Innovating out of global warming

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Hyoi

Alexander's phalanxes and cavalry followed him because he was leading the charge. It's easier to give credibility to those that practice what they preach.

Heh. I give you a solid maybe on this one.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, every time. There are those that believe because of what they see. There are those that believe because of what they hear. And there are those that believe because of who is doing or saying.

In fact, every one of us has all these traits, each of us uses these strategies to believe. But I believe that loud repetition has a dominant influence on what people believe, and, unfortunately, loudness and repetition have no need to be true to be effective.

[JerryM]

My very serious doubt is . . . WHY!?
When one volcanic eruption releases a larger dose of "greenhouse gases" than the human race has generated during its entire existence, it should be obvious that our effect is minimal.

I understand Mars is warming as well. Isn't it amazing how much effect a few little solar powered rovers are having on such a big planet.

My own take on this is that a bunch of eco-terrorist Luddites are trying to pull the developed nations back to the level of the undeveloped nations.

Jerry

[glatt]

Originally Posted by JerryM

My very serious doubt is . . . WHY!?
When one volcanic eruption releases a larger dose of "greenhouse gases" than the human race has generated during its entire existence, it should be obvious that our effect is minimal.

I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.

I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.

I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.

Don't for get the 20th century was the quietest century for volcanic activity .... ever.
If you want the source of that dig through that Inconvenient Truth thread.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by glatt

I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.

I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't for get the 20th century was the quietest century for volcanic activity .... ever.
If you want the source of that dig through that Inconvenient Truth thread.

So what does that mean? If it was quieter than usual, then it means that if it goes back to "normal" then global warming will become worse and more accelerated.

Then again, if the studies in the U.S. Geological Survey link are correct, it will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our CO2 production. We are currently producing 150 times the CO2 that the volcanoes are producing, and China hasn't fully ramped up its CO2 production. Seems silly to be worried about the negligible role of volcanoes when the world's largest country is about to send human CO2 productions through the roof.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

So what does that mean? If it was quieter than usual, then it means that if it goes back to "normal" then global warming will become worse and more accelerated.

Then again, if the studies in the U.S. Geological Survey link are correct, it will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our CO2 production. We are currently producing 150 times the CO2 that the volcanoes are producing, and China hasn't fully ramped up its CO2 production. Seems silly to be worried about the negligible role of volcanoes when the world's largest country is about to send human CO2 productions through the roof.

The fault in your reasoning is what I've objected to from the getgo. There is more to global warming than co2, way more.
A good volcano fart puts a lot more in the air than co2. Along with a shitload of other things, the dirt... oh, excuse me, particulate matter is in a word, shade. With a big one, a lot of shade for more than a year. It's all a very complicated balance, a lot of which we don't understand yet.

I predict todays Supreme Court decision is going to cause inflation undreamed of in the past. I sure hope I'm wrong on that one, and would be greatly relieved if someone would repudiate it.

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by BigV

Heh. I give you a solid maybe on this one.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, every time. There are those that believe because of what they see. There are those that believe because of what they hear. And there are those that believe because of who is doing or saying.

In fact, every one of us has all these traits, each of us uses these strategies to believe. But I believe that loud repetition has a dominant influence on what people believe, and, unfortunately, loudness and repetition have no need to be true to be effective.

Ivan Pavlov and I agree with your last statement to a degree. However, if I ask someone to sacrifice comforts, I wouldn't expect results whilst eating an ice cream cone. Nor would I feel compelled to confess to a priest that has a thing for little boys' backsides. Alternatively, if someone hums a few bars, I'm more likely to chime in.