Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Must see Videos of Chilean Volcano


Merc14

Recommended Posts

I saw that on the 6pm news tonight.

I actually stopped what I was doing, and took notice for a change.

It's beautiful, extremely impressive, but darn scary as well.

Mother nature certainly rules.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that CO2 that it's pumping out? Is that like more pollution than the entire of Europe pollution put together? Is man made global warming really just very insignificant compared to nature?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that CO2 that it's pumping out? Is that like more pollution than the entire of Europe pollution put together? Is man made global warming really just very insignificant compared to nature?

Oh good lord, now you have gone and stuck your foot in it. Don't you realize we are not allowed to question the high priests of AGW!?!?! All warming in the climate is man-made and all cooling of the climate is from man-made warming which caused the cooling because tree rings from Norway....well I don't know how it works but it is man's fault, damn it. Now give me a billion dollars of carbon tax money. :w00t:

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that CO2 that it's pumping out? Is that like more pollution than the entire of Europe pollution put together? Is man made global warming really just very insignificant compared to nature?

Probably a lot of CO2 in that. More than the production of Europe? I don't know. Probably a lot of SO3, too. In the short run, SO3 wins and temperatures and precip drop; in the long run, CO2 wins and the temps climb. But that's only for really big eruptions. Small ones? After ten years, I'm still trying to figure out if our 1980 drought was due to St. Helens or not.

One can track major eruptions in the tree ring record. The eruptions of Loki-Grimsvoten, Kraktoa and Tamboura show up. Possibly El Chichon, too. The 535-537 cold period (Fimbul Winter?) visible in tree rings, was probably a volcanic eruption in South America, though Krakatoa erupted about that time, too. The effects usually last about six years, then the climate reverts to "normal." No need to panic over this one. It isn't going to change much.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is man made global warming really just very insignificant compared to nature?

Human-caused effects on climate are rather small, compared to nature. But nature returns to "normal (the baseline)" after each disturbance. In 150 years there has been only 1.6 degrees of warming. But our daily temperature runs are several times greater than that.

The problem is that human-caused warming is the result of an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Human-caused warming doesn't return to the baseline. It stays elevated and just keeps getting worse. By Des Cartes' Law: If you keep adding small amounts together, they will eventually exceed any amount you can name, no matter how large. That's what we're doing with the climate system.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human-caused effects on climate are rather small, compared to nature. But nature returns to "normal (the baseline)" after each disturbance. In 150 years there has been only 1.6 degrees of warming. But our daily temperature runs are several times greater than that.

The problem is that human-caused warming is the result of an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Human-caused warming doesn't return to the baseline. It stays elevated and just keeps getting worse. By Des Cartes' Law: If you keep adding small amounts together, they will eventually exceed any amount you can name, no matter how large. That's what we're doing with the climate system.

Doug

Proof please and no, the models are not acceptable as they have been proven to be wrong as admitted by the head of the IPCC.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature does not return to a baseline in any way. Maybe it does if we're proclaiming some arbitrary standard to be a baseline (I seem to remember another topic delving into this a little). Over the vast span of geologic time, there hasn't been any "ordinary" climate. Not even in our eye-blink span of time has there been an "ordinary" climate.

Is there a climate that is optimal for humans to exist at? Probably. Is it our current one? Probably not if we keep building below "ordinary" sea levels, etc. Do we have an excellent sense of what climate is optimal? Probably not. Is the "baseline" the optimal climate? Probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Is that CO2 that it's pumping out? Is that like more pollution than the entire of Europe pollution put together? Is man made global warming really just very insignificant compared to nature?

Studies have consistently shown that mans emissions exceed volcano’s by many times. The real issue though is to consider whether there has been a steady increase in vulcanism over the last 200years to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 causing climate change - the answer is no.

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 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

http://volcanoes.usg...gas/climate.php

The evidence is clear, volcanos have played no part in the warming we have experienced. Stop looking for excuses and accept reality.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof please and no, the models are not acceptable as they have been proven to be wrong as admitted by the head of the IPCC.

A research article by Burnette is referenced below. It shows 1.6 degrees of warming in Manhattan, Kansas since 1838. By contrast, my backyard thermometer showed the difference between high and low yesterday to be 16 degrees F. That's 8.9 degrees Celsius.

Ergo: in this case, human-caused warming in the last 175 years is 18% of yesterday's temperature run in my backyard. I'll wager that your backyard temps show much the same thing.

Don't need models, Merc.

Doug

http://www.uark.edu/...nette-JCLIM.pdf

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature does not return to a baseline in any way. Maybe it does if we're proclaiming some arbitrary standard to be a baseline (I seem to remember another topic delving into this a little). Over the vast span of geologic time, there hasn't been any "ordinary" climate. Not even in our eye-blink span of time has there been an "ordinary" climate.

Is there a climate that is optimal for humans to exist at? Probably. Is it our current one? Probably not if we keep building below "ordinary" sea levels, etc. Do we have an excellent sense of what climate is optimal? Probably not. Is the "baseline" the optimal climate? Probably not.

Take a list of mean annual temps, for example. Make sure you've got at least 30 observations. Climatologists usually use the 1951 to 1980 mean as the baseline. Run a regression model of it. Calculate the mean and standard error. Then use your model to calculate the mean temperature for the last year plus one. If the calculated value is within 1.96 standard errors of the measured value, the temps have returned to the baseline.

Now do the same, but end your time series at some major disaster. Calculate the values for the years following the disaster. Determine how long it took the temps to return to the pre-disaster value. That's returnung to a baseline.

BTW: if your regression model has a positive slope, you are assuming that warming is affecting your readings.

I do this with tree-ring widths routinely. It is part of the procedure for detectiong an ice storm signature in tree rings.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a swedish documentary on this. Where they have measured the evaporation for many many years back.

And even though the temperature have risen the evaporation have instead reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you the high priests of AGW would descend ion us to spit fire and brimstone at the heretical statements. Meet Doug who can tell the future by reading tree rings and cornelius who thinks he can find water underground with two sticks. http://www.dailymail...says-study.html

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

I told you the high priests of AGW would descend ion us to spit fire and brimstone at the heretical statements. Meet Doug who can tell the future by reading tree rings and cornelius who thinks he can find water underground with two sticks. http://www.dailymail...says-study.html

Nice dodge there Merc, but what about those volcano's causing climate change though :w00t:

As you like to say - show me your evidence :yes:

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice dodge there Merc, but what about those volcano's causing climate change though :w00t:

As you like to say - show me your evidence :yes:

Br Cornelius

Volcanoes have certainly caused localized, short term climate change and in some cases even world-wide climate change over a year or two period. In either case the dust and aerosols would eventually disperse but the short term damage can be quite extensive. Do you disagree with that?

A research article by Burnette is referenced below. It shows 1.6 degrees of warming in Manhattan, Kansas since 1838. By contrast, my backyard thermometer showed the difference between high and low yesterday to be 16 degrees F. That's 8.9 degrees Celsius.

Ergo: in this case, human-caused warming in the last 175 years is 18% of yesterday's temperature run in my backyard. I'll wager that your backyard temps show much the same thing.

Don't need models, Merc.

Doug

http://www.uark.edu/...nette-JCLIM.pdf

That is perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever posted here. I'd be embarrassed for you but it is so absurd that I am thinking you are having me on.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Volcanoes have certainly caused localized, short term climate change and in some cases even world-wide climate change over a year or two period. In either case the dust and aerosols would eventually disperse but the short term damage can be quite extensive. Do you disagree with that?

.

I can't disagree with a basic well know fact because that would be dishonest (as you have been in denying the evidence for AGW), but there is no correlation between the century long warming trend we are currently experiencing and vulcanism as has been implied in this thread. So I can agree with you and still prove you wrong - NICE.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

I saw a swedish documentary on this. Where they have measured the evaporation for many many years back.

And even though the temperature have risen the evaporation have instead reduced.

Without the supporting research its impossible to take this statement seriously.

It seems what is happening here is that your program has latched onto one outlier study which has subsequently been refuted by other analysis using satellites, which is fairly typical of skeptics really:

https://www.skeptica...bal-warming.htm

The issues regarding the increase in humidity in response to CO2 are dealt with in regard to all the evidence in this response paper to the outlier research by Partridge. Even Forbes magazine chooses to focus on this outlier paper rather than practising journalism.

http://geotest.tamu....6/Dessler10.pdf

The overall conclusion is that the body of evidence taken as a whole, and using the latest data and methods, shows a clear increase in atmospheric humidity as predicted by AGW theory.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Its strange that people would argue that volcano's can demonstrably change the climate through their emissions, but mans far greater emission could have no effect. Nice.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you the high priests of AGW would descend ion us to spit fire and brimstone at the heretical statements. Meet Doug who can tell the future by reading tree rings and cornelius who thinks he can find water underground with two sticks. http://www.dailymail...says-study.html

The best I can do from tree rings is to tell you whether the temps were rising, falling or stable over the last two years for which I have data. Those two years determine a trend. If the trend is positive, it is reasonable to assume that it continued positive for a year or two more - you can even calculate estimates and confidence limits for the years following the end of your data. As long as the estimates remain within the confidence limits, temperature may be assumed to be continuing on the same trend. However, mean annually global temperature estimates usually remains within the confidence limits for only two or three years. Sorry, Merc, but you've got your facts screwed up - again.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever posted here. I'd be embarrassed for you but it is so absurd that I am thinking you are having me on.

So you didn't read the article and you can't refute the statement. How about presenting some evidence for a change?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever posted here. I'd be embarrassed for you but it is so absurd that I am thinking you are having me on.

I'm rather surprised and embarrassed for you to resort to ad hominems, rather than simply stating your disagreement and offering evidence backing your argument. Usually when people don't actually have any evidence that is when they fall back on insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't disagree with a basic well know fact because that would be dishonest (as you have been in denying the evidence for AGW), but there is no correlation between the century long warming trend we are currently experiencing and vulcanism as has been implied in this thread. So I can agree with you and still prove you wrong - NICE.

Br Cornelius

Who implied the bolded corny? I see no one making such a claim yet here you are with your high priest of AGW robes a flowin' defending something that wasn't even said. Get a grip you zealot, you're losing control of your emotions as fast as the IPCC has lost control of their pursuit of the first world's economy. :w00t:

So you didn't read the article and you can't refute the statement. How about presenting some evidence for a change?

Doug

Present evidence that man is not causing global warming? How do I do that, especially when the climate has been stable for the last 18 years while carbon levels have risen? I'm confused?

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.