Gore wins the Nobel prize together with U.N Climate panel

skadistic · Oct 15, 2007

Murky said:
It's not enough that's he's donating his portion of the award to charity?

Its his own charity that he set up and is CEO of. Again I say: How much more will he get paid to do his speeches now that he can pin Nobel prize winner to his name? So no his weak and empty gesture is not enough. Just like how he buys carbon credits from his own company to off set his high personal pollution levels.

El_Machinae · Oct 15, 2007

Merkinball said:
I'm sorry, but this is patently false, and CO2 is NOT the most important factor, nor the only factor in global warming or climate patterns.

Here's the disconnect. If I show that volcanos are a small contributor to atmospheric CO2 increase compared to humanity, will it mean anything?

Of course. This is why the notions of global warming are absurd, and is kind of my point. If the earth can buffer itself from massive catastrophic events, then why is it not plausible that the earth hasn't adjusted, or cannot adjust to our gradual pin pricking?

Every buffering system has threshholds, though. Our 'gradual pin pricking' is actually not so minor - at all. Humanity is significantly increasing CO2 concentration, massively more than (say) volcanos do. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and so the buffering has to happen with regards to its concentration.

I'm sorry, but there is very little evidence that shoes, at least in regards to climate change, that we are a chronic problem.

I don't know what would constitute evidence, then, for you. Significantly and incessantly changing the makeup of the atmospher, on a global scale, IS pretty impressive.

Merkinball · Oct 15, 2007

Buffers can only be stretched so far, and generally don't do as well with chronic, long-term problems than spikes of activity. A volcano can dump a massive amount of carbon into the atmosphere, but after that, it starts to decrease as the natural carbon cycle responds. - Che

Okay, so basically what you are saying is that the earth doesn't have the capacity of adjusting to us. It cannot...cool down...from our effects. Yet, when it comes to something catastrophic, it can just...oh, ya know, clean that right up, but still not have the capacity to compensate our doing.

I'm no scientist, but what you say makes no logical sense at all. If the earth has X capacity to adjust its atmosphere from crap in the air, and if our impact has exceeded that capacity, then how is it reasonable to suggest that in the event of a massive volcano, that mother earth, can suddenly kick into overdrive, and copensate and re-achieve equilibrium in matter of years, but at the same rate not adjust to what we're doing. Doesn't make sense.

Also, I like my analogy of pin pricking the human body to our impact, and a gunshot wound being Pinatubo's impact, to your elephant urinating into a pool. There's simply no way of equating the amount of urine needed to equate it to Pinatubo.

We are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that is faster than the natural processes can sequester it again. - Che

The University of Rochester physicists who conducted the study "determined the volcano climate sensitivity and response time for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower troposphere, measurements of the long wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density," perhaps inspired by what Hansen et al. (1992) had said of this eruption, i.e., that it had the potential to exceed "the accumulated forcing due to all anthropogenic greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began," and should "provide an acid test for global climate models." Thus, when the water emitted is taken into account, the total contribution to the Earth’s greenhouse cover by this one volcanic event justifies my previous claim. Nevertheless, temporary Earth cooling was the outcome of Pinatubo 1991. Whatever human activity contributed to the Earth’s greenhouse that year, it was eclipsed by Pinatubo’s other effects for a good while thereafter. Another treatment of volcanic CO2 emissions found that 30 billion metric tons of CO2 was being emitted every year from Mount Etna alone as of the late 1980's. This research also estimates the current emissions from all volcanic sources (including geothermal) at 264 billion metric tons CO2 per year. These emissions were found to be in equilibrium with the ground. Specifically, the CO2 emitted into the atmospheric is being absorbed in the soil and oceans at a comparable rate by silicate weathering and alkali buffering. Apparently, volcanic activity may well be emitting an order of magnitude more CO2 than human activity per annum without any exceptional eruptions like Pinatubo.

Compare that with us: mankind was emitting 27 Billion tons of CO2 annually in 2004. And rising.

Humans produce more CO2 than volcanoes. - Brennan

I'm not even going to try and debunk the nefarious and ridiculous math by your other poster who didn't provide direct links which I can't find from the USGS, and which he questions himself. But just in case you didn't read it the first time...

Another treatment of volcanic CO2 emissions found that 30 billion metric tons of CO2 was being emitted every year from Mount Etna alone as of the late 1980's.

This research also estimates the current emissions from all volcanic sources (including geothermal) at 264 billion metric tons CO2 per year.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi6.html

skadistic · Oct 15, 2007

How many volcanoes have spewed gas into the air since 2000 years?

Spoiler :

And thats just so far this decade/century. Some are still going on.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763388.html

brennan · Oct 15, 2007

Merkinball said:
I'm not even going to try and debunk the nefarious and ridiculous math by your other poster who didn't provide direct links which I can't find from the USGS, and which he questions himself. But just in case you didn't read it the first time...

Justify this statement please. I recommend you read what I post below first...

Merkinball said:
Another treatment of volcanic CO2 emissions found that 30 billion metric tons of CO2 was being emitted every year from Mount Etna alone as of the late 1980's.

This research also estimates the current emissions from all volcanic sources (including geothermal) at 264 billion metric tons CO2 per year.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi6.html

That blog links to a figure of "42 to 234 Mt of CO2" for the Pinatubo eruption, entirely in line with the 135 Mt figure arrived at by BFR, which you baselessly ridicule. Source.

The link for the 264 Bt figure does not work. Can we clarify: do you believe that volcanoes cumulatively emit 1000 times the amount of CO2 released by the second largest eruption in the last century every year?

And since that amount of CO2 resulted from the second largest eruption of the last century (same source) and accompanied the ejection of 5.3 cubic km of magma I find the suggestion that Mt Etna emits 82 Mt of CO2 on a daily basis to be completely implausible.

Skadistic: how much CO2 do they emit?

El_Machinae · Oct 15, 2007

Merkinball said:
Okay, so basically what you are saying is that the earth doesn't have the capacity of adjusting to us. It cannot...cool down...from our effects. Yet, when it comes to something catastrophic, it can just...oh, ya know, clean that right up, but still not have the capacity to compensate our doing.

I'm no scientist, but what you say makes no logical sense at all. If the earth has X capacity to adjust its atmosphere from crap in the air, and if our impact has exceeded that capacity, then how is it reasonable to suggest that in the event of a massive volcano, that mother earth, can suddenly kick into overdrive, and copensate and re-achieve equilibrium in matter of years, but at the same rate not adjust to what we're doing. Doesn't make sense.

Because it's a buffering system!

Here's an example: imagine a cooler full of water and ice-cubes (to put your beer in). The water in that cooler will be 32F, because the water can't warm up until all the ice is melted (any heat goes into melting ice first).

If you've got a bunch of icecubes in the water, then you can poor half a gallon of boiling water into the cooler and within a few minutes, the water will be 32F again - you'll just have fewer icecubes. If you still have icecubes left, you can keep adding boiling water without raising the water temperature. This isn't so bad for ecosystems that prefer 32F

However, if you've only got one icecube left, and you pour half a gallon of boiling water into the cooler, the water will rise above 32F. Any additional hot water will raise the temperature of the water. That would be devastating for any ecosystems that prefers 32F

It's an analogy for any buffering system:

A huge volcano is an acute attack on the ecosystem: the CO2 in the air goes up and then the buffering mechanism then proceeds to scrub the CO2 out of the air.

Humanity is not only pumping out way more CO2 than most volcanos (i.e., our annual CO2 contribution is MUCH higher than the annualised volcano output), but we're continuing to do it chronically.

There's a reason why the CO2 ppm are continuing to rise. The buffering/scrubbing system can't scrub faster than we can pump.

El_Machinae · Oct 15, 2007

skadistic said:
How many volcanoes have spewed gas into the air since 2000 years?

Spoiler :

Akan, Hokkaido, Japan;
Ambrym Island, Vanuatu;
Anatahan, Mariana Islands;
Arenal, Costa Rica;
Asama, Honshu, Japan;
Aso, Kyushu, Japan;
Atka, Aleutian Islands, United States;
Augustine, Cook Inlet, Alaska, United States;
Bamus, New Britain Island, Papua New Guinea;
Bandai, Honshu, Japan;
Bagana, Bougainville, Papua New Guinea;
Barren Island, Indian Ocean;
Batu Tara, Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia;
Bezymianny, Kamchatka, Russia; Bromo, Java, Indonesia;
Bulusan, Philippines;
Mount Cameroon, Cameroon;
Canlaon, Philippines;
Chikurachki, Kurile Islands, Russia;
Chuginadak, Alaska;
Cleveland, Chuginadak Island, Alaska;
Colima, Mexico;
Conception, Island of Ometepe, Nicaragua;
Copahue, Argentina and Chile; Dempo, Sumatra Indonesia;
Dukono, Indonesia;
East Epi, Vanuatu;
Ebeko, Kuril Islands, Russia;
Egoni, Indonesia;
Erta Ale, Ethiopia;
Etna, Sicily, Italy;
Fourpeaked, Alaska Peninsula, United States;
Fuego, Guatemala;
Fukutoku-Okanoba, Japan;
Galeras, Colombia;
Gamalama, Indonesia;
Guagua Pichincha, Ecuador;
Hachijo-Jima, Izu Islands, Japan;
Heard Island, Southern Indian Ocean, Australia;
Hekla, Iceland;
Hokkaido, Japan;
Home Reef, Tonga Islands, Tonga;
Ijen, Java, Indonesia;
Jackson Segment, N. Gorda Ridge (nr. Oregon);
Kaba, Sumatra, Indonesia;
Mount Karangetang, Indonesia;
Karthala, Comoros Islands, Indian Ocean;
Karymsky, Kamchatka, Russia;
Kavachi Seamount, Solomon Islands;
Kelut, Java, Indonesia;
Kick-'em-Jenny (nr. Grenada);
Kikai, Japan;
Kilauea, Hawaii;
Kliuchevskoi, Kamchatka, Russia;
Komagatake, Hokkaido, Japan;
Krakatau, Indonesia;
Langila, New Britain, P.N.G.;
Lamongan, Indonesia;
Lascar, Chile; Leroboleng, Indonesia;
Mount Lewotobi, Indonesia;
Llaima, Chile;
Lokon, Sulawesi, Indonesia;
Lopevi, Central Islands, Vanuatu;
Manam, Papua New Guinea;
Masaya, Nicaragua;
Mauna Loa, Hawaii;
Mayon, Philippines;
Merapi, Indonesia;
Nevado Del Huila, Colombia;
Nyamuragira, Congo (Dem. Rep.);
Nyiragongo, Congo (Dem. Rep.);
Ol Doinya Lengai, Tanzania, Africa;
Oyama, Miyake-jima, Izu Islands, Japan;
Pacaya, Guatemala;
Pagan, Mariana Islands, central Pacific Ocean;
Pago, Papua New Guinea;
Papandayan, Java, Indonesia;
Piton de la Fournaise, Réunion;
Poas, Costa Rica;
Popocatepetl, Mexico;
Rabaul, Papua New Guinea;
Raoul Island, New Zealand;
Reventador, Ecuador;
Ritter Island, Papua New Guinea;
Rotorua, New Zealand; Ruapehu, New Zealand;
Mount St. Helens, Washington;
Sakura-Jima, Japan;
San Cristobal, Nicaragua;
San Miguel, El Salvador;
Sangay, Ecuador;
Santa Ana, El Salvador;
Santa Maria, Guatemala;
Semeru, Java, Indonesia;
Shiveluch, Kamchatka, Russia;
Shishaldin, Unimak Island, Alaska;
Simbo, Solomon Islands;
Slamet, Java Indonesia;
Soputan, Indonesia;
Soufriere Hills, Montserrat, West Indies;
South Sister, Oregon;
Stromboli, Italy;
Sulu Range, New Britain Island, Papua New Guinea;
Suwanose-Jima Ryukyu Islands, Japan;
Tavurvur, Papua New Guinea;
Taal, Philippines;
Talang, Indonesia;
Telica, Nicaragua;
Tengger Caldera, Java, Indonesia;
Tongariro Volcanic Centre, New Zealand;
Tungurahua, Ecuador;
Turrialba, Costa Rica;
Ubinas, Peru;
Ulawun, Papua New Guinea;
Usu, Japan;
Veniaminof, Alaska;
Villarrica, Chile;
White Island, New Zealand;
Yasur, Tanna Island, Vanuatu.

And thats just so far this decade/century. Some are still going on.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763388.html

I(i.e., Excel) count 116 volcanos.
IIRC, a spewing volcano emits (on average) ~9 million tonnes of CO2 per year (if you care, pick 5 of the above at random and we'll use science journals to find their average). That's about a billion tonnes of CO2 per year, assuming each listed volcano spews continuously

Humanity is at about 27 billion tonnes per year.

Even if we only knew about 1/10 volcanos, we're still 3x the volcano contribution.

Really, there's a reason why the concentration of CO2 is going up.

Merkinball · Oct 15, 2007

Justify this statement please. I recommend you read what I post below first... - Brennan

This is explained and rebutted by the other information provided...

The link for the 264 Bt figure does not work. Can we clarify: do you believe that volcanoes cumulatively emit 1000 times the amount of CO2 released by the second largest eruption in the last century every year? - Brennan

I guess that's disputable, considering there is conflicting information on what was released in Pinatubo.

And since that amount of CO2 resulted from the second largest eruption of the last century (same source) and accompanied the ejection of 5.3 cubic km of magma I find the suggestion that Mt Etna emits 82 Mt of CO2 on a daily basis to be completely implausible. - Brennan

It does note that this was during a period in the late 80's. I'm going to send an email to the person who produced this and see if I cannot get the PSU study that concluded that.

A huge volcano is an acute attack on the ecosystem: the CO2 in the air goes up and then the buffering mechanism then proceeds to scrub the CO2 out of the air.

Humanity is not only pumping out way more CO2 than most volcanos (i.e., our annual CO2 contribution is MUCH higher than the annualised volcano output), but we're continuing to do it chronically.

There's a reason why the CO2 ppm are continuing to rise. The buffering/scrubbing system can't scrub faster than we can pump. - El

My argument and analogy still stands. If Mt. Etna alone, did indeed release that kind of CO2 into the air, then where does your buffering argument stand?

Or, let's look at it from another angle. If Mt. Pinatubo is so pathetic in what it does to the atmosphere than humanity, then why did it collectively reduce the temperature of the earth? And why hasn't global warming forwarded at much FASTER rate?

El_Machinae · Oct 15, 2007

I'm guessing that atmospheric ash and SO2 have a much lower half-life than CO2, their affect on temperature is well known.

Secondly, do you think the 'global warming' theory is that temperatures will immediately spike if CO2 is temporarily increased? Or are you thinking in terms of insulation? If I throw 8 more blankets on you while you're sleeping, are you going to heat up 8x faster than if I threw on a second blanket? Each additional blanket raises the maximum sustainable temperature you'll experience. You'll overheat, eventually. More blankets make it worse, overtime.

The CO2 ppm is rising, markedly inline with our fossil fuel consumption. Do you assume this to be a coincidence? CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Regarding the global CO2 stats from volcanos, I think that peer-reviewed and reputable journals would be the best source to examine. I don't have my account to Science activated from this computer, but I betcha these papers would provide a good place to get the numbers together.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...o2&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/295/5558/1242
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5615/2035

Merkinball · Oct 15, 2007

I'm guessing that atmospheric ash and SO2 have a much lower half-life than CO2, their affect on temperature is well known. - El

Plausible. As atmospheric ash and SO2 tend to wash out of the atmosphere. Remember, I'm a mere skeptic.

Secondly, do you think the 'global warming' theory is that temperatures will immediately spike if CO2 is temporarily increased? Or are you thinking in terms of insulation? If I throw 8 more blankets on you while you're sleeping, are you going to heat up 8x faster than if I threw on a second blanket? Each additional blanket raises the maximum sustainable temperature you'll experience. You'll overheat, eventually. More blankets make it worse, overtime. - El

This is all too vague for me to really address. However, I will say that if global warming is such a pervasive problem, that if Pinatubo had such a DRASTIC effect on the entire atmosphere, that it would seem plausible that man made global warming would have much more noticable and measurable effect.

Again, I'm just a skeptic. There are way too many conflicting opinions about the matter for me to feel like I can make an honest decision on the matter. For every scientist there is that believes it's man made, there is another who disagrees with an equally compelling argument. You mention CO2, but water vapor and their interaction with one another? What about cloud formations and how that is impacted? Dr. William Grey, who was assumed to be a global warming advocate, has recently come out and said that the increase in temperature is due to salinity of the oceans, and ocean currents, and predicts a cooling trend in the coming years.

Also, don't get me wrong, I do everything I can to live green. I drive a fuel efficient car. I always make sure I'm using limited electricity and water. I'm an outdoorsman so I care a whole hell of a lot about the environment. However, I think it would be extremely naive to blame humans on climate change.

In terms of environmental impact and humanity, there are much bigger fish to fry in my opinion. Like dissappearing aquifers, desertification from poor land management, loss of wet lands, over fishing, water pollution, mass extinctions. Environmental pollution is enough in and of itself, and its something we can tangibly see, understand, and correct to the best of our abilities. Global Warming is too politically oriented as a science to not eye with skepticism. And to me, this award illuminates that fact.

Also to note, I got a reply from the author who produced those blogs. He gave me a quick vague answer and another link which states the same facts on Mt Etna in the 80's, but I don't like it, and don't think it'll pass the peer review system of this board. So I have requested more information, as well as other information he proposes in the piece.

woody60707 · Oct 16, 2007

I never understood peoples belief in a right natural way the Earth should be. It's as if they believe in a made up being called mother natural, and she had a plan for the way the Earth should be, and mankind is ruining it. huh???

Arwon · Oct 16, 2007

Well nature on Earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than we have, so it's had much more time to develop adjustment mechanisms and what-have-you. It does a lot of things much better than we do. Best not to mess with it too much.

bigfatron · Oct 16, 2007

brennan said:
Justify this statement please. I recommend you read what I post below first...
That blog links to a figure of "42 to 234 Mt of CO2" for the Pinatubo eruption, entirely in line with the 135 Mt figure arrived at by BFR, which you baselessly ridicule. Source.

The link for the 264 Bt figure does not work. Can we clarify: do you believe that volcanoes cumulatively emit 1000 times the amount of CO2 released by the second largest eruption in the last century every year?

And since that amount of CO2 resulted from the second largest eruption of the last century (same source) and accompanied the ejection of 5.3 cubic km of magma I find the suggestion that Mt Etna emits 82 Mt of CO2 on a daily basis to be completely implausible.

Skadistic: how much CO2 do they emit?

Follow the link through and you find that the website (which promotes the view that CO2 emission and temperature change are unrelated, and that high levels of CO2 are good for the planet) quotes 5 x 10^11kg of CO2 as emitted annually by vulcanism - that's 500m tonnes.

That's a bit higher than the figures cited by the IPCC (about 150mt IIRC) but stilll waaay less than either the 27bt produced annually by human kind, or the 264bt Merkinball quoted above.
Linky:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/questions/1999/volcano.jsp

We can play all you want Merkinball, but it is boring fact that only the absolute largest volcanoes (and those volcanic events happen with geological infrequency) produce an annual CO2 emission equivalent to that which we are pumping out every 12 months.

It's also a thought that they produce loads of aerosols, SO2, and water vapour as well as CO2, so will sensibly be expected to have a complex effect on atmospheric conditions that might be easier for the earth to absorb than simply blasting out CO2 year after year after year.

BFR

El_Machinae · Oct 16, 2007

I agree on the aquifer problem!

In fact, I think that most people aren't aware whether their local aquifers are going down or not, but chances are they're being consumed as if their cost is zero. That's going to be pretty scary once our usable aquifer levels are dependant on rain levels.

brennan · Oct 16, 2007

woody60707 said:
I never understood peoples belief in a right natural way the Earth should be. It's as if they believe in a made up being called mother natural, and she had a plan for the way the Earth should be, and mankind is ruining it. huh???

It's not so much that as a fear that we don't know what equilibrium situation will result from our tampering. A complicated system can veer from one state to another quite easily sometimes, and if that state involves all our coastlines being underwater and everyone needing malaria jabs the results could easily be catastrophic. Ironic really.

woody60707 · Oct 16, 2007

Arwon said:
Well nature on Earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than we have, so it's had much more time to develop adjustment mechanisms and what-have-you. It does a lot of things much better than we do. Best not to mess with it too much.

Better? One that subjunctive. Who says what is better? And what do you mean best not to mess with it too much? In case you missed out on Ozone levels, CO2 levels, the building of whole cities that has changed the face of the planet, we are way passed the point of messing with it too much.

Unlike the Earth where everything just happen by chance, Humans are self aware and thinking beings. We shouldn't have the mind set of "not messing with it too much" We should be looking more to controlling it.

There is no higher being that says "this is best for the Earth" But we should take notice of what chances (Be it man made or other) that are taking place on the Earth and how to control them.

skadistic · Oct 16, 2007

El_Machinae said:
I agree on the aquifer problem!

In fact, I think that most people aren't aware whether their local aquifers are going down or not, but chances are they're being consumed as if their cost is zero. That's going to be pretty scary once our usable aquifer levels are dependant on rain levels.

Our local aquifer is just fine in its level thank you. However its been heavily polluted with heavy metals from a fly ash ( coal plant waste) dump in a gravel pit near by. :sad:

Now the company that controls the dump wants to pay for all the well water users to be put on county water systems. You know instead of cleaning up the environmental hazard they created. Luckily we have a hard core activist community who after sticking it to Wal*mart are not backing down or caving in to any one.

Its things like that I'm more worried about. Yeah we should worry about having to drill a little deeper 20 years from now ( maybe) but if you can't drink the water there now anyway whats it matter.

skadistic · Oct 19, 2007

Normally I think Glen Beck is nuts but this is just funny and shows a point at how hypocritical Al Gore is.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/10172007b.shtml

The environmental soundness of flying in food from all over the world along with people from near and far is counter to his preaching to say the least. But I guess it was offset buy all of them showing up in a Prius. And Gore can always buy more credits.

Merkinball · Oct 20, 2007

skadistic said:
Normally I think Glen Beck is nuts but this is just funny and shows a point at how hypocritical Al Gore is.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/10172007b.shtml

The environmental soundness of flying in food from all over the world along with people from near and far is counter to his preaching to say the least. But I guess it was offset buy all of them showing up in a Prius. And Gore can always buy more credits.

That was hilarious.

Gore wins the Nobel prize together with U.N Climate panel

skadistic

Caomhanach

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018

Merkinball

Deity

skadistic

Caomhanach

brennan

Argumentative Brit

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018

Merkinball

Deity

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018

Merkinball

Deity

woody60707

Deity

Arwon

stop being water

bigfatron

Emperor

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018

brennan

Argumentative Brit

woody60707

Deity

skadistic

Caomhanach

skadistic

Caomhanach

Merkinball

Deity

Similar threads