Since this is impossible, all we can do is read what the experts are telling us. And they say it is NOT too late. By reducing our output of greenhouse gasses, we can at least slow down if not stop the dire effects predicted by the experts. Again, please read the articles in SciAm or some other reputable journal before you simply argue against this.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved out of relativity, because wth?

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period. The largest green house gases, from what I hear, is water vapor. What do you plan to do about that.

AFAIK the reason for the change was because people were interpreting "global warming" as "monotonic uniform warming". Sometime without the noblest of intentions.

Water vapor is fairly narrowly constrained in terms of how much you can put into the atmosphere. It also tends to rapidly leave the atmosphere when the concentration gets high enough.

[iNow]

Water vapor is fairly narrowly constrained in terms of how much you can put into the atmosphere. It also tends to rapidly leave the atmosphere when the concentration gets high enough.

Those smarty-pants uppity scientists who are propagating the conspiracy even have a fancy highfalutin term for this process. Those eggheads and untrustworthy poindexter types call it "rain." Bunch of moe-rons with their nonsensical terms and graphs and such.

Edited December 24, 2011 by iNow

[Essay]

Whether it's man made or not, the cycle is already in motion. All we can really do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

 

Your comment makes it seems as if there is "only one" cycle for warming, which is either on or off, but there are many different ways (cycles) which work to warm/cool the planet. It is the interplay of these many cycles that build a climate.

 

Simply saying that "the cycle is already in motion" makes it seem that there is no way to opt for more responsibility to our species' destiny... or words to that effect:

 

I caught this earlier today....

"Cantore says better forecasts, planning ease pain of year's terrible weather" December 15, 2011 at the National Press Club, which is known as "The Place Where News Happens." Global leaders in government, politics, business, music, film and sport visit the club every day. They speak there at public and private events because the press is there.

http://press.org/new...errible-weather

He has "never seen a year like the one we've just had. Everywhere you looked there were extremes," Cantore, on-camera meteorologist for the Weather Channel, told a National Press Club luncheon on Dec. 14.

Twelve [separate] "billion dollar" weather disasters have hit the U.S. this year, topping the previous high of nine in 2008.

"Every possible ingredient came together" to generate tornadoes, floods, heat waves, droughts and Hurricane Irene, which caused record flooding in New England, Cantore said. Six of the disasters were tornadoes.

...

[iIRC, Cantore indicated F-4/5 tornadoes were an order of magnitude more frequent, last year, which he noted as unusual.]

...

In answer to a question about global warming as a cause of weather extremes, Cantore answered: "We are seeing a warming world. I know there are going to be more extreme weather events."

In fact, he said as someone who's spent a lot of time in storms, "It's raining harder."

While some places are wetter, others are drier, such as Texas, which is suffering its worst drought since the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s.

[my comments bracketed]

 

It was fun watching him not answer some pointed questions, such as how long can we expect this "warming trend" to continue.

He completely avoided the CO2 link--speaking only of recent trends--and avoided pointing out the long-term implications of CO2's effects; how its effects will last for tens of thousands of years.

===

 

The point being that, while the weather outside is delightful, we are consigning our species to a future limited to a predominantly tropical climate. Our dominant crops and civilizations are not based on that climate regime, nor are ecosystem-resource services evolved to provide for us in a tropical world.

 

We are compelling our grandchildren to deal with (or "adapt to") tens-of-millions of years of evolutionary pressure, within their own--and their children's--generation. An "instant" in geologic time will experience an unprecedented change. We are resetting the climate thermostat back to conditions that existed before Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, We, or our Cereal Crops evolved.

This will be more significant than a "supervolcano" or any meteor impact since 65 Mya, because it will be longer-lasting; and it will be larger than previous atmospheric shifts, at least since the PETM some 55 million years ago.

===

 

This is not to be treated as just another "the cycle" similar to regular climate shifts over the past 5 million years, which were occurring while our species and crops evolved; this is different!

As mentioned, Scientific American has some good information. For instance, to compare our current situation with the PETM....

"The Last Great Global Warming Lee R. Kump; Scientific American 305, 56 - 61 (2011) Published online: 14 June 2011; doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0711-56

http://www.nature.co...711-56_BX1.html

 

 

 

Ask any evolutionary biologist, soil scientist, or tropical epidemiologist, if they think--on balance--that'll be a good or a bad thing. ...or maybe somebody could explain the more detailed picture to Dennis Miller.

[Essay]

So, from your post:

 

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__648427

 

On the soils.

 

Perhaps I'm just not getting it. What is the problem? Are you expecting the soils to degenerate into tropical ones again? Tropical rainforests won't generally expand unless we let them. Aside from plants growing better from the extra CO2 what will the difference be? Why would we expect the soil to change? On a more practical point. To my west is the Darling Downs, a large food growing area. What is supposed to happen? Will it become rainforest? Or will we just grow other crops instead of the wheat, etc we do now? What exactly is the problem? "But it's changing" isn't a problem to me. Climate is changing, it always has and always will. We will have to deal with that. As to whether it's changing faster than before, it's not. Far more rapid changes are shown in the record.

 

Quote=Essay

What will 30 million years of change, occurring over our grandchildren's lifetime, do to the planet and our civilization? I can't predict anything with certainty, but I can with certainty predict problems greater than we face today. Are you seriously trying to argue, that since life was "burgeoning" 30 million years ago, it'll be fine to impose 30 million years of environmental change onto the lifetime of our grandchildren?

 

Here is where we differ. All your worry is based on CO2 being the main driver of the planetary climate and that the climate models have their predictions right for the next thousand years. Also (it appears) on a belief in the essential fragility of nature. I look at all the predictions of doom from a degree or so of warming that we have had over the last 20 years and I find nothing. No doom, no major destruction. And absolutely nothing that compares to the massive changes when going from a full blown Ice Age into an Intermediate period. If life was half as fragile as some people think then there would have been 20 extinctions in the last 400,000 years alone.

 

The concerns are based on a particular theory being correct. So where is the missing tropical tropospheric "Hotspot" and where is the missing heat? These are things that the theory says should be happening right now in a measurable sense. They aren't. Why should I pay attention to model outputs for 100 years time when the underlying theory cannot accurately predict what is happening right now?

===

 

That's a lot to reply to, but....

 

Yes, you don't get it. Yes, the soils will rapidly degenerate into tropical-type soils. Mycorrhizal fungi will decline and bacterially-mediated processes will come to predominate along with new soil/crop diseases. Leaching will increase nutrient and water loss. Acidity will increase, so metal toxicity will become more of a problem to crops. Etc....

 

Even with all the excess fertilizer we now use, plants still depend upon naturally fixed soil Nitrogen for almost half of their needs. I don't know why, but that is what has been measured; and if the soils start changing rapidly, our hyper-productive monocultures may encounter problems, istm.

 

I posted that map of global soils, back before Mammals and Grasses generated so much mid-low latitude soil, on post:

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__645029

 

Notice the only temperate soils were away in the polar regions and higher latitudes where dark and light seasonality cycled most strongly. It was only when the world cooled, during the last 30 million years, that temperate soils [w/ mammals & grasses] could advance down into the lower latitudes.

Or more accurately, it was as the mammals and grasses created more soil and moved to lower latitudes that the CO2 levels were drawn down to cool the globe enough for the soils to spread farther into the mid and low latitudes.

 

Our temperate soils only evolved within the past 5 to 10 million years, along with honeybees, earthworms, hominids and our cereal crops.

 

Hence the concern about resetting the global CO2 forcer to "more than 30 million years ago" as Deep Time puts it... from the National Academies.

===

 

Ummmmmm... If you would like to pick an example of when climate changed faster than now, please do so; and we can talk about it. I still want to go with the comparison with the PETM, from above. What did you say about that?

===

 

About the models.... I think they are doing a pretty good job of expressing changes related to altered forcings. Science seems to be of consensus on this; do you have some study that shows otherwise? I realize that models can't tell which region will change what way, but they get the global average fairly accurate, along with points like accelerated Arctic response and greater night-time response, and they seem to account for other forcer quite accurately too, being able to predict changes related to geologic and solar processes.

 

Also from that Deep Time book:

"Notably, the deep-time record indicates that the mechanisms and feedbacks in the modern ice-house climate system, which have controlled tropical temperatures and a high pole-to-equator thermal gradient, may not straightforwardly apply in warmer worlds, suggesting that additional feedbacks probaby operated under warmer mean temperatures."

--p.9

Right! and...

 

I don't think the models account for a collapse of the ocean food web either, due to acidification; and while I'm sure some new acid-tolerant food web will eventually replace the collapsed web, the models can't predict that now either. An event such as that could precipitate an OAE (ocean anoxic event, which you can google), which could lead us into another glacial advance; but the fact that the models can't predict this--so the models don't "accurately predict" everything--doesn't lead me into complacency.

 

Do you have a specific point, about models, that we could delve into?

Otherwise....

===

 

"Here is where we differ."

That is a good sentence.

You say that: All my worry is based on CO2 being the main driver of the planetary climate....

 

Basically, this is true; and that also includes radically changing ocean chemistry along with the radical change to atmospheric chemistry. Interestingly, our rains and soils will also experience acidification as carbonic acid concentrations respond to the higher CO2 levels in the sky.

 

Within the long solar cycles and geologic cycles of carbon and continental shifts, there is a see-saw of labile carbon that cycles between the soils and the atmosphere... which is the "main driver" locally--or "internally" on global short to medium time scales--on top of (in response to) Milankovich and other long, "external" or non-local, processes.

 

Rhizosphere slides:

 

 

...and note this paradigm shift:

&

...30% of GHG emissions come from the land use sector!

 

Regardless of how we describe CO2 as a "driver," what do you expect 4 extra Watts/sq.meter

will do--globally, from pole to pole, 24/7/365, decade after decade, and century after century? ...or even 2 extra Watts... or even 1/2 extra Watt (which was the change between the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period after several centuries)....

 

If you think that will be no big deal, here is where we differ!

 

~

Edited January 4, 2012 by Essay

[Sorcerer]

Ask any evolutionary biologist, soil scientist, or tropical epidemiologist, if they think--on balance--that'll be a good or a bad thing. ...or maybe somebody could explain the more detailed picture to Dennis Miller.

 

I understand what you're saying but to be pedantic, it is neither "good" or "bad". Life has adapted through worse, if it means the extinction of Homo Sapiens, I'm sure the universe won't say "oh that was bad". (well not sure, but given my knowlegde it isn't a conscious being)

 

But yeah, we're seriously making it hard for our own species future, even if our technology (or our evolution) can overcome this change we're going to cause a mass extinction and we are going to be living in a very inhospitable world. But what isn't good to drive evoltution (punctuated equilbrium model) but a mass extinction/bottle neck/inhospitable evironment.

 

However I'm confident life will find a way, and I'm confident the majority of life on earth will find the planet a better place without us.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sorcerer

[Essay]

I understand what you're saying but to be pedantic, it is neither "good" or "bad". Life has adapted through worse, if it means the extinction of Homo Sapiens, I'm sure the universe won't say "oh that was bad". (well not sure, but given my knowlegde it isn't a conscious being)

=> [There is the Gaia Perspective]

 

But yeah, we're seriously making it hard for our own species future, even if our technology (or our evolution) can overcome this change we're going to cause a mass extinction and we are going to be living in a very inhospitable world. But what isn't good to drive evoltution (punctuated equilbrium model) but a mass extinction/bottle neck/inhospitable evironment.

 

However I'm confident life will find a way, and I'm confident the majority of life on earth will find the planet a better place without us.

 

All Totally True. Sure, life has recovered and diversified after many ice ages and even several ocean anoxic events--after many millennia to millions of years. Many of those events even helped accumulate the resources we have come close to exhausting, such as Phosphorus (google: peak phosphorus), during this geologic instant.

 

Many of the easily accessible resources, especially metals, have been depleted; and so future species will not have the advantages of easily accessible "potentials to advance" ...on a technological/industrial level at least... as we did. Though recycling of the shards of our civilization might be possible. As with so many life forms, we do tend to concentrate certain minerals/metals into small geographic areas (or along our infrastructure's arteries) to perhaps someday become rich deposits and veins of ore.

 

Yes, life will go on very well without us, but will there be civilizations or histories to tell? There are several scientifically justified arguments supporting the perspective of our uniqueness in the cosmic scheme.

 

In many ways, and as Holmes Ralston III has illustrated, humanity's attribute of consciousness is the "Third Big Bang" ...after THE Big Bang, and Life (the 2nd big bang)... comes the third big bang: actively self-aware consciousness.

 

It seems that life is easy to start, and is fairly common and enduring throughout the universe. But the luck involved with getting to our level of evolution is much more rare; especially on any one given planet. This is our planet's chance (or one of a few within a fairly short window or set of windows) to take advantage of that sort of "Third Big Bang."

 

What you say is totally true. My previously posted stuff was for those who want to maintain the continuity of this currently emerged "big bang" before the supporting resources are exhausted and we just go the way of other "pre big-bang" species; as if we were no different. And then I guess we wouldn't be, eh? Sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy either way, eh? If we succeed, then we must be special; if not, then not, eh?

 

There is at least one viable way forward, maintaining continuity and emerging into a Type I Civilization (as Michio Kaku suggests), but there are many more non-viable ways forward.

I try to discern the dreams of our ancestors, as well as see through the eyes of my childrens' grandchildren, to gain insight and perspective. It is hard to tell if civilization has been worth it.

 

...but then, there is the Moral Imperative....

 

~

[Sorcerer]

I don't know Essay, but perhaps cephalopods, a very resilient Class of biota, have a chance of undergoing a "3rd big-bang" as u put it or perhaps already have. And also as far as my BELIEF in existence is concerned there are plenty of other ways intelligent life exists and will continue to exist. Be copernican there is nothing special about our place in the universe(existence).

 

Feel free to delete (or ban me) for this:

As for you right wing, almost on the verge of full circle communist facists, who think that Global Warming is a conspiracy by left wing evironmentalists to threaten your capitalist way of life and remove your oh so precious money from ur all ready over full pockets : well try thinking about other people for a change, try thinking not even about people but about things from a "Gods eye" point of veiw (I'm sure the majority of you are theists). You are partaking in the sin of ignorance.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sorcerer

[Essay]

Huh!?!

Right wing Lefties?!? ...not sure about those definitions, but as for the God's-eye view: Life is just God's way of maximizing Entropy; so honorinig our Dominion--Here on Earth--and Stewarding Life Everlastingly, promoting biodiversity and biophilia (as E. O. Wilson suggests), seem to be responsible ethics.

 

There are many ways of viewing reality, whatever it may be; but whatever justification develops, the question of focus upon oneself or upon others--present, past and future generations--remains. You are the nexus for a long chain of consciousness. Give your posterity the same chance to honor their ancestors by also appreciating how far we have advanced and what we have gained. It'd be a shame to lose that.

 

Growth & Development are two complementary processes in life and in natural systems. Civilization might benefit from focusing more upon developing (sculpting & refining) what already has been grown.

 

Our current growth trajectory is not sustainable. Civilization will either move up the evolutionary ladder (Developing, ala Type I Civ.) or fall back to the bottom rung--as is the pattern with all civilizations leading up to our present, global civilization. I guess I'm advocating for intentional development, over continued unwitting growth and abrupt change.

===

 

So aside from philosophy, could we just focus on doubling food production while greatly reducing environmental damage? Population and resource pressures (over the next two generations) are sort of like a meteor, which calculations show will eventually cause abrupt problems. We need to focus more on developing long-term resilience, rather than growing short-term gains... as a way to responsibly honor the past struggles, and the present nexus, and ensure future generations.

 

 

 

~

[dimreepr]

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period. The largest green house gases, from what I hear, is water vapor. What do you plan to do about that.

 

I say, take it as it comes. Whether it's man made or not, the cycle is already in motion. All we can really do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

Sorry for the off topic commentary.

 

 

I thought the second order was motion not necessarily acceleration. Or the state of going from static to acceleration. And the observer from the inside should still see a round ball. The outside world would turn elliptical to that observer. Is this a correct assumption or did I miss something?

 

Does it really matter whether the phenomena is man made or naturaly generated it does have a consequence for us so shouldn't we prepare for the worst?

[jryan]

Does it really matter whether the phenomena is man made or naturaly generated it does have a consequence for us so shouldn't we prepare for the worst?

 

 

The "prepare for the worst" principle has its limits. There are any number of things that COULD happen to you on any a given day, but most you don't really prepare for otherwise you are sitting at home with tissue boxes on your feet and wearing a surgical mask.

 

In the case of "preparing" for global warming you have options such as the green energy movement, but the problem there is that should global warming never materialize you have only really ended up with a far more expensive, less responsive energy supply for no real purpose that the market would have adopted eventually anyway if the secondary benefit is real.

 

For instance, if Solar energy costs, on average, $20 for a given amount, and that same amount of energy costs $5 from an coal burning generator, and "peak coal" hits, the coal generated energy would eventually rise above $20 per unit and people would by nature switch to solar over coal.

 

Granted, this is a very simplified point that doesn't take into account the abundance of varying energy supplies and their ability to scale with national need, but the general principle remains the same.

 

Forcing the switch earlier than market pressures would otherwise dictate simply costs more money with no added benefit.

[swansont]

For instance, if Solar energy costs, on average, $20 for a given amount, and that same amount of energy costs $5 from an coal burning generator, and "peak coal" hits, the coal generated energy would eventually rise above $20 per unit and people would by nature switch to solar over coal.

 

Granted, this is a very simplified point that doesn't take into account the abundance of varying energy supplies and their ability to scale with national need, but the general principle remains the same.

 

Forcing the switch earlier than market pressures would otherwise dictate simply costs more money with no added benefit.

 

The added benefit is if the rise in conventional fuel cost is rapid, as it would be under many scenarios. You need time to build the new infrastructure for energy production and distribution, and that takes years. The US has seen the doubling of gasoline prices in a short time on a few occasions, with relatively minor fluctuations in oil production/availability.

[doG]

Does it really matter whether the phenomena is man made or naturaly generated it does have a consequence for us so shouldn't we prepare for the worst?

Yes and no. It doesn't matter a whole lot how much warming is natural and how much is from anthropogenic causes because warming will occur naturally and we do need to be prepared for it. OTOH, that warming which is caused by anthropogenic causes is largely caused by pollution and warming or not, that is bad for the environment we depend on. It's time for man to quit pissing in his own bath water and clean up his act.

[Essay]

Does it really matter whether the phenomena is man made or naturaly generated...?

 

Good point, but understanding the man-made contributions helps us to see how the rate and magnitude of change will be very abnormal, and also to understand that we can manage the man-made components of environmental forcing such as ocean acidification, GHG levels, ozone levels, humic balance, etc.

 

It doesn't really matter, but the extra understanding can help improve management.

 

...

[Samm]

Yes and no. It doesn't matter a whole lot how much warming is natural and how much is from anthropogenic causes because warming will occur naturally and we do need to be prepared for it. OTOH, that warming which is caused by anthropogenic causes is largely caused by pollution and warming or not, that is bad for the environment we depend on. It's time for man to quit pissing in his own bath water and clean up his act.

 

I wouldn't agree entirely on that. If it is man-made and we are in fact causing global warming or climate change, we can actually take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce hence future warming.

[keep_talking]

If we are truly responsible for the largest contribution to GHG...what % of GHG comes from say...erupting volcanoes?

 

We have more GHG emissions than a volcano that erupts for a week straight? If we go out of our way to reduce emissions, it can all be wiped out in a week by nature.

 

There is no way in hell humanity is solely responsible for the Earth's temp rising. Between volcanoes, sea floor vents, and all that jazz, I would think our emissions are simply a drop in the bucket.

[swansont]

If we are truly responsible for the largest contribution to GHG...what % of GHG comes from say...erupting volcanoes?

 

We have more GHG emissions than a volcano that erupts for a week straight? If we go out of our way to reduce emissions, it can all be wiped out in a week by nature.

 

There is no way in hell humanity is solely responsible for the Earth's temp rising. Between volcanoes, sea floor vents, and all that jazz, I would think our emissions are simply a drop in the bucket.

 

That's the beauty of science, though. We don't have to be satisfied with guesses and "I would think"

[iNow]

If we are truly responsible for the largest contribution to GHG...what % of GHG comes from say...erupting volcanoes?

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

 

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).

 

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

 

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

 

 

More here: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

[JohnB]

I was reading some papers recently that changed the estimates for volcanic outgassing. IIRC the amounts were about tripled, however that doesn't take from iNows point that anthropo causes are still far larger than volcanic ones.

 

I find that this is an area where there is some confusion and meaning has to be made clear. For many trying to understand the various arguments the terminology can be confusing so it's always advisable to make sure whether you are talking about "amounts" or "flux".

 

Consequently when talking about volcanoes then the anthropo emissions "dwarf" them, however when discussing the annual carbon cycle and fluxes, the anthropo content is "dwarfed" by the natural amounts.

 

http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf

http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/

[Essay]

Consequently when talking about volcanoes then the anthropo emissions "dwarf" them, however when discussing the annual carbon cycle and fluxes, the anthropo content is "dwarfed" by the natural amounts.

 

 

JohnB, a good point. Of course you are not confusing "the annual carbon cycle and fluxes" [the "natural" amount that dwarfs the anthro CO2] with the natural volcanic amount that is dwarfed by anthro CO2.

 

And just think... if we could shift that flux in the "natural amounts," which do dwarf anthro emissions ...shifting just 1% or 2% would solve the problem, eh?

 

That is the point about focusing upon land use--and the rhizosphere--to make a big difference.

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__648780

re: your "Here is where we differ" post.

Note: the relevant quote from that post is bolded below (p.31).

 

Also from the 2007 book, "The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective

 

"Globally, the input of C to the soil [is] ...approximately one order of magnitude larger than the global annual rate of fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic emissions...."

"Thus small changes in the equilibrium between inputs and decomposition could have significant impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations...." --p.31

 

...also relevant:

"Whether the perspective is one of mechanics or of chemistry, the rhizosphere represents a highly significant interface between biology and geology, an interfacial environment with broad consequences for earth's biogeochemistry [including climate] and soil formation." --p.196

 

"As agriculture has evolved, the degree of intervention has grown steadily, culminating with the current, resource-intensive "Green Revolution" production systems where management interventions are often the dominant force shaping agroecosystem structure and function." --p.128

 

"It is against this backdrop of a highly modified soil environment and the cascading effects on soil biota that we examine the rhizosphere in agriculture and consider how to redirect management to restore rhizosphere processes and agroecosystem function." --p.133

~ "Thus small changes in the equilibrium....

[iNow]

 

 

 

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/nasa-video-shows-global-warming-is-real/10021

 

If there were any doubt that a real warming trend is upon us, scientists at NASA have produced a visualization that depicts the recent rise in global temperatures as felt over a span of 130 years (see video above).

 

While the video shows a clear pattern of seasonal temperature changes along with momentary spikes throughout the centuries, you can see that it’s only recently that temperatures in most regions of the world (represented with intensified colors) started to really peak. In fact, since the year 2000, we’ve experienced nine of the 10 warmest years on record. And the researchers have noted that within the past 11 years, temperatures were significantly hotter than in the middle and late 20th century. For instance, the average temperature globally in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than baseline temperatures in the mid-20th century.

 

The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, registering as a virtual tie.

 

“We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,” said James E. Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record.”

 

The weather data was culled from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature and recordings from an Antarctic research station. Researchers then used a computer program (available to the public) to calculate the difference between the surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place from 1951 to 1980, which served as a baseline for the analysis. Similar results from the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center corroborated with NASA’s findings.

 

And if you’re wondering about the link between CO2 and global warming, here’s what the data from NASA shows:

 

• The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins.
  
• By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million.
  
• Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace.

 

While scientists don’t expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year, they do expect those figures to continue climbing over decades with extreme temperatures predicted in the next two to three years due to increased solar activity and the effects of El Nino on the tropical Pacific region.

 

“It’s always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it’s safe to say we’ll see one in the next three years,” Hansen said. “It won’t take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010.”

[Santalum]

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period. The largest green house gases, from what I hear, is water vapor. What do you plan to do about that.

 

I believe that it is AGW deniers and the media that have over emphasized the problem as global warming.......because it is then easier for them to argue to the poorly science educated that any cold days any where in the world are evidence disproving climate change.

 

But those with reasonable science and maths education know very well that some cold days prove nothing about climate change either way.