Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[truethat]

Thanks for all the information guys. I'll leave you to your discussion. Of course it's "unprecedented" we never checked it before and our industry is booming.

Please don't bit slap me but the article posted is about moving rocks around and eroding soil. I get that it's a big impact but I'm already leary when people start mixing and matching statistics instead of just answering a direct question.

Is the argument (which was stated above) that airplanes do more damage in one week to the environment, than the volcano over which they flew erupting for a week.

Here's what is written in the article

And we are well on the way to doubling CO₂. In the past hundred years we have added almost 40%, and warming that can only plausibly be attributed to a greenhouse effect is not only heating the atmosphere, but is also pumping heat into the oceans and the crust at a phenomenal rate.

Now again, I know I'm going to piss someone off, but if the eruption of Krakatoa lowered the earth's temperature by 20 degrees for nearly 100 years, based on sediment and ash blocking out the sun, would it not stand to reason that as it settled back down and the sun was able to get in, that the temperature of the earth would rise?

And how can "the greenhouse effect" be the only plausible explanation. We've had several major volcanic eruptions over the years.

Perhaps I'm getting my chemistry all mixed up, is there not CO2 being released into the atmosphere when I volcano erupts? Perhaps I'm thinking it's a carbon that it's not.

One note, please don't ask me to read blogs with statistics that don't have citations to back them up. That's a pet peeve of mine.

 

[truethat]

Here's a better source for you guys

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

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

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 emiss

 

[bit_pattern]

Here's a better source for you guys

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

How is it a 'better' source when it merely confirms what was explained to you several posts back?

Volcanoes emit a relatively small amount of CO2 when compared to human activities, big volcanoes also emit a large amount of SO2 into the stratosphere that results in a short term cooling effect.

Is not that complicated.

 

[bit_pattern]

the eruption of Krakatoa lowered the earth's temperature by 20 degrees for nearly 100 years.

Not without a citation it didn't! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think we can safely assume that your assumptions are based entirely on a very flawed and haphazard understanding of the issues

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa

Global climate

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).

 

[truethat]

How is it a 'better' source when it merely confirms what was explained to you several posts back?

Volcanoes emit a relatively small amount of CO2 when compared to human activities, big volcanoes also emit a large amount of SO2 into the stratosphere that results in a short term cooling effect.

Is not that complicated.

Because it sources the data it doesn't just repeat it.

 

[bit_pattern]

Because it sources the data it doesn't just repeat it.

I think you probably need to focus more on getting your head around the broad concepts before worrying about how the data stack up.

I mean, data are only useful if you actually check them. Did you ask for the data from whoever told you Krakatoa caused a 100 year long 20 degree drop in temperature?

 

[Reality Check]

That's not what they say about Krakatoa. They said it cooled the planet for decades and cooled it by 22 degrees.

Who is "they": Citation please, truethat
Krakatoa

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[12]

Your "they", truethat, got two things wrong:

• the cooling was 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).
• the cooling was over in 5 years.

P.S. The eruption and its effects did not take "a week" (a quote from your "they" again?).
The eruption was multiple events over months. Its effects took months to appear after the end of the eruption.

 

[Reality Check]

How can a volcano that was as devastating as Krakatoa which is in our era of human history, be less damaging that all the fossil fuels being used to fly airplanes.

What a strange comparison! For a start no one has said that.
Volcanic activity cools. CO2 from fossil fuel warms.
Krakatoa happened in 1883. Warming is happening today!

Are you worried about a Krakatoa happening?
Then stop worrying and start worrying about the Yellowstone Super-volcano exploding!

 

[Reality Check]

Here's a better source for you guys
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

And another source with lots of citations:
How do volcanoes drive climate?
This addresses the climate skeptic argument: A drop in volcanic activity caused warming

A drop of volcanic activity in the early 20th century may have had a warming effect. However, volcanoes have had very little impact on the last 40 years of global warming.

 

[bit_pattern]

Who is "they": Citation please, truethat
Krakatoa


Your "they", truethat, got two things wrong:

• the cooling was 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).
• the cooling was over in 5 years.

P.S. The eruption and its effects did not take "a week" (a quote from your "they" again?).
The eruption was multiple events over months. Its effects took months to appear after the end of the eruption.

Clearly the degree by which "they" were measuring it was 1/10th of a Fahrenheit

 

[macdoc]

TT

Ah I see, so the cooling comes from the ash blocking the sun and you are saying the CO2 issue is worse.

No - ash is very transient - cooling comes from the injection of S02 into the stratosphere by the volcano and the effect from a single volcano of size ( Pinatubo ) shows up for a couple of years because unlike C02- S02 drops out.

C02 impacts remain as far out as 100,000 years.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

 

[truethat]

Ah, I have profound hearing loss so perhaps they said "2.2" degrees and I heard 22. But hey enjoy your shiggles as you mock me. That's why I came to the thread in the first place to get information. It didn't make any sense. But of course asking for information and clarification on this site is cause for attack. I mean, what do we think this is? An educational forum or something?

 

[truethat]

Who is "they": Citation please, truethat
Krakatoa


Your "they", truethat, got two things wrong:

• the cooling was 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).
• the cooling was over in 5 years.

P.S. The eruption and its effects did not take "a week" (a quote from your "they" again?).
The eruption was multiple events over months. Its effects took months to appear after the end of the eruption.

You're confusing two different eruptions. The comment I made was about the volcanic eruption in Iceland and the difference in the planes not being able to fly over it for a week.

And according to the information that I have seen (which I have posted) the results for Krakatoa have gone on for decades, not five years. So I'm clarifying information. That is why I am asking for information with citations.

 

[lomiller]

And according to the information that I have seen (which I have posted) the results for Krakatoa have gone on for decades, not five years. So I'm clarifying information.

I already told you that you are confusing what that source had to say. it said the signal was present for decades not that the cooling lasted decades. More specifically they seem to be saying it caused surface cooling, that cool water subsided into the depths of the ocean and can still be measured as cooler.

 

[truethat]

Got it now.

 

[Reality Check]

You're confusing two different eruptions.

No I am not. It was Krakatoa in your post that I replied to.
The 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull were quite small but produced a large ash cloud that disrupted air travel.

And according to the information that I have seen (which I have posted) the results for Krakatoa have gone on for decades, not five years.

Do you mean this "information" that you posted?

Now again, I know I'm going to piss someone off, but if the eruption of Krakatoa lowered the earth's temperature by 20 degrees for nearly 100 years, based on sediment and ash blocking out the sun, would it not stand to reason that as it settled back down and the sun was able to get in, that the temperature of the earth would rise?

No citations (another post says that was something that someone said ) so it is hearsay, not information.

That hearsay is wrong: Krakatoa

• the cooling was 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).
• the cooling was over in 5 years.

That hearsay sounds like the climate skeptic argument 'A drop in volcanic activity caused warming' which is wrong: How do volcanoes drive climate?

Maybe you were listening to a climate change denier repeating their usual invalid arguments.

ETA: You did cite: Krakatoa eruption cooled the world (2006)
Addressed by Iomiller above.

 

[aleCcowaN]

<deleted>

 

[Puppycow]

Right but plant a bazillion trees and problem solved.

Anyone who knows more about this stuff than me want to address this one specifically?

I'm no expert but I have some thoughts about this.

1. If it were really that easy somebody would have thought of that already because it's such an obvious idea.

2. The population of the Earth is still growing and is projected to keep growing for at least a few more decades. Those people will need to eat. We can't get food from a forest. We get food from agricultural land which we tend to create by cutting down forests to clear the land.

3. So where exactly are we going to plant all these trees?

 

[bit_pattern]

Anyone who knows more about this stuff than me want to address this one specifically?

I'm no expert but I have some thoughts about this.

1. If it were really that easy somebody would have thought of that already because it's such an obvious idea.

2. The population of the Earth is still growing and is projected to keep growing for at least a few more decades. Those people will need to eat. We can't get food from a forest. We get food from agricultural land which we tend to create by cutting down forests to clear the land.

3. So where exactly are we going to plant all these trees?

Exactly. One has to bear in mind that vast swathes of forests have been and still currently are bring destroyed to grow food crops. Just grow more trees until you consider that pressure on forests is expanding at beyond exponential rates while populations are expected to hit 10 billion over the next few decades.

 

[Dancing David]

What norm? The planet has a norm? The planet is a mess when it comes to climate? We're just not used to it because we've only been here a blip. But the planet always has temperature shifts etc. No? Not trying to be obtuse. I can see people here are well versed as it is. But one volcanic eruption could lower the temperature of the planet for decades. Why is it we think we are such a threat at the moment. We are learning how to create cleaner fuels etc It will take us a few decades to get there but we will.

So why this huge panic? Even if we did find a solution right this very second, and implement it right this very second. It wouldn't have an impact for decades? Right?

Sigh, care to point to the huge panic?