I thought you guys were "winning"...?

[abandonconflict]

You're not accounting for deforestation and you're not citing. It's a waste of air with out citations. Nonetheless, I'm grateful for worthy debate at last. I'm about to show that humans put far more CO2 in the atmosphere than volcanoes, compounded by deforestation. All I have to do is cite the studies, they were written by relevant experts and peer reviewed.

Morner and Eitope 2002
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X

Abstract
So far, the role of present-day Earth degassing in global C budget and climate effects has been focused to volcanic emissions. The non-volcanic escape of CO2–CH4 from the upper mantle, from carbonate bearing rocks in the crust, from hydrocarbon accumulations and from surface deposits and processes is here discussed in detail. An inventory of recent available data is presented. For the first time, a so large quantity of data is considered altogether showing clearly that the geological flux of carbon was previously significantly underestimated. Several lines of evidence show that non-volcanic C fluxes in «colder» environments are much greater than generally assumed. Local and regional data suggest that metamorphic decarbonation, hydrocarbon leakage and mud volcanoes could be significant CO2–CH4sources at global scale. Moreover, extensive surface gas-geochemical observations, including soil–atmosphere flux investigations, open the possibility that ecosystems controlled by biogenic activity (soil, permafrost, seawater) can host important components of endogenous C gas (geogas), even in the absence of surface gas manifestations. This would imply the existence of a geological diffuse, background emission over large areas of our planet. New theories concerning the occurrence of pervasive geogas and lithospheric processes of C-gas production («lithospheric loss in rigidity») can be taken as novel reference and rationale for re-evaluating geological sources of CO2 and CH4, and an important endeavour and work prospect for the years to come.

Our survey shows that it is still very hard to arrive at a meaningful estimate of the lithospheric non-volcanic degassing into the atmosphere. Orders of 102–103 Mt CO2/year can be provisionally considered. Assuming as lower limit for a global subaerial volcanic degassing 300 Mt/year, the lithosphere may emit directly into the atmosphere at least 600 Mt CO2/year (about 10% of the C source due to deforestation and land-use exchange), an estimate we still consider conservative. It is likely that temporal variations of lithosphere degassing, at Quaternary and secular scale, may influence the atmospheric C budget. The present-day lithosphere degassing would seem higher than the value considered to balance at Ma time-scale the CO2 uptake due to silicate weathering.

And to show what volcanoes have been doing for millions of years...

Kerrick 2001
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract

ABSTRACT
Global carbon cycle models suggest that CO2 degassing from the solid Earth has been a primary control of paleoatmospheric CO2 contents and through the greenhouse effect, of global paleotemperatures. Because such models utilize simplified and indirect assumptions about CO2degassing, improved quantification is warranted. Present-day CO2 degassing provides a baseline for modeling the global carbon cycle and provides insight into the geologic regimes of paleodegassing. Mid-ocean ridges (MORs) discharge 1–3 × 1012 mol/yr of CO2 and consume ∼3.5 × 1012 mol/yr of CO2 by carbonate formation in MOR hydrothermal systems. Excluding MORs as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, the total CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanism is estimated at ∼2.0–2.5 × 1012 mol/yr. Because this flux is lower than estimates of the global consumption of atmospheric CO2 by subaerial silicate weathering, other CO2 sources are required to balance the global carbon cycle. Nonvolcanic CO2 degassing (i.e., emission not from the craters or flanks of volcanos), which is prevalent in high heat flow regimes that are primarily located at plate boundaries, could contribute the additional CO2 that is apparently necessary to balance the global carbon cycle. Oxidation of methane emitted from serpentinization of ultramafics and from thermocatalysis of organic matter provides an additional, albeit unquantified, source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Magmatic CO2 degassing was probably a major contributor to global warming during the Cretaceous. Metamorphic CO2 degassing from regimes of shallow, pluton-related low-pressure regional metamorphism may have significantly contributed to global warming during the Cretaceous and Paleocene/Eocene. CO2 degassing associated with continental rifting of Pangaea may have contributed to the global warming that was initiated in the Jurassic. During the Cretaceous, global warming initiated by CO2 degassing of flood basalts, and consequent rapid release of large quantities of CH4 by decomposition of gas hydrates (clathrates), could have caused widespread extinctions of organisms.

There is no disputing that the effect is apparently miniscule, but the atmosphere is a tiny bit darker all the time, and that is enough to keep a tiny bit of every ray from escaping and that tiny bit is a constant increase of average temperature.

 

[abandonconflict]

Gerlach 2011
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/full

Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth's volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.

And the actual article, because I know you want it.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011eo240001.pdf

The stakes could not be higher.

 

[reasonevangelist]

The stakes could not be higher.

I tend to think prolonged acute suffering is worse than death.

Is ACC going to kill us, or create hell on earth while making us live twice as long?

 

[abandonconflict]

I tend to think prolonged acute suffering is worse than death.

Is ACC going to kill us, or create hell on earth while making us live twice as long?

Yeah well I want grandkids, so turn your fuckin lights off when you're not using them please. You might save a buck or two anyway.

*edit* furthermore, I personally risked my skin for the oil and some of my buddies didn't make it back.

 

[reasonevangelist]

Yeah well I want grandkids, so turn your fuckin lights off when you're not using them please. You might save a buck or two anyway.

*edit* furthermore, I personally risked my skin for the oil and some of my buddies didn't make it back.

i suppose it's ironic that i'm the least wasteful person i know. I'm the type who would typically choose to repair something, rather than replace it.

However... why should i have to change the way i want to do things, because of something you want, that i'll never get a chance to have?

Why should your desire for grandkids impact my life in any way? I'm not saying you shouldn't want that, or that no one should have that since i won't... but your desires should not result in imposing obligations on my life; that's how we got into this mess in the first place. Someone wanted everyone to use petroleum products, and now we're so dependent upon them that we have to recruit soldiers to murder thousands of people over alleged ideological differences, when the real problem is control of oil which does not reside in our designated territory.

Although i still agree that it would suck to be stuck with unfavorable environmental circumstances, just because some people were greedy enough to become wealthy and powerful enough to cause irreparable problems which could have clearly been prevented by adopting alternative methods.

 

[abandonconflict]

i suppose it's ironic that i'm the least wasteful person i know. I'm the type who would typically choose to repair something, rather than replace it.

However... why should i have to change the way i want to do things, because of something you want, that i'll never get a chance to have?

Why should your desire for grandkids impact my life in any way? I'm not saying you shouldn't want that, or that no one should have that since i won't... but your desires should not result in imposing obligations on my life; that's how we got into this mess in the first place. Someone wanted everyone to use petroleum products, and now we're so dependent upon them that we have to recruit soldiers to murder thousands of people over alleged ideological differences, when the real problem is control of oil which does not reside in our designated territory.

Although i still agree that it would suck to be stuck with unfavorable environmental circumstances, just because some people were greedy enough to become wealthy and powerful enough to cause irreparable problems which could have clearly been prevented by adopting alternative methods.

Yeah, this is the impasse. If you just don't care what is at stake, I can only try to find other reasons, and if you don't care about those either, well first off, screw you, but the debate gets tricky.

Are you a proponent of the nonaggression principal? It may seem patently voluntaryist (pretty word for right wing libertarian or property libertarian) but that may not be the only interpretation of Lysander Spooner's philosophy. Is pollution not an act of aggression? I would argue that it is. The effects continue beyond your property, particularly as the atmosphere and hydrological cycle are concerned. At what point is it considered self defense to fix this shit?

 

[heckler73]

AC,
http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Climate_Change/Historical_Perspectives_on_Climate_Change.pdf
I recommend chapter 9 in particular.

In 1899, Nils Eckholm, an early and eager spokesman for anthropo-
genic climate control, pointed out that at present rates, the burning of
pit coal could double the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This
would "undoubtedly cause a very obvious rise of the mean tempera-
ture of the Earth." By controlling the production and consumption of
carbonic acid, he thought humans would be able to "regulate the fu-
ture climate of the Earth and consequently prevent the arrival of a new
Ice Age." Eckholm, like his lifelong friend and colleague Svante
Arrhenius, thought that warmer was better. An increasing concentra-
tion of CO2 would counteract the expected deterioration of the climate
of the northern and Arctic regions, as predicted by James CrolPs astro-
nomical theory of the Ice Age.
Soon, however, the efficacy of CO2 as an infrared absorber was
challenged. In 1900 Knut Angstrom concluded that CO2 and water
vapor absorb infrared radiation in the same spectral regions. The
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be equiva-
lent to a column of the pure gas 250 centimeters in length at STP.
Experiments done in 1905 demonstrated that a column of carbon
dioxide fifty centimeters long was ample for maximum absorption.
Any additional CO2, it was argued, would have little or no effect.
Humphreys used these results to argue that a doubling or halving
of CO2, as proposed by Arrhenius, would make no difference in the
amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and could
not appreciably change the average temperature of the Earth or be at
all effective in the production of marked climatic changes. Such nega-
tive assessments of CO2 were amplified by Charles Greely Abbot and
his assistant F. E. Fowle, Jr., who insisted on the primacy of water
vapor as an infrared absorber.

...

Doubts about CO2 continued, however. In 1929, G. C. Simpson
pointed out that it was "now generally accepted that variations in
carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere, even if they do occur, can have no
appreciable effect on the climate." He provided three reasons why this
was so: "(1) [T]he absorption band of carbon-dioxide is too narrow to
have a significant effect on terrestrial radiation; (2) the current amount
of atmospheric CO2 exerts its full effect and any further addition would
have little or no influence; (3) the water vapor absorption band over-
laps and dominates the CO2 band."​

I had a draft copy of that chapter, which has been very valuable in guiding me through the research. I imagine the rest of the book will be of equal inspiration.

 

[abandonconflict]

AC,
http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Climate_Change/Historical_Perspectives_on_Climate_Change.pdf
I recommend chapter 9 in particular.

In 1899, Nils Eckholm, an early and eager spokesman for anthropo-
genic climate control, pointed out that at present rates, the burning of
pit coal could double the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This
would "undoubtedly cause a very obvious rise of the mean tempera-
ture of the Earth." By controlling the production and consumption of
carbonic acid, he thought humans would be able to "regulate the fu-
ture climate of the Earth and consequently prevent the arrival of a new
Ice Age." Eckholm, like his lifelong friend and colleague Svante
Arrhenius, thought that warmer was better. An increasing concentra-
tion of CO2 would counteract the expected deterioration of the climate
of the northern and Arctic regions, as predicted by James CrolPs astro-
nomical theory of the Ice Age.
Soon, however, the efficacy of CO2 as an infrared absorber was
challenged. In 1900 Knut Angstrom concluded that CO2 and water
vapor absorb infrared radiation in the same spectral regions. The
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be equiva-
lent to a column of the pure gas 250 centimeters in length at STP.
Experiments done in 1905 demonstrated that a column of carbon
dioxide fifty centimeters long was ample for maximum absorption.
Any additional CO2, it was argued, would have little or no effect.
Humphreys used these results to argue that a doubling or halving
of CO2, as proposed by Arrhenius, would make no difference in the
amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and could
not appreciably change the average temperature of the Earth or be at
all effective in the production of marked climatic changes. Such nega-
tive assessments of CO2 were amplified by Charles Greely Abbot and
his assistant F. E. Fowle, Jr., who insisted on the primacy of water
vapor as an infrared absorber.

...

Doubts about CO2 continued, however. In 1929, G. C. Simpson
pointed out that it was "now generally accepted that variations in
carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere, even if they do occur, can have no
appreciable effect on the climate." He provided three reasons why this
was so: "(1) [T]he absorption band of carbon-dioxide is too narrow to
have a significant effect on terrestrial radiation; (2) the current amount
of atmospheric CO2 exerts its full effect and any further addition would
have little or no influence; (3) the water vapor absorption band over-
laps and dominates the CO2 band."​

I had a draft copy of that chapter, which has been very valuable in guiding me through the research. I imagine the rest of the book will be of equal inspiration.

This has also been debunked by the science. The very last statement in particular points to the unraveling of this entire argument. The water vapor band does not over-lap and dominate the CO2 band. Rather there is a positive feed back loop. The two are complimentary such that the net effect is greater than the sum of the two but not multiplicative.

As for there being a breaking point beyond which the CO2 loses effecacy as a greenhouse gas, I'm not sure how to proceed with out a more detailed argument regarding this (is it in chapter 9 which you suggested I read?) aside from the persistence of the CO2. More takes longer to clear away. However, I do doubt this maximum absorption notion and look forward to debating this further. So I will skip that for now and focus on water vapor and the positive feedback loop I mentioned.

Water vapor is not only the most dominant greenhouse gas, it is the very reason why the climate is so sensitive to CO2. Unlike external factors such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation. The rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapor levels to 'normal levels' in short time. This explains the hurricanes...

The proportions of water and CO2 heat absorption are confirmed by measurements of infra-red returning to the earth. You can find them in (Kiehl 1997 and Evans 2006) if you're interested in the proportions of the feedback loop. I know you love numbers. The calculation of a proportion definitely indicates the existence of a positive feedback loop. They didn't just guess it, they measured the proportion.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as a result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently, CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger. I'll be reading chapter 9 as you suggested.

 

[Harrekin]

Yeah, this is the impasse. If you just don't care what is at stake, I can only try to find other reasons, and if you don't care about those either, well first off, screw you, but the debate gets tricky.

Are you a proponent of the nonaggression principal? It may seem patently voluntaryist (pretty word for right wing libertarian or property libertarian) but that may not be the only interpretation of Lysander Spooner's philosophy. Is pollution not an act of aggression? I would argue that it is. The effects continue beyond your property, particularly as the atmosphere and hydrological cycle are concerned. At what point is it considered self defense to fix this shit?

Just because someone doesn't support wildly exaggerated claims of ACC doesn't mean they don't support protecting the environment, that's a fallacy you need to stop pushing.

And if you keep touting the 97% figure then the other side wins by default because the burden of proof is on your side and you need to keep misrepresenting your argument to even keep up.

 

[abandonconflict]

Just because someone doesn't support wildly exaggerated claims of ACC doesn't mean they don't support protecting the environment, that's a fallacy you need to stop pushing.

And if you keep touting the 97% figure then the other side wins by default because the burden of proof is on your side and you need to keep misrepresenting your argument to even keep up.

You're pretty far behind harry-kin.

 

[Harrekin]

This has also been debunked by the science. The very last statement in particular points to the unraveling of this entire argument. The water vapor band does not over-lap and dominate the CO2 band. Rather there is a positive feed back loop. The two are complimentary such that the net effect is greater than the sum of the two but not multiplicative.

As for there being a breaking point beyond which the CO2 loses effecacy as a greenhouse gas, I'm not sure how to proceed with out a more detailed argument regarding this (is it in chapter 9 which you suggested I read?) aside from the persistence of the CO2. More takes longer to clear away. However, I do doubt this maximum absorption notion and look forward to debating this further. So I will skip that for now and focus on water vapor and the positive feedback loop I mentioned.

Water vapor is not only the most dominant greenhouse gas, it is the very reason why the climate is so sensitive to CO2. Unlike external factors such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation. The rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapor levels to 'normal levels' in short time. This explains the hurricanes...

The proportions of water and CO2 heat absorption are confirmed by measurements of infra-red returning to the earth. You can find them in (Kiehl 1997 and Evans 2006) if you're interested in the proportions of the feedback loop. I know you love numbers. The calculation of a proportion definitely indicates the existence of a positive feedback loop. They didn't just guess it, they measured the proportion.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as a result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently, CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger. I'll be reading chapter 9 as you suggested.

Care to cite that copy and paste or you gonna continue being intellectually dishonest?

 

[abandonconflict]

Care to cite that copy and paste or you gonna continue being intellectually dishonest?

Even if it was a copy paste (mostly my own words actually) how is that intellectually dishonest? I'm not getting paid, I'm not getting graded and there are citations.

Do you care to address the argument with an argument of your own? Do you have some premises and a conclusion to put forth?

What is it that you don't understand about the FACT Cook 2013 found that of the studies he reviewed, 97% of those with a conclusion drawn were affirmative?

Are you still dwelling on the fact that someone misinterpreted that? The scientific community does have a consensus, see post #213.

Why don't you cite ONE FUCKING STUDY with a conclusion that humans are NOT the cause of climate change?

 

[Harrekin]

Even if it was a copy paste (mostly my own words actually) how is that intellectually dishonest? I'm not getting paid, I'm not getting graded and there are citations.

Do you care to address the argument with an argument of your own? Do you have some premises and a conclusion to put forth?

What is it that you don't understand about the FACT Cook 2013 found that of the studies he reviewed, 97% of those with a conclusion drawn were affirmative?

Are you still dwelling on the fact that someone misinterpreted that? The scientific community does have a consensus, see post #213.

Why don't you cite ONE FUCKING STUDY with a conclusion that humans are NOT the cause of climate change?

So you want me to try prove a negative.

Keep citing Cook and his retarded data gathering methods.

It just shows you for what you really are, an ignorant shill.

 

[abandonconflict]

So you want me to try prove a negative.

Keep citing Cook and his retarded data gathering methods.

It just shows you for what you really are, an ignorant shill.

so you don't have an argument or a citation...

 

[Harrekin]

so you don't have an argument or a citation...

When you stop posting a study that is a flawed meta-analysis of abstracts as fact, I'll probably reply in a less demeaning way.

 

[abandonconflict]

When you stop posting a study that is a flawed meta-analysis of abstracts as fact, I'll probably reply in a less demeaning way.

you can be as demeaning as you want to

still no argument or citation I see...

 

[Harrekin]

you can be as demeaning as you want to

still no argument or citation I see...

You keep citing bullshit.

You lose by default simply for dishonesty, thank you, next please.

 

[abandonconflict]

what do you not understand about the fact that of the studies which draw a conclusion, 97% affirm the ipcc position?

simply because one of the authors is a cartoonist without a post grad degree does not make the argument any less valid.

peer review trumps your ad hom

 

[Harrekin]

what do you not understand about the fact that of the studies which draw a conclusion, 97% affirm the ipcc position?

simply because one of the authors is a cartoonist without a post grad degree does not make the argument any less valid.

peer review trumps your ad hom

Yet you simply omit the fact that nearly 70% of scientists cited "No position because of inadequate data".

Your side is a small minority with lots of mouthpieces, it's as simple as that.

 

[Harrekin]

Carbon credits btw?

The whole idea was it's just another way for people like me to make money at the expense of the little guy.