Dude you know what? There's no damn point even making an argument with you on this issue. Your answer to everything has been "well we dont' know" or "you can't be sure" which isn't a bloody argument. It's been a constant stream of hypothesis that we have to go waste our time debunking and everytime we do you come up with some new red herring or random question with no basis. You know what, instead of putting the burden on everyone else to scientifically justify global warming. Do the research for your position. Find evidence saying that volcanoes changed from 1991 to now. And find evidence for your tipping point thesis.
where did i say that mariginal increases of CO2 don't make a difference? In this thread? c'mon. when you're ready to grow up and stop the poop flingings, let's debate.
No, tard: US geological survey 130 million tons. Highest estimates range up to 250 million tons. Man made contribution has also changed since 1991 - it is now up to 27 billion tons. And again: historical data is measurable from rock samples. What profession are you pretending to be in? I hope it is a call center.
Scientists have been talking about it for more than two decades. But in order to effect real change politically, commercially or industrially there needs support from a large group of people - many of whom just don't give a sh*t about science. This is why the "movement" needs a spokesperson as notable and "respected" globally as a former U.S. Vice President in a popular Administration would be.
where did I or anybody say that we should reduce volcanic CO2 emissions? That was your first mistake. This thread is about man-made CO2 emissions, and this why people keep embarrassing you with facts while you reply with what can most generously be described as dilatory, dilettantish doggerel of disingenous value, and more accurately described as a pile of feces because you don't have the desire or the ability to make any point here.
You are completely misunderstanding the concept of tipping points, among other basic concepts. Tipping points in climate science refer to the degree of increased radiative forces needed to induce significant environmental changes (e.g. sea levels). So, no: the 110 million tons/year of CO2 emitted by volcanos can never constitute a tipping point by itself. Also, any cursory look at a graph of greenhouse gas emissions over time will show you pretty damm clearly that humans, after the Industrial Revolution, are largely responsible for those increased emissions. That is, unless some natural phenomenon causing enormous long-term effects happened to occur at exactly the same time as the advent of Industrialism (highly unlikely).
Is this an admission on your part that your latest claim that "Ppople are saying CO2 from a volcano doesn't do anything but man CO2 does" is yet another piece of complete BS coming from you?
of course co2 is co2. but the EARTHS NATURAL CO2 REMAINS CONSTANT and thats what the earth was made to handle. If you start adding more and more UNNATURAL co2 then you offset the balance. duh, and im in high school
The point is that there's a baseline faulty assumption in all the climate talk - and that's that somehow the world's climate is magically constant. It's not....trends are always there. Cooling, warming - the earth's atmosphere is constantly changing from a warm to cool than back to warm state again. My point is that this phenomenon isn't completely understood. No source of CO2 should be discounted when considering impact. If exceeding the global output of CO2 by 3% is enough to overload the earths "natural ability to balance" CO2 levels....than surely any source of CO2 should become under suspicious of having a contribution to this effect. But what really needs to be understood here is that why would reducing CO2 emission by 50% to say 1.5% somehow reverse global warming than? There's no evidence to say that either. And we haven't seen any cities submerge into obvilion from the warming that's taken place thus far. in fact, antartica's total amount of ice is increasing.... i think investing in technology is a great idea. i think preparing for a warmer world is a smart thing to do. but to just say, let's cut back on CO2 by 10% and hope that will magically make things better isn't just a trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun, it's dangerous because it lulls people into solving a problem with a solution that doesn't solve anything. thus preventing taking action that will actually be beneficial.
even if it does remain constant, it doesn't mean that the earths global temperatures are in a constant, equilibrium state.
No, cutting manmade emissions of CO2 by 10% would do far more than that, it would be more effective htan capping all the volcanoes on earth. LOL, NewYorker tries to reinvent himself as the consensus-building TROLL OF REASON. Very Gandhi-like.
Historically, natural variations of 100ppm in CO2 take 5K to 20Kyrs. We have a change of 100ppm in this instance in 150 years. The degree of variation on that sort of time scale is totally, absolutely, completely, singularly, unique. In 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence this has never happened. Ever. Not once. This totally unique and violently rapid (on geological scales) change also happens to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution. Additionally, by measuring the ppm of various carbon isotopes in the recent CO2 rise, the fingerprint matches that of burning fossil fuels, and has a unique isotope signature from any of the natural changes in CO2 levels which preceded it. If that isn't enough to assume a causal relationship, you don't want to see the truth. Short of creating a copy of earth to use as a test laboratory planet I don't know what other evidence you could expect.
LOL, I knew that stock tidbit was going to make it into this thread. A bit of digging reveals it to be a deliberate distortion. Surprised, I bet you are...
Is there actual proof that we are causing the earth to warm? For some reason, people seem to think correlation = causation. It baffles me how scientists seem to use one of the most commonly used fallacies as proof of causation. I guess we should increase the number of pirates...(google Flying Spaghetti Monster if you don't understand).
It's not magic. Equilibrium is the result of the same events that allowed life to generate and sustain itself on this planet in the first place. There are no faulty assumptions here except for your own. These are cyclical trends that don't cause any significant long-term climate change. What we are experiencing now is a more intense, sustained phenomenon that cannot be accounted for by natural events alone. Nothing is "completely understood," unless you are God (are you?). The problem is not that we are emitting a little bit more CO2 than usual. The problem is that our annual CO2 emissions are approaching a point at which catastrophic events WILL occur. You need to leave these boards for a while and read some of the actual science behind this stuff because you are obviously ill-informed about the realities of climate change (that, or you are being willfully ignorant).
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22559777-5000117,00.html http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/
