Greenbot’s, are you sitting down?
Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet, all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.
I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes – FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time – EVERY DAY.
Very interesting. I’d like to send this link to some of my “green” acquaintances, but first I’d appreciate a reference or references, or an explanation of your calculations. Thanks in advance.
Erm…doesn’t ash block the sunlight, making the planet cooler? Wouldn’t that augment the CO2 reduction efforts?
This link, as much as I want it to, does not source back to any objective measurements of the CO2 released by that volcano. It appears to be just blog mirroring, with no objective data to back up the claim. (mind you, I really want a paper that demonstrates this very claim)
Yes bbbbut 200 megatons + your 1 gram of CO2 is still a gram of extra CO2 is it not?
Therefore you need to live in a cave and eat raw veggie’s so that from their private jets Al Gore and Bono can make sure that African’s and the Chinese have their own coal burning plants, to produce nice things for them. It’s only fair.
“Source Unkonwn”
Oh yeah, that’s real credible. Anyone can make this stuff up, and there will always be people who believe what they think.
I’m not suggesting the article is right or wrong. However as a scientist I expect assumptions to be backed up with empirical data from credible sources.
BTW anyone who has read my posts knows that I don’t accept the notion that CO2 causes global warming, regardless if it comes from volcanoes, burning fossil fuels or unicorn farts.
The claim comes from Ian Plimer who is somewhat contraversial to say the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
I must ponder this while I high idle my truck to sleep warmly.
At least it’s getting to the point where SOME governments are recognizing this whole deal as BS. Next we need to have some consequences for the smarmy little fraudsters who have been getting rich off the scam.
“…there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet”
That’s not counting the ones at the bottom of the ocean that we don’t even know about or whose CO2 output volume is completely unknown.
Just as valid as the crap Gore and Suzuki have been sprouting.
Might be some truth here but do you have a decent source?
I don’t know, I don’t know.
Here is a credible source with actual data, and hard science references that totally debunks the article posted:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/
Volcanoes do give off a lot of water vapor, also a greenhouse gas — but again, Elkins said, they give off water vapor all the time, not only during eruptions, and this is taken into account in the climate models that are used to predict climate change and test the effects of new regulations. Volcanic production of sulfur dioxide does actually outpace human contribution, and can have a noticeable effect on the environment. But sulfur dioxide mostly contributes to global cooling. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the earth for three years, by as much as 1.6 degrees at the height of its effect, according to USGS. But USGS also notes that “[w]hile sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere”. This eruption will be no exception.
As a reasonably sentient human being I don’t believe the AGW crowd when they spew unsubstantiated nonsense. As a reasonably sentient human being I don’t believe this load either. When someone actually shows me some hard data and the method used to obtain such data. Until then this story belongs in the “Baffle them with – um – er – El Toro Poo Poo” category.
I’d really like to see some numbers and source references attached to this. My “instincts” tell me that the 4 days business is bunk but, what do I know?
YA! Greentards! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Or, no. That would mean more greenho…………..
OK, forget it.
Estimate for another volcano in Iceland between 150,000 and 300,000 tons per day, annual industrial output estimated 36,000,000,000 tons or about 100,000,000 tons daily.
Guest posters: Rob, Robert, Robert of Vancouver.
1, 2 or 3 people?
Rob is one person. Robert another, and I believe though can’t be certain, Robert is also Robert of Vancouver.
I’m selling carbon offset credits to fund my giant cork study if anybody is interested.
the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere”. This eruption will be no exception.
Posted by: North of 60 at January 8, 2012 10:56 PM
———————————–
Same goes for human emissions. Duh.
North of 60 wrote:
Factcheck.org is NOT a credible source. It’s run by the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center, the same foundation, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms. There’s much more. Go to discoverthenetworks.org and put ANNENBERG in the search box.
I’m not a greenie weenie but I would like to point out that the statement is entirely inaccurate and misleading. Their efforts were not “negated”. Without their efforts the end result would have been volcano + what they didn’t do. So the volcano has no bearing on what they’ve accomplished.
Dunno how accurate this wikipedia link is to Sigurdsson et al. (2000) Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, San Diego, Academic Press
The abundance of gases varies considerably from volcano to volcano.
Water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions.
If you hit the link (1) for Carbon Dioxide you get:
Sigurdsson et al. (2000) Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, San Diego, Academic Press
Lots of Sciency analysis by Rutgers of Mt. Pinatubo here: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf
Factcheck.org is NOT a credible source.
That opinion is immaterial. Science isn’t based on opinions.
Factcheck.org isn’t the source, only the messenger. Their article is excerpts from published, hard science, credible sources listed at the link.
Same goes for human emissions. Duh.
Posted by: Dirtman at January 9, 2012 12:18 AM
Yup, no argument with that. CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, regardless of the source.
What has always amazed me, is who weighed a floating ton? What Suzukerite came up with this bogus notion in order to further the other SCAM, it worked for the dullards in the media and a lot of dull politicians, but if a ton can float, I might just sell my lead zeppelin to some leftie yet.
Everything has mass, weight is a measure of the gravitational attraction on that mass.
Learn some science, it might just amaze you.
You might as well have taken all the money used by the warmists or mad them fortunes over this lie, than shoved it into the burning cone. People should be in jail for this Con.
Nature doesn’t count,
it has to be man-made.
“Everything has mass” @ 1:56 AM
“Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein’s famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum and momentum is related to mass p = mv. What they are talking about is “relativistic mass”, an outdated concept which is best avoided [ See Relativity FAQ article Does mass change with velocity? ] Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle which changes with velocity. By convention relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. but you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass which is zero for a photon.”
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/light_mass.html
North of 60: do the citations have to be accurate and honest, or do they just have to agree with th consensus of warmists?
I only ask because so many backers of the “settled” science behind AGW/CC have proven to be corrupt both by commision and omission.
Mount Etna is currently erupting as well, since this is a dolomite zone subducting it is particularily high in CO2. Sometimes accounting for 10% of all the Co2 emmissions in the world.
take a look at the cordillera in NA, the dolomite Alps and even the Himalaya . Those are uplifted carbonates. ie locked in Carbon. All of that was in circulation at one time.The CO2 content of the atmosphere and the oceans is at a geological low. One also can observe the adaptation of trees, early trees did not have the plethora of leaves and branches required to survive in the low CO2 atmosphere of the present.
Curmudgeon: What’s controversial about Ian Plimer? Please tell.
Hey North, the quoted text is BS.
“but again, Elkins said, they give off water vapor all the time, not only during eruptions, and this is taken into account in the climate models that are used to predict climate change and test the effects of new regulations.”
Water Vapour is not handled properly in the climate models. And how do models test the effects of new regulations? They don’t. The best they can do is guess based on the model’s biases, and their guesses have been pretty much entirely wrong so far.
factcheck.org may be a propaganda site.
Come on Rob. The greeniiks didn’t do any of those things you mention. They just want to force them on us. The geeniks will still vacation abroad, they will just call it a confrence. Can anyone say Durban,Kyoto aor Copenhagen.
I think there’s a point being missed. It’s not that volcanoes contribute more greenhouse gases than we do (although they may); it’s that the amount contributed by *one* volcano in a short time more than counterbalances any reductions the popular “control” measures being advocated could possibly achieve (something I will accept without needing to see specific figures, as this pretty much matches everything else I’ve read).
Which means, simply, that if the alarmists’ worst-case science is correct, the only thing that will have *any* mitigating effect on the (presumed) impending climate shift at this point is to completely shut down human industrial civilization, regardless of how many lives that costs or how much tyrannical power it requires to implement.
This is the place where environmental conservation (a goal I agree with) shows itself most toxically infected by progressivist thinking: it’s a chronic symptom of radical progressivism that it assumes practical criticism is always a mask for covert ideological rejection. The idea that someone could object to a solution because it won’t work, or won’t work well enough to meet cost-benefit criteria, is incomprehensible; objecting to a particular impractical solution is always assumed to disguise a refusal to acknowledge the problem.
This is outrageous. It is time for the world to boycott everything from Iceland. It is terrible that they are permitting their volcano to undo all the billions of dollars that have already been spent (with trillions more $ to follow)around the world effectively combatting CO2 emissions. Perhaps Iceland should be expelled from the UN for permitting this travesty to occur in their country. I certainly hope that Al Gore, Robert Redford and Leo DiCaprio will be flying their emission-free corporate jets over to view this disaster and will condemn Iceland for permitting this to happen. Perhaps they can make this side-trip while they are on their carbon-free flight to Canada’s hearings where they hope to block Canada’s Northern Gateway pipeline.
Kroket at 9:49 AM: “Curmudgeon: What’s controversial about Ian Plimer? Please tell.”
=============
His massive tome, Heaven and Earth: global warming, the missing science was more than enough to make any warmanista spit and howl. Chock full of hard science and facts about the earth’s history and climate.
“It is time for the world to boycott everything from Iceland.”
Agreed. I shall boycott all grapes,bananas and citrus fruit from Iceland. Nor shall I EVER drive an Icelandic made car.
That oughtta teach ’em!
I’m with ya all the way Rob, just don’t run me over ’cause I like riding a bike! LOL
North.
Factcheck.org is NOT a credible source.
That opinion is immaterial. Science isn’t based on opinions.
Factcheck.org isn’t the source, only the messenger. Their article is excerpts from published, hard science, credible sources listed at the link.
************************************
Sure, sure. Plus the NYT never lies, right.
Just like them e-mails the climate guys tried to hide.
It’s completely understandable that people with limited intelligence will only watch or listen to sources that parrot their preconceived ideas. They know how they feel and they don’t want any pesky facts getting in the way and increasing their insecurity. Conversely, intelligent people are capable of digesting information from a wide variety of sources, analyzing the content, understanding the editorial slant, and winnowing the grains of truth from the clutter of propaganda that’s always there in any source of information.
Yes bbbbut 200 megatons + your 1 gram of CO2 is still a gram of extra CO2 is it not?
Yep, we are pissing in the ocean.
I said that to my self when St. Helens in USA took out a good part of the mountain….there goes ten years of pollution in one day…and it did not take much thought either….but there again when the agenda is set for the socialist and related marxist and so on…evidence to the contrary is not accepted…period..yes and they don’t know what CO2 is either…///
We should ban Volcanoes.
“We should ban Volcanoes”.
We should tax volcano’s!
Any country that has a volcano in it should be taxed and the money given to support middle class Canadians.