CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vegas Golden Knights
Profile
Posts: 2577
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:33 am
 


1991 - Mt. Pinatuba, Phillipines: (siginificantly larger than Iceland)

(All figures are estimates only)
Magma - 10 billion tonnes
Ash Cloud - 34 km high
Sulphur Dioxide - 15 million tonnes
Carbon Dioxide - 42 million tonnes

Iceland:

I am having trouble finding decent numbers, this i what I have so far:

150,000 tonnes / day for (April 14 - May 20 <- maximum CO2 production days)37 days = 5,550,000 tonnes CO2.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21255
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:01 am
 


Great. Let's add them together for the heck of it.

42 x 10E6 t + 5.5 x 10E6 t = 48 million t of CO2


Now, for anthrpogenic emissions, the World Bank current estimate is 4.63 tonnes per capita per year

We've got a population of about six billion, so for this year, that makes it about 28,000 million t of CO2.

Comments?


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 41701
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:29 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Great. Let's add them together for the heck of it.

42 x 10E6 t + 5.5 x 10E6 t = 48 million t of CO2


Now, for anthrpogenic emissions, the World Bank current estimate is 4.63 tonnes per capita per year

We've got a population of about six billion, so for this year, that makes it about 28,000 million t of CO2.

Comments?


Closer to 6.97 Billion. So, 32271100000, or 32,270. MT of CO2.

Volcanoes are ahead on points, but inconsistant year over year.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:43 pm
 


Pinatubo exerted a slight cooling effect for two years. The CO2 from a volcano is insignificant in effect. A major volcanic eruption can cool as in 1816: the year without a summer.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:52 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
eureka eureka:
Bad science has, dan, and that is a significant point. Those who dispute AGW rely on the works of a few like Soon, Lindzen, Douglass, Svensmark, De Freitas, Christie and Spencer and a few others. The work of all of these - at least the work that purports to dispute AGW has been thoroughly discredited. Some have been shown to be faking conclusions. In one case, half the editorial staff of the publication (one that reputable scientists would not use, anyway) resigned because the editor insisted on publishing the paper.

Another publication had its editor resign over another of these papers. De Freitas had a bad paper published by a paper edited by his brother - there was more than that to it following that bit of nepotism, but no matter.

The Douglass paper, I think that was the one, has been described as one of the worst science papers ever written.

This is what the denial bloggers and PR men for the fossil fuel industry rely on to fuel disbelief in the public.

I don't know al those folks, but Richard Lindzen should not be lumped in with Soon. Lindzen is unarguably a heavyweight in the field, and though I'm a proponent of AGW, when guys of his calibre talk, I listen. Same with Freeman Dyson.

I wouldn't say Lindzen's work has been thoroughly discredited by any means, especialy since he's got like four decades of outstanding research behind him. Also, his position is more nunced than either side gives him credit for.


The problem with those like Lindzen, zipperfish, is that his relevant work has been discredited. Totally. This discrediting has led to his selling his soul to denialism and writing pieces under the auspices of some "Think Tanks." His ego, apparently, could not take scientific process and, like Svensmark, he continues to promote the Sun and Galactic Cosmic Rays.

There is a YouTube video of a debate between Lindzen and Dessler in which Lindzen is so thoroughly shown up it is embarrassing.

Dyson was a highly respected physicist but the best that can now be said for him is that he is 85 years old and possibly not quite right. He does no research and cites no research for his readily available opinions. It was sad to see that a respcted scientist would lend his name to the Oregon Petition and other fraudulent operations

His reasoning is pure nonsense.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21255
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:08 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Great. Let's add them together for the heck of it.

42 x 10E6 t + 5.5 x 10E6 t = 48 million t of CO2


Now, for anthrpogenic emissions, the World Bank current estimate is 4.63 tonnes per capita per year

We've got a population of about six billion, so for this year, that makes it about 28,000 million t of CO2.

Comments?


Closer to 6.97 Billion. So, 32271100000, or 32,270. MT of CO2.

Volcanoes are ahead on points, but inconsistant year over year.


42 million plus 5.5 million is 6.97 bilion?

edit--nevermind, i get you now. first thing in the morning


Last edited by Zipperfish on Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21255
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:33 pm
 


eureka eureka:
The problem with those like Lindzen, zipperfish, is that his relevant work has been discredited. Totally. This discrediting has led to his selling his soul to denialism and writing pieces under the auspices of some "Think Tanks." His ego, apparently, could not take scientific process and, like Svensmark, he continues to promote the Sun and Galactic Cosmic Rays.



I'm always wary of the passive voice: "has been discredited." Clearly, his wrk has ben discredited, the question is who is ding the discredting, and what, precisely is bing "discredited." There's a lot of people who discredit the work of Mann et al. too. Does the fact that there work "has been discredited" man that it no longers stands?

He has consistenly pointed out that blaming individual extreme weather events (i.e. Katrina, tsunamis) on global warming does not follow, and that it is by no mans certai that increased warming will result in increased storminess. And, as far as I know, the jury is still out on glaobl warming and extreme wather events. At the very least, trying to blame specific events on global warming is indeed suspect.

I'm also wary of people who undertake personal attacks against the skeptic scientists--that they are doing it for ego or whatever. While this may or may not be true, it is true that all scientists re human, and if the game becomes to find some human fallibility with the scientist and write off his views by using that. This is what I call the "Global warming is a pile of crap because Al Gire is fat" argument.

He admits that anthropogenic CO2 emisions could be causing global warming. Which doesn't make him a denier, strictly speaking. And he thinks Al Gore's movie was alarmist. I'm certainly with him on that.

I don't agree with how he has been criminalized for his stand, which, as stated, is a lot more nuanced than either "side" of the political debate is willing to give him credit for.


$1:
Dyson was a highly respected physicist but the best that can now be said for him is that he is 85 years old and possibly not quite right. He does no research and cites no research for his readily available opinions. It was sad to see that a respcted scientist would lend his name to the Oregon Petition and other fraudulent operations

His reasoning is pure nonsense.



$1:
I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans


I guess you're going to have to throw me in as another rambling, addled old man then, because the above quote from Freeman Dyson manes pretty good sense to me.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:25 am
 


Lindzen is discredited because his theory of warming was proved wrong yet he continues to promote it. He still insists that the Sun is responsible. He insists that GCR is a principal factor.

That is nothing but denialism.

I agree, though, that Gore's documentary was "alarmist." Just not alarming enough it seems for the public to demand governments take action to actually "preserve life on land and sea."

Pointing out that individual weather events do not indicate climate change is what every scientist does to the point that they must be sick of responding. Lindzen does it, not in response to the claim but to make a non existent argument. However, there is no question about extreme weather events any longer. The pattern is clear. There are many times more heat records than cold records. What are called 5oo year floods are happening on a decadal level in many places.

"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans"

That is outrageous nonsense from a senior scientist. Not even a Lomborg is so egregious. All of those problems pale against Global Warming.Increasing poverty for hundreds of millions is a consequence of Global Warming. Extinction of thousands of "living creatures" on land and sea is happening now because of Global Warming. Efforts to counter Global Warming are severely underfunded.

Even the Pentagon has scenarios showing dire consequences and permanent warfare as a consequence of Global Warming.

Was going to post a couple of links bu the computer keeps freezing so am posting this while I can.


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 41701
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:45 am
 


Just in case anyone wants to be informed by the actual study, as published in "Nature" magazine:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 10556.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21255
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:14 am
 


eureka eureka:
Lindzen is discredited because his theory of warming was proved wrong yet he continues to promote it. He still insists that the Sun is responsible. He insists that GCR is a principal factor.

That is nothing but denialism.


Nothing has been "proved" by anyone in the climate change discussion. Proof is a construct of logic, not science. Science is all about probabilities and uncertainty. All "truths" are proviisional. Which is why there should always be room in science for folks who buck the orthodox thinking.

I'm not even sure that Lindzen has much in the way of a theory. From what I read, he spends most of his time discussing uncertainties andshortcomings of the models, as opposed to forwarding any theories himself. He points out a lot of confounding factors with curent observations (the curent climate cycles we're in). He casts doubt on the self-amplfying "postivie feedback" loops--something which I have difficulty with as well.

But the bottom line is that Lindzen is a heavyweight--a professor of climatology at MIT, a man who has conductd important research, and whose work is often cited. I find the habit the zealots on the AGW side have of lumping anyone who strays from their orthodoxy in with the likes of Soon, or picking some imagined human foible to focus on, weakens their argument immensely. Much better to say that Lindzen is a clearly a learned man in the field, and raises good points, but most other luminaries disagree.


$1:
That is outrageous nonsense from a senior scientist. Not even a Lomborg is so egregious. All of those problems pale against Global Warming.Increasing poverty for hundreds of millions is a consequence of Global Warming. Extinction of thousands of "living creatures" on land and sea is happening now because of Global Warming. Efforts to counter Global Warming are severely underfunded.

Even the Pentagon has scenarios showing dire consequences and permanent warfare as a consequence of Global Warming.

Was going to post a couple of links bu the computer keeps freezing so am posting this while I can.




Maybe they are outrageous, but many folks seem to agree. It's not like democracies are voting in radical goverments who are slashing GHG emissions.

There are many potential apocalypses awaiting us. People have weighed AGW into that mix and said "Meh." They agree with Dyson--that are many other pressing problems right now. There's an apocalypse at every turn. I think global warming is real and serious. But personally, I'm more worried about the fish. We're going to run low on oil pretty soon too. Economic oil, anyway. That's going to increase poverty for hundreds of millions too. Most people don't realize how much we depend on oil for our prosperity.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:54 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
eureka eureka:
Lindzen is discredited because his theory of warming was proved wrong yet he continues to promote it. He still insists that the Sun is responsible. He insists that GCR is a principal factor.

That is nothing but denialism.


Nothing has been "proved" by anyone in the climate change discussion. Proof is a construct of logic, not science. Science is all about probabilities and uncertainty. All "truths" are proviisional. Which is why there should always be room in science for folks who buck the orthodox thinking.

I'm not even sure that Lindzen has much in the way of a theory. From what I read, he spends most of his time discussing uncertainties andshortcomings of the models, as opposed to forwarding any theories himself. He points out a lot of confounding factors with curent observations (the curent climate cycles we're in). He casts doubt on the self-amplfying "postivie feedback" loops--something which I have difficulty with as well.

But the bottom line is that Lindzen is a heavyweight--a professor of climatology at MIT, a man who has conductd important research, and whose work is often cited. I find the habit the zealots on the AGW side have of lumping anyone who strays from their orthodoxy in with the likes of Soon, or picking some imagined human foible to focus on, weakens their argument immensely. Much better to say that Lindzen is a clearly a learned man in the field, and raises good points, but most other luminaries disagree.


$1:
That is outrageous nonsense from a senior scientist. Not even a Lomborg is so egregious. All of those problems pale against Global Warming.Increasing poverty for hundreds of millions is a consequence of Global Warming. Extinction of thousands of "living creatures" on land and sea is happening now because of Global Warming. Efforts to counter Global Warming are severely underfunded.

Even the Pentagon has scenarios showing dire consequences and permanent warfare as a consequence of Global Warming.

Was going to post a couple of links bu the computer keeps freezing so am posting this while I can.




Maybe they are outrageous, but many folks seem to agree. It's not like democracies are voting in radical goverments who are slashing GHG emissions.

There are many potential apocalypses awaiting us. People have weighed AGW into that mix and said "Meh." They agree with Dyson--that are many other pressing problems right now. There's an apocalypse at every turn. I think global warming is real and serious. But personally, I'm more worried about the fish. We're going to run low on oil pretty soon too. Economic oil, anyway. That's going to increase poverty for hundreds of millions too. Most people don't realize how much we depend on oil for our prosperity.


Lindzen did a study that purported to show that the Sun was driving the change. Dozens of studies show that he is wrong. Since the only possible solar effect over the past half century would be a slight cooling given the level of solar activitity, how can it be argued that Lindzen has not been proved wrong.

Lindzen continues to press the same foolish claim and has adduced no further evidence,then he clearly has joined the denial camp to salve his ego. His other caveats are nonsense and fly in the face of 98% of climate scientists and of every climate scientist who has a study that has passed a genuine peer review process. He raises only questions for which the answers are known across the scientific community and cautions that the scientists make BUT do not say they are a brake on the conclusions of the science.

Here is a brief commentary on the debate. The video is embedded. Dessler handles him quite gently and with the respect that one scientist owes to another. The conclusions are clear and Lindzen does not come out very well.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com ... d-lindzen/.

With Dyson, it is a similar case. What folk agree. Lindzen and a couple of others of his equals. None of whom has any scientific basis for it.

Denial Blogs and their following. There is no basis in logic or science for Dyson's position.

There are 50 million climate refugees already with hundreds of millions more to come in this century. Would you not expect Dyson to weigh that in his balnce if he is not actually senile?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:24 pm
 


eureka eureka:
Lindzen is discredited because his theory of warming was proved wrong yet he continues to promote it. He still insists that the Sun is responsible.


Yeah, everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with warming the earth.

Image


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 390
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:00 pm
 


eureka eureka:
Pinatubo exerted a slight cooling effect for two years. The CO2 from a volcano is insignificant in effect. A major volcanic eruption can cool as in 1816: the year without a summer.


A larger one can perhaps start an ice according to an old mentor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm
 


scarecrowe scarecrowe:
eureka eureka:
Pinatubo exerted a slight cooling effect for two years. The CO2 from a volcano is insignificant in effect. A major volcanic eruption can cool as in 1816: the year without a summer.


A larger one can perhaps start an ice according to an old mentor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory


It certainly can! And a larger one still like the Grand Canyon area can mean that ther would be no human race surviving to worry about the temperature outside.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:26 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
eureka eureka:
Lindzen is discredited because his theory of warming was proved wrong yet he continues to promote it. He still insists that the Sun is responsible.


Yeah, everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with warming the earth.

Image


The Sun has very little to do with warming the Earth above the fairly constant level that Greenhouse gases maintain when unchanged. It has very little to with cooling, either, for the same reason.

The Sun comes slightly into play with solar activity. It is estimated that , of the heating from 1880 to the present, the Sun may have been responsible for about .01C. More than that in the first half or so of the twentieth century and for a slight cooling in the last forty years.

While GHGs are constant, the temperature remains fairly constant. Orbital shifts are another matter.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 9  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.