Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[the54thvoid]

On Volcanic activity and CO2.

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?

www.scientificamerican.com

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

 

[lexluthermiester]

On Volcanic activity and CO2.

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?

www.scientificamerican.com

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas generated by volcano's, it's just one in a great many. The USGS is aware of that fact. Those studies are ONLY estimates. They are NOT conclusive evidence because they are incomplete.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

On Volcanic activity and CO2.

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?

www.scientificamerican.com

So an eruption is a fart in a cathedral in comparison.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So an eruption is a fart in a cathedral in comparison.

Sure, if the fart in question came from a whale.

 

[the54thvoid]

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas generated by volcano's, it's just one in a great many. The USGS is aware of that fact. Those studies are ONLY estimates. They are NOT conclusive evidence because they are incomplete.

There are primarily two. CO2 and water vapour. But they also pump out sulfur (dioxide) which is a reflective aerosol coolant. Dust and ash too. Also coolants.

Only during periods of mass volcanic activity, such as the Siberian traps (iirc) does vulcanism create global warming. That event also contributed to a mass extinction event.

 

[moproblems99]

Basically, human conflict will be the main focus of a world with a moving population and smaller resources.

Sounds like the news.

 

[cvaldes]

Sounds like the entirety of human history.

 

[the54thvoid]

Sounds like the news.

Pretty much. I want your potatoes. Let's fight.

 

[moproblems99]

Pretty much. I want your potatoes. Let's fight.

Come on, your aren't Irish. Your friggin Scottish. We fight for whisky.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Come on, your aren't Irish. Your friggin Scottish. We fight for whisky.

I'm technically Irish

 

[the54thvoid]

But potatoes make chips (fries) and to us Glaswegians, we know chips as a 'Glasgow salad'. We're that healthy.

 

[moproblems99]

But potatoes make chips (fries) and to us Glaswegians, we know chips as a 'Glasgow salad'. We're that healthy.

Fine. But the Great Scotch-American Potato War sounds like ass.

 

[rruff]

Will global warming wipe out humanity? Realistically, no. We're a resilient species. But if we continue as we are now, the number of humans that could live on Earth in around 500 years will be significantly smaller than it currently is (there's a legitimate question about exactly how big the difference would be, but the only reason anyone would think it couldn't happen is if they don't understand the science), and we'd lose potentially hundreds of other species.

The overall amount of water would be about the same on average, but it would make the water supply less consistent, because you wouldn't have an annual cycle of snow building up and melting throughout the year. Mountain streams would be dry except when it rains, rather than flowing throughout summer and frozen in winter.

Why would global warming reduce the number of people who can live on the earth, and what is this "science" you speak of?

The water supply will be less consistent some places and times, and more consistent in others. One reliable and common method to control water flow is to build a dam. This will not be a disaster.

A common theme in these discussions is a large cohort identifies that something will change (or might change), and then extrapolates a disaster because of this change, assuming that nothing is done to solve the problem. But this isn't how things are done in the real world. Things are changing all the time, and we solve issues that arise and adapt.

I take it for granted that the recent warming trend is mainly man made. It might not be, but I don't think that's important because:

a) A warmer earth is highly likely to be more supportive of life (humans, animals, plants) than not. Plus there is no plausible disaster scenario that approaches what we'd suffer in another ice age.
b) The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to matter, would likely exceed the cost of dealing with the changes caused by warming.
c) From the "news" you can support pretty much any opinion you'd like.... it's 99% BS and theater. It's fashionable to believe that greed, selfishness, and stupidity are reasons behind our lack of response. But I'd wager plenty of very smart people behind the scenes are modeling and analyzing warming, it's affects, and how to deal with those affects... and the reason we aren't seeing a push for drastic reductions is because it isn't warranted.

 

[R-T-B]

Birds fall out of trees and die all the time. I found a dead bird in my yard last week while mowing. Birds don't live forever. They die every day. This is hardly earth-shattering information.

en masse?

 

[claes]

My biggest problem with replies like this is that they often come from people who are going to sit on their asses waiting for concrete proof and do nothing to potentially help slow or reverse climate change if we are indeed responsible for it (and have the ability to do something about it) until it's too late. This has been my personal experience.

Sit back and relax. You don't live in an area of the world that will experience extremes very often. You're not going to cook to death. Turn on the AC and if you don't have such utility, open a window, get a box fan, put it in your window, get a spray bottle with water, spray yourself. Enjoy, but worry not. This heat wave will pass.


Again, an extreme that happens rarely, not frequently.

Hey look the shoe fits

It absolutely is hypothesis. It is science theory that fails to take into account all possible variables. Context IS important for a firm understanding of the big picture..

(Don’t let Lex know that all of scientific consensus is theoretical and doesn’t account for all possible variables else we’ll start hearing about how birds falling upwards is natural and that air travel is impossible)

c) From the "news" you can support pretty much any opinion you'd like.... it's 99% BS and theater. It's fashionable to believe that greed, selfishness, and stupidity are reasons behind our lack of response. But I'd wager plenty of very smart people behind the scenes are modeling and analyzing warming, it's affects, and how to deal with those affects... and the reason we aren't seeing a push for drastic reductions is because it isn't warranted.

They are and they’re alarmed only no one cares because of deniers like you — just like with Covid or universal healthcare.

Don’t feed the trolls guys — if you’d forgotten the whole “global warming is natural/all correlation must be direct or it’s not science/it’s just climate change” have been denier’s talking points ever since it was uncovered that they were lying and knew about warming all along

 

[moproblems99]

Don’t let Lex know that all of scientific consensus is theoretical and doesn’t account for all possible variables else we’ll start hearing about how birds falling upwards is natural and that air travel is impossible)

You just rocked my world.

I now have to question if my boat really will fall off the Earth if breaks loose during a storm.

 

[rruff]

They are and they’re alarmed only no one cares because of deniers like you — just like with Covid or universal healthcare.

What am I a denier of?

 

[claes]

The severity of the impact of climate change on humans... like I had clarified before, “plenty of very smart people behind the scenes are modeling and analyzing warming, it's affects, and how to deal with those affects... and the reason we aren't seeing a push for drastic reductions is because” those that can implement those reductions are “greedy, selfish, and stupid.” Well, more that it’s not profitable but same difference, just like the scientific consensus that Covid vaccines should be free and distributed equitably globally, but scientists don’t have shareholders or lobbies or donors to report to.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/04/nobel-prize-laureates-and-other-experts-issue-urgent-call-for-action-after-our-planet-our-future-summit

 

[rruff]

The severity of the impact of climate change on humans...

Show me where I denied the consensus view regarding climate change.

Isolated disaster scenarios that do not include obvious solutions and the big picture (the effect on the planet as a whole) cannot be taken seriously. Just as a small example, the earlier article posted about lack of water in the west actually mentioned at the end that most of the water is used for irrigation, and that personal use will hardly be impacted. Reality is a far cry from the alarmist fear mongering.

 

[moproblems99]

the earlier article posted about lack of water in the west actually mentioned at the end that most of the water is used for irrigation,

Phew! It's a good thing all that water used for irrigation was just wasted and not really important.

 

[claes]

Aren't you agreeing with my statement? "The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history"

The earth was slightly warmer at times >50M years ago; but only a few degrees higher than the temp 50M years ago of ~83F... ~23F hotter than now.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Humans would literally get cooked if we saw a global temperature that high.

 

[moproblems99]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Humans would literally get cooked if we saw a global temperature that high.

I'm not sure they understand how hot the hot places will be to have an average of 84.

Not to mention how much less landmass there would be to support all of us. Ideal (nope) for humans maybe, but not many of them.

 

[rruff]

I'm not sure they understand how hot the hot places will be to have an average of 84.

Not to mention how much less landmass there would be to support all of us. Ideal (nope) for humans maybe, but not many of them.

Some places would be too hot to live, just like now some places are too cold to live. But no one is projecting anywhere near that big of an increase (23F hotter than now); worst case is ~7F rise by 2100 and that would only happen if carbon emissions keep rising. More likely it will be ~3F.

 

[R0H1T]

Plus there is no plausible disaster scenario that approaches what we'd suffer in another ice age.

So your argument for a more warmer(?) earth is ~ hey at least it's better than the ice age

Remind us what would it take for us to go back to an ice age?

 

[claes]

Some places would be too hot to live, just like now some places are too cold to live.

No, people would actually bake and die. Read the article:

At seven degrees of warming, that would become impossible for large portions of the planet’s equatorial band, and especially the tropics, where humidity adds to the problem; in the jungles of Costa Rica, for instance, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out.

Climate-change skeptics point out that the planet has warmed and cooled many times before, but the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history. At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world’s population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat.

But no one is projecting anywhere near that big of an increase (23F hotter than now); worst case is ~7F rise by 2100 and that would only happen if carbon emissions keep rising. More likely it will be ~3F.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

I have no idea how to convert your 3F to C (do you mean in relation to 1850, 1880, or today?) but, still:

Even if we meet the Paris goals of two degrees warming, cities like Karachi and Kolkata will become close to uninhabitable, annually encountering deadly heat waves like those that crippled them in 2015. At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer. At six, according to an assessment focused only on effects within the U.S. from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, summer labor of any kind would become impossible in the lower Mississippi Valley, and everybody in the country east of the Rockies would be under more heat stress than anyone, anywhere, in the world today. As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, one of the planet’s hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain “would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans.” The high-end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still.