No. of Recommendations: 0
It was a Volcano and it changed world temperatures for 3 years according to the U.S. Geological Survey Cascades Volcano Observatory


Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C).

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/

Volcanos
Cow farts
fires
Swamp gas

For 12,500 years glaciers have been retreating

Give the left a satellite image and they believe they have discovered the end of the world. :)

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was going to say 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Globa...

Curiously, when you look at NOAA data you don't see a 1.2°C drop in the 1880's. I wonder why that is.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocea...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here is some Ex-spert who claimed a while back that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013 ,,,, now he is back peddling since it is still there

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslow...


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here is some Ex-spert who claimed a while back that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013
Well... Have you actually paid attention to Arctic ice? It's disappearing pretty darn fast.
The actual quote is perhaps 2013 is even a possibility for the loss of the complete summer ice extent. Since we haven't hit summer yet, you are being a bit aggressive in your criticism. Ice free this summer is actually not outside the realm of possibility.
Fwiw: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-ext...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Since we haven't hit summer yet, you are being a bit aggressive in your criticism. Ice free this summer is actually not outside the realm of possibility.
Fwiw: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-ext......


Right up in the stats with an Alien Invasion


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Technically, cows produce more methane from belching than farting. (I learn things watching QI Show hosted by Stephen Fry.) ; )

Icemann
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Twenty million tons. That's about what humans emitted every year in the 1990s.

And your position is that human activity is not causing climate change?

Is that the same science as the female body being able to distinguish between real rape and not-real rape?

Now I wouldn't expect the same impact, since human emissions don't all reach the stratosphere, but we put that much or more up EVERY YEAR.

So I guess Gaia knows the difference?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Right up in the stats with an Alien Invasion
Um, no actually.
The question isn't if the Arctic will be ice free, but when. 2020 is a good guess.
I'd say they odds of 2013 are about 1%. That's not insignificant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Termites beat them all.
Global emissions of methane due to termites are estimated to be between 2 and 22 Tg per year, making them the second largest natural source of methane emissions
http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sources.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I also learned about termites producing methane on QI as well. : )

Icemann
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nice job!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1


Pinatubo's eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud the 20th century, but also eruptions like Mt Saint Helens created gas clouds that reflected sunlight and cooled earth’s mean temperatures.
The Toba eruption [~75,000 years ago] was enormous, throwing out roughly 1000 times as much rock as the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Dust trapped in polar ice cores shows that ejected material spread around the globe, indicating that the eruption injected substantial material into the stratosphere, where it can strongly affect climate.


http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_12/

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effec...

What’s interesting is that when scientists use climate models to provide evidence that fits your predilections you accept them as facts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Twenty million tons. That's about what humans emitted every year in the 1990s.



Go to my first post of this string ..... the Volcano released

"Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991"

So, one volcano, at one moment in time, released the same amount of CO2 as the worlds population in one year (by your post)

How many major Eruptions are there? While back, European air space was shut down due to Volcanic activity .. then Mt St Helens ... many others

It is estimated there are 1500 volcanoes on land and an unknown number under the oceans.

50-70 on land volcanoes are considered active (erupting) each year. At any given time, there is an average of about 20 volcanoes that are erupting.

So, just in comparison to Volcanos, man is but a spit in the wind.

Then there are the many other known sources spewing CO2 around the world.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Was that with or without a virgin sacrifice?

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Right up in the stats with an Alien Invasion
Um, no actually.
The question isn't if the Arctic will be ice free, but when. 2020 is a good guess.
I'd say they odds of 2013 are about 1%. That's not insignificant.


Sorry, was joking

There is no doubt in my mind that the ice will continue to melt until things align to start another of the many mini ice ages.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The average sea ice extent for January 2013 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This is 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month, and is the sixth-lowest January extent in the satellite record. The last ten years (2004 to 2013) have seen the ten lowest January extents in the satellite record.
***
Average Arctic sea ice extent for January 2013 was the sixth lowest for the month in the satellite record. Through 2013, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent is -3.2 percent per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What’s interesting is that when scientists use climate models to provide evidence that fits your predilections you accept them as facts.


Your articles say the same as mine ... 20 million tons of CO2 released from one volcano.

OK, maybe the 20 million tons had no effect on the climate long term, and the many eruptions of smaller volcanos have no effect. It would make sense then that the 20 million tons of CO2 made by man would also have no effect.

Bottom line fact will always be the obvious

....... For 12,500 years glaciers have been retreating ....

What has been the cause

Blame man for the past 100 years, 150 years, 250 years ..... Ignore all sources from nature ......... what about the warming for the other 12,250 years?

Why would what caused that melting for 12,250 years not be the cause of todays melting?

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ken

Nobody denies that ice is melting

The question is why

Is it man .. suddenly .. the past couple hundred years?

Or is it the same thing that has been causing it to melt for the past 12,500 years

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



Your articles say the same as mine ... 20 million tons of CO2 released from one volcano.



You missed the point, you're global cooling information comes from the same models that present global warming evidence.

Second, this argument is a perfect example of "cheery-picking," as I pointed out:

Pinatubo's eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud the 20th century, but also eruptions like Mt Saint Helens created gas clouds that reflected sunlight and cooled earth’s mean temperatures.

Picking to most significant volcanic activity in the last 200 years and then interpolate outcomes as if that point is the mean is not how science works; that's how religion or politics works.

You've already made up your mind, you're not interested in the science or facts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 40
There is incontroverable evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. It's also clear that the source of much of the increase is attributable to man's activities.

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

Also, there is evidence that the oceans' update of CO2 is slowing.
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586

Whether you "believe in global warming" or not, I would think that there's enough stuff out there to make thinking people at least want to keep an open mind about it, acknowledge that it could be at least possible that man's activities can have an effect on the planet.

And, too, there's ample information that man's activies have had an effect in other ways on the planet. I read a fascinating article some years ago that left a big impression on me. It talked about the extinction of the passenger pigeon, not all that long ago. The demise of the passenger pigeon impacted the ecosystem of the forest. The makeup of the types of trees growing the forests changed. Passenger pigeons ate acorns and other tree nuts. With no passenger pigeons, there is greater abundance of acorns, particularly in "mast years" (years where oaks produce an over-abundance of acorns compared to other years). With nothing else eating the acorns anymore, deer mice had a plentiful food supply, so their populations grew. Deer mice carry lyme disease, which is passed by ticks, and lyme disease and other tick-borne illness has risen greatly over the years.

I think it's idiotic NOT to think that man's activities can't affect the world, because the evidence is all around us that we do affect it. A lot. We see ourselves as all-powerful in some ways--we're the conquerers of nature! We build roads through forests, we build dams, we eradicate diseases, and we have the power to create new ones! We've harnessed the power of the atom! We've biologically engineered our crops so we don't have to manually weed, for pete's sake. Just spray on some Round Up over acres and acres of crops.

Is it so very hard to believe that we don't have an impact on the world's ecosystem as we increase our population, cut down more trees, kill off species, build more factories to make more stuff for more people, and build more power plants to keep those people warm--and cool? To get all those people to work?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
is it the same thing that has been causing it to melt for the past 12,500 years
Who says it's been melting that long?
The Vikings had cattle farms in Greenland. They raised barley. It is just barely warm enough to do that now, yet the Vikings had several communities there for hundreds of years. So, what was the ice pack like then when it was warmer? We can't really take core samples and find out, can we?

It will have taken less than 50 years for the ice cap to melt. I'll suggest that reforming wouldn't take quite so long.
Fwiw: The climate had become harsher on the island starting in the mid-13th century. Summer temperatures fell, violent storms raged around the houses and the winters were bone-chillingly cold...by the mid-14th century, regular ship traffic with Norway and Iceland had ceased.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Also, there is evidence that the oceans' update of CO2 is slowing.

Not so much, actually.

All-in-all, the paper says that we don't yet know if the carbon uptake rate is changing or not. From the conclusions:

However, analysis of trends in the airborne fraction, as described in this study and elsewhere [Le Quéré et al. 2009; Canadell et al. 2007], are insufficient to make firm conclusions about whether the land and ocean uptake of anthropogenic carbon have slowed-down due to recent climate change. As pointed out by Gloor et al. (2010), trends in the airborne fraction are not identical with changes in the ocean and land carbon sinks.

http://boards.fool.com/quotin-contrast-to-recent-claims-tren...
Referencing Frolicher et al. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gbc.20028/abstrac...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
is it the same thing that has been causing it to melt for the past 12,500 years
Who says it's been melting that long?


It was the end of the last glacial period

The Vikings had cattle farms in Greenland. They raised barley. It is just barely warm enough to do that now, yet the Vikings had several communities there for hundreds of years.

That was just 1000- 1100 years ago

Here is the Ice at 18,000 years ago ..... been melting ever since except for a number of mini ice ages

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=12%2c500+years+map+end+o...

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That was just 1000- 1100 years ago
Yes. What evidence is there that we had a polar ice cap then?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes. What evidence is there that we had a polar ice cap then?

Your question confuses me.

Have you reached the point of "If I didnt see it I cant believe it"?



Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ave you reached the point of "If I didnt see it I cant believe it"?
I'm not saying there wasn't an ice cap. I'm saying that if it melted away in the summer (as it is likely to do in the next 7 years), how would we know? What evidence would there be either way?

Challenging assumptions is what I do for a living (risk analysis and mitigation).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Twenty million tons. That's about what humans emitted every year in the 1990s. - JoelCairo

Actually, we are emitting >30 BILLION tons of CO2 per year...more than 2.4 million pounds per second.

http://tinyurl.com/cwj97ht

Here's a good site for anyone wishing to track what's happening, both in terms of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and annual CO2 emissions:

http://co2now.org/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm saying that if it melted away in the summer (as it is likely to do in the next 7 years), how would we know? What evidence would there be either way?

Challenging assumptions is what I do for a living (risk analysis and mitigation).


If it does melt away, as it could, I guess you could check the age of any of the plant matter in and underneath the cap to determine if the area had been exposed earlier.

I also expect that it has advanced and receded many times.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If it does melt away, as it could, I guess you could check the age of any of the plant matter in and underneath the cap to determine if the area had been exposed earlier. - Bears

Um, NO. The Arctic Ice cap is simply ice floating on the surface of the Arctic Ocean. The Greenland ice sheet is different. That's ice sitting atop a land mass.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I thought we were talking about greenland

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1



I'm saying that if it melted away in the summer (as it is likely to do in the next 7 years), how would we know?



How would we know??? You're kidding right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991"

So, one volcano, at one moment in time, released the same amount of CO2 as the worlds population in one year (by your post)



Umm.. sulfur dioxide =/= carbon dioxide. Humans emitted about 100 million metric tonnes of SO2 each year in the '90s [1], compared to about ~25 billion tonnes of CO2 [2].

But in case there's any doubt about whether humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes, here's the US Geological Survey weighing in:

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.


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


[1] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1101/2011/acp-11-1101-2011...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#CO2_and_global_warmi...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And, too, there's ample information that man's activies have had an effect in other ways on the planet. I read a fascinating article some years ago that left a big impression on me. It talked about the extinction of the passenger pigeon, not all that long ago. The demise of the passenger pigeon impacted the ecosystem of the forest. The makeup of the types of trees growing the forests changed. Passenger pigeons ate acorns and other tree nuts. With no passenger pigeons, there is greater abundance of acorns, particularly in "mast years" (years where oaks produce an over-abundance of acorns compared to other years). With nothing else eating the acorns anymore, deer mice had a plentiful food supply, so their populations grew.

Total OT continuation, but this stuff fascinates me. One of the possible reasons there are so many nut-bearing trees is that the natives actively cultivated them, and burned the undergrowth to promote them. When the natives were decimated by diseases like smallpox, it led to an explosion in passenger pigeon populations. In fact the whole "overflowing with wildlife" view of America during the European exploration and American expansion was very likely a rebounding of animal populations that had previously been kept lower by controlled use of fire. The region also may have acted as a carbon sink due to natural reforestation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Am...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You either missed or denied my point. That once in a century volcano put up less than we do every year, and it impacted the climate.

And somehow this allows you to propose that it is the source of the pollution that determines whether there is an impact -- very intellectually honest approach there!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0




I'm not saying there wasn't an ice cap. I'm saying that if it melted away in the summer (as it is likely to do in the next 7 years), how would we know? What evidence would there be either way?

Challenging assumptions is what I do for a living (risk analysis and mitigation).


Challenging What Assumptions?

no one is making any assumptions about the Polar Cap.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Dude...you don't think the scientists who live and breath this stuff don't know that? Really??!! You think you, an ordinary 'joe', just figured out something that the top minds on this planet overlooked??

Who's delusional now.

(Sorry to be so blunt, but there is really no 'nice' way to say that.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Dude...you don't think the scientists who live and breath this stuff don't know that? Really??!! You think you, an ordinary 'joe', just figured out something that the top minds on this planet overlooked??


Again you dont read ..... "1 event lowered world temps 1 degree "

and that one event was a volcano .... show how delicate the temperature balance is

But man has little if anything to do with it.


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I did read, and I understood. My previous statement stands.

Scientists are well aware of events like Pinatubo, and the effects they can have. They are also well aware of the effects of CO2, methane, solar activity, and a myriad other things. Vastly more aware than you, and they have factored all of that in.

If you truly believe your little talking point is of any consequence, and is some great revelation, then you are (again, sorry to say it this way) delusional.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you truly believe your little talking point is of any consequence, and is some great revelation, then you are (again, sorry to say it this way) delusional.

Why would I consider it a revelation.

Just pointing out that if that same eruption occured today, there would be left sided knee jerks all over the globe as the 1 degree drop would be labled as the end of the world.

See my last post and the reality look at Climate Change by the lefts hero Muller

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The "left" is irrelevant. So is the "right" for that matter. Only the science matters. And AGW is now widely accepted in scientific circles. And by "widely" I mean on the order of 97% of relevant scientists (i.e. those who work in the field). It took years (decades) to gain that acceptance, but such is the nature of science and scientists. There is nothing "knee jerk" about it**.

Yet you and WuLong and others insist that somehow you see something in the data that they don't. Which is preposterous. And then you assert they're all making a lot of money at it, even though the ones making all the money are those involved in the denial movement. As long as the latter can continue to dupe people they can continue their cheap (and irresponsible) ways of not cleaning up their emissions. Quarterly profit before ecological disaster!!

1poorguy

**The only "knee jerking" going on is on both sides when the results are published. One group says "OMFG, we have to stop this while we can!", and the other says "it's all BS and will cost too much".
Print the post Back To Top