Tuesday, March 8, 2011
I published the now-deleted volcano post without checking its attribution like I always do. While there's plenty in it that's true, some of it is debunked. Though I believe much of the debunking is illegitimate and wishful thinking, I decided for my own reasons to delete the whole post. Thanks for all your comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Awwww! What was wrong with the attribution?
I was going to town on Craig's imbecilic and insulting attack on me over carbon emissions from volcanoes being vastly more polluting than anthropogenic sources. My reply was lost because the post thread it was headed for disappeared!
Oh well.
Craig....
Ever heard of clorofluoroCARBONs? hydrofluoroCARBON? PerfluoroCARBON? CARBON monoxide?
Yes, total carbon-based greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes, (from all natural sources in general, really) far exceed those emitted by mankind, just like they exceed mankind's carbon dioxide emissions. This is also true of the other non-carbon based greenhouse gases - ozone, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulphur hexafluoride. Not to mention particulate matter and toxic organic micropollutants. The Earth puts more crap into the atmosphere than man does.
To your point about sulfur dioxide not being a "greenhouse gas" - it is still part of the cycle and is a contributor to cooling. If you were somehow able to get your god Pan Gu to get volcanoes and other geological processes to obey the Clean Air Act's sulfur dioxide restrictions, the Earth would actually get warmer.
Beamish, the friend who sent it thought his friend a geologist wrote it...obviously, the geologist friend must agree with it, but I googled it and it's everywhere.
The debunking is not at all effective and it shows a lot of bias because there was plenty in there that was valid, but...
I should have checked.
No biggie.
Fight on!! You're more than welcome to!
Craig....
Ever heard of clorofluoroCARBONs? hydrofluoroCARBON? PerfluoroCARBON?
Yeah. They're man made compounds. They aren't emitted from volcanoes.
Yes, total carbon-based greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes, (from all natural sources in general, really) far exceed those emitted by mankind, just like they exceed mankind's carbon dioxide emissions.
The post falsely claimed the volcanic activity in Iceland and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo emitted more CO2 than human activity has in it's history. It's not true for CO2. It's not true for total greenhouse gases, either. In fact, humans produce more greenhouse gas in a week than Pinatubo emitted.
"All natural sources in general" is something completely different. Greenhouse gases are what keep the Earth from being an ice ball. The burning of fossil fuels has overtaken the Earth's natural carbon cycle. You've claimed, in the past, that ocean uptake and weathering would naturally deal with CO2. If that were true, we wouldn't have the dramatic increase in CO2 concentration. During the last 450K years, CO2 concentrations were between 200 and 300 PPM. It's currently 390 PPM and rising about 2 PPM a year. It correlates with the rapid (in geologic time) increase in radiative forcing. A little over 2 watts per square meter. A rise of 4W/2M and we are screwed.
These figures are irrefutable. You can try, many have, but you need to bring the data, not your bald assertions.
The debunking is not at all effective
Z,
I'm not trying to be a wise acre but, how would you know?
Craig, I read the debunkings. They're loosely based on fact, they're one source, they're not at all convincing. And there is truth in the piece I deleted but I deleted only because my friend told me it was written by someone he knew....he thought that was the case and the guy he knows is a brilliant geologist who totally puts store in the words he sent.
I'm not equipped to argue it, but I know we're putting American in very great risk with the kinds of greening the Obama thugs are putting into place.
Pris had someone come to her house to make sure they're using the new lightbulbs...how's that work for you? She told him she wants nothing toxic inside and he left. REAL effective; our tax dollars at work.
Stay tuned for more, my friend who sent the geologist's email I posted just sent me this "sorry, in this case the lefties are dead as wrong.I would like to dig out the report just about the toxic fumes that are dumped every day in yellowstone national park, it would amaze you and just not Co2"
I'll post it if he can find the information.
but I know we're putting American in very great risk with the kinds of greening the Obama thugs are putting into place.
Pris had someone come to her house to make sure they're using the new lightbulbs
First, it was Pres. Bush who signed the law in 2007 to require more efficient light bulbs. In 2009 Obama announced some more changes to lighting standards. It phases in efficiency standards over the next 4 or 5 years. It does NOT outlaw incandescent bulbs. More efficient bulbs will save energy and money for the consumer over the life of the bulb.
Sorry, but anecdotal tales of govt. agents coming to peoples houses to check for compliance stretch credulity. Especially before the new standards have even taken effect. I call BS.
I'll post it if he can find the information.
That should be interesting.
Ever heard of clorofluoroCARBONs? hydrofluoroCARBON? PerfluoroCARBON?
Yeah. They're man made compounds. They aren't emitted from volcanoes.
ROFLMAO!
Fail.
Sit down, idiot.
Craig, "OH, GEE! BUSH DID IT? Then I SHOULD LOVE THEM"
Is that what you're thinking?
It's moronic, NOBODY I KNOW likes those damned bulbs.
Stop with the sarcasm, when you're here,I'd like you to be civil. If and yes, when my friend finds it, I'll post it. Do you REALLY think you're the authority on EVERYTHING?
Do you REALLY think you're the authority on EVERYTHING?
Of course Craig does. A rather huge part of the left's militant agenda to convince sensible people that all leftists are imbeciles involves speaking at length on subject matter they don't know jack shit about.
Still ROFLMAO at Craig's "clorofluorocarbons aren't emitted by volcanoes." :)
Talk about trying to give an eye test to a freakin' potato.
Craig, "OH, GEE! BUSH DID IT? Then I SHOULD LOVE THEM"
Is that what you're thinking?
No, Z. You blamed "Obama thugs" for putting the standards in place. I was merely pointing out who signed that energy bill.
It's moronic, NOBODY I KNOW likes those damned bulbs.
The only bulbs I mentioned are incandescent bulbs which will still be available. Nobody you know likes incandescent light bulbs?
Do you REALLY think you're the authority on EVERYTHING?
Of course not. beamish is. I do know something about this issue and recognized your original post to be full of errors. The claims made have been refuted, debunked in peer reviewed science literature. I linked to the U.S. geological Survey which lists it's peer reviewed sources. If you're interested in learning what the science of Climate Change (it's called that as well as Global Warming simply because it is more descriptive), you need to do the research. It's complicated and that makes it easier for the deniers to nit pick. You said,
I'm not equipped to argue it
That's obvious for you and most who comment here. I don't say that to be sarcastic. It's the most honest thing you've said on the subject and there's no shame in it. There's plenty I'm not equipped to argue. Lot's of stuff I'm ignorant about ( there's an opening for a beamish insult), so I don't comment.
If there's something I don't know, I look it up and look for reliable sources (unlike beamish).
Still ROFLMAO at Craig's "clorofluorocarbons aren't emitted by volcanoes." :)
I looked at your link. You're getting a little better with your sourcing. This guys got a Bachelors Degree! Okay, that doesn't automatically disqualify what he has to say. Maybe a "geologist" with an undergrad degree has overturned established, peer reviewed research re. formation of clorofluoroCARBONs? hydrofluoroCARBON? PerfluoroCARBON?
The dopes at NOAA don't agree with your guy. "Those that are man-made include the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)."
How about the U.K Environment Agency. "PFCs are man-made chemicals."
Nothing there. Anything in scientific literature about CFCs from volcanoes? Found it! Sort of.
"It has been suggested that this natural source (volcano) could account for a significant atmospheric CFC background concentration, but no quantitative assessment of its source strength has yet been presented...More than 300 organic substances were detected,...The only CFC compound found was CFCl3 (CFC-11)(trichlorofluoromethane), which was detected in some samples at concentrations of up to 1 ppbv."
That's less than 1 part per quadrillion One thousand times one trillion, which is 1, followed by 15 zeros, or 10 to the 15th power, of the emission. The emission, not the atmosphere.
Abstract. It's the Abstract for a real, peer reviewed scientific paper. Not an undergrads blog.
Also, "Butler and his colleagues measured halocarbons in air trapped by yearly snows in Antarctica and Greenland. This provided a record of halocarbons back to the late 19th century. No CFCs appeared in the samples from the years before the chemicals were used industrially."
If volcanoes are spitting out all those CFCs, shouldn't there be evidence?
A rather huge part of the left's militant agenda to convince sensible people that all leftists are imbeciles involves speaking at length on subject matter they don't know jack shit about.
Maybe on your next Google search you will find someone with at least a Masters spouting that nonsense.
Yes, total carbon-based greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes, (from all natural sources in general, really) far exceed those emitted by mankind, just like they exceed mankind's carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm still waiting for data to support this whopper.
So your "refutation" argument is that his college degree isn't big enough?
If you read his essay (and the reproductions of the reports of giants in the field he cites from in their entirely) - and we both know you damned well didn't - you will see the very pioneers of greenhouse gas theories citing actual volcanic CFC emissions measurements in their scholarly papers, and hypothesizing CFC emissions from submarine volcanoes from them.
Which begs the question, have you even read the scientific groundbreaking works on studying greenhouse effects in climatology that he is citing in the first place? If so, is he distorting them?
Clorofluorocarbons aren't emitted by volcanoes? Don't tell me, tell the scientists that measured actual CFC emissions from volcanoes to present data for their greenhouse effect theories in the first place.
The "bachelor's degree" guy cited and also provided the full text of the advanced scholarly papers themselves to make his case. You'd stop embarassing yourself if you'd stop trying to pretend to know something you obviously don't.
So again, sit down, idiot. You don't believe your bullshit, why should I?
"Butler and his colleagues measured halocarbons in air trapped by yearly snows in Antarctica and Greenland. This provided a record of halocarbons back to the late 19th century. No CFCs appeared in the samples from the years before the chemicals were used industrially."
CFCs, from any source, break down naturally after around a 100 years, hydrofluorocarbons even faster. So why would older than 100year CFCs appear in ice cores?
Try keeping gaseous carbon dioxide and other related gases suspended in snow (frozen water). Even dry ice will melt back to a gas and bubble out. Drop some dry ice in a bucket of water to see what it does when submerged in something warmer than itself. Get a carbon credit waiver first. That fog will be worse than popping open a beer.
Meaning... gas isn't going to be trapped in a medium not colder than its molecule's freezing point for very long.
Besides that, ice cores are shipped between research labs "protected from contamination" in Styrofoam and plastics casings. That's sort of like sending off a rape victim's panties to the CSI lab for trace DNA analysis after submerging it in the suspect's blood and semen to frame him for sure.
Science isn't a salad bar, you know.
Clorofluorocarbons aren't emitted by volcanoes? Don't tell me, tell the scientists that measured actual CFC emissions from volcanoes to present data for their greenhouse effect theories in the first place.
I linked to one who did. He found 1 part per quadrillion trichlorofluoromethane. The other studies he cited didn't control for atmospheric CFC's.
Your "geologist" makes a pretty big leap from Bureau et al. (2000) determined that the eruption of Mt Pinatubo released between 15 and 25 kilotons of Bromine, which in the form of bromocarbons as observed in other locations (eg. Schwandner et al. 2004) to and in the presence of large quantities of HCL and HF, would undergo a substitution reaction to produce sufficient CFCs to have a prolonged effect.
If he can demonstrate a mechanism for this "substitution reaction", then he should put it up for publication. No one has found any significant CFC production from volcanic activity. I checked several of his sources, Schwandner Isidorov, Stoiber, and their emphasis is the effect of halocarbons and bromocarbons. Maybe you can point me to a study that shows significant CFCs from volcanos.
CFCs, from any source, break down naturally after around a 100 years, hydrofluorocarbons even faster.
Depends on the CFC. Freon115 has a life span of approx. 280 years.
Try keeping gaseous carbon dioxide and other related gases suspended in snow (frozen water). Even dry ice will melt back to a gas and bubble out.
What the hell are you talking about? CO2 measurements are taken from air (atmosphere) bubbles trapped in ice. It's not sitting in liquid, it's not pressurized, it's not frozen CO2. Look at an ice cube. See the little bubbles? You are a silly little man.
Besides that, ice cores are shipped between research labs "protected from contamination" in Styrofoam and plastics casings.
They're wrapped in polyethylene. Just like those panties would be by a conscientious investigator to prevent contamination. Or, are you saying polyethylene is a contaminant. Then nothing is sterile.
Still waiting for data to substantiate your claim that volcanoes produce more GH gases than humans have in their history, or one week.
Besides that, ice cores are shipped between research labs "protected from contamination" in Styrofoam and plastics casings.
That's also how organs for transplant are transported. Blood is stored in plastic bags to prevent it from being contaminated. You just make shit up.
Science isn't a salad bar, you know.
Lettuce agree on that.
...and so, when an ice core is checked for CFCs when no artic ice is cold enough to trap them and they don't last for 100 years anyway...
...the only CFCs you'll find in an ice core are those put there by the Styrofoam they're shipped in...
You did know Styrofoam contains CFCs, right Craig? Isn't that why the lefty enviro-wackos are critizing Congress for having Styrofoam cups in their cafeteria?
You can't pick and choose. Either Styrofoam emits dangerous CFCs and toxins into everything they touch, or... they don't.
Who's side are you on? The psuedo-scientific enviro-whackos that say one thing, or the same psudo-scientific enviro-whackos who say something different somewhere else?
If Styrofoam emits CFCs, then ice cores shipped in Styrofoam will show evidence of high concentrations of CFCs in them. The defense against "contaminating the samples" IS the contaminant.
That's the difference between actual science and whatever insulting term captures and catagorizes the essence of your argument.
I vote we call your position "imbecilic bullshit."
Try keeping gaseous carbon dioxide and other related gases suspended in snow (frozen water). Even dry ice will melt back to a gas and bubble out.
What the hell are you talking about? CO2 measurements are taken from air (atmosphere) bubbles trapped in ice. It's not sitting in liquid, it's not pressurized, it's not frozen CO2. Look at an ice cube. See the little bubbles? You are a silly little man.
And you're an imbecile. Do you really confuse packed snowfall melting and refreezing over centuries with ice cubes you pulled out of your freezer?
Tell me, genius. Have you ever examined an ice cube full of bubbles, let it melt in its tray, and stuck it back in the freezer? Were the bubbles in the next ice cube in the same place as the previous ice cube?
Antartica is not cold enough to freeze carbon dioxide (or really any other carbon-based gas) which means, especially in loose snowfall, any carbon-based gases trapped in it will emit out of it long before more snowfall packs down on top of it.
Or, did you forget that ice caps melt on your way to post your latest example of how Pan Gu damned stupid you are?
While you're dumping your drool cup, try to explain how CFCs "trapped in ice" are affecting the ozone layer.
Is this thing on?
Post a Comment