The Great Global WArming Swindle

Post Reply New Topic

Forests put out almost as much as they take in though.

SO2 chemically combines with water in the atmosphere though and rains back down as sulfuric acid. CO2 does this as well but to a much lesser degree.

I sense that you will want to debate me on this point, so here is how to prove to yourself that what I am saying is true.

CO2 doesn't like being combined with water: buy some carbonated water, open the bottle, observe.

SO2 likes water: get some battery acid, pour it on your arm, observe

Atmospheric convection cycles along with wind pattern would keep them up there, after all how you do suppose ozone stays up there? It's heavier than CO2.



It's subjective to it's location, not to mention it also depends on daytime vs nighttime amount, some areas get more daylight than nighttime during summer, and therefore can process more CO2 during the day and produce less CO2 during the night. Besides forests would have to take in CO2 more than out, otherwise how did other life survive throughout history? Because to imply that would mean that no animal would be getting enough oxygen right now, and that's not clearly the case.



That's irrelevent when it comes to volcanic activity in relation to climate change. That does happen I know, however not every molecule would contact and react to moisture, and in fact the ash would interact with water too, making the air dryer and therefore less interactions would happen. Volcanic events in the past have proven they can cause vicious climate changes into ice ages for long periods of time due to sulfur dioxide emissions and ash, Toba did such a thing 78,000 years ago. Not to mention most of the sulfur dioxide ends up in the stratosphere due to the violent force of the eruption causing the plume to reach so high. There's no weather or enough water vapor for the molecules to interact with up in the stratosphere rapidly, so they basically stay up there until they eventually sink, UV radiation breaks them down, interact with something, or a vortex sucks them down in a storm.

Yes you're right about how sulfur dioxide reacts with water but that not what I'm debating here. I'm debating that volcanoes also release SO2 as much as CO2 basically and both gases negate each other's effect.

To basically say that all of the sulfur dioxide would come down as acid rain before reaching the stratosphere and cannot effect the partial or global climate is scientifically wrong, because effects of sulfur dioxide by volcanoes is evident in history. Not to mention back when Krakatoa erupted, the sunsets were reported as an unusual color globally due to the way sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere reflected and refracted light. This effect lasted for nearly more than a year.

Last edited by Nexus on 13 Mar 2007, 4:16 am, edited 4 times in total.

By the way, this proves my point about Sulfur Dioxide affecting climate and also proves your point about it too:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Last edited by Nexus on 13 Mar 2007, 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Whist we're on that website I should probably add this, as this is interesting:

Considering this comes from USGS, I would give it a high level creditability and debunks the "Volcanoes are worst than human activity" idea.

Damn, I'm on a role here, having too much fun thinking about this, climate and meteorology are two of my obsessions other than computers by the way.

Ozone is produced by the interaction of solar emissions and the oxygen that is up there. That's how is gets there.

Do they consider ALL volcanic emissions, or just that of eruptions?

Yeah, volcanoes only emit SO2 and CO2, there isn't any ash blocking out the sun causing the drop in temperature.

I presume the word 'emit' when they say 'volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes' would mean all emissions presumably, they would explicitly say eruptions if otherwise I think.

I didn't say trees, I said FORESTS. Stuff always decays, which releases CO2.

Not acceptable. Volcanos all over the world just sit there spewing out gases and steam for much of their lives, eruptions would be a small fraction of a volcano's emissions.

Furthermore, where do you think all this carbon we are emitting came from to begin with? Living stuff. Where did the living stuff get the carbon? The atmosphere. Even if we burned all the carbon sources we could find we would still be unable to produce a climate that was inhospitable to life, because at one time all that carbon was there and there were plants that could use it.

Is that all you can say on that, not acceptable? To you maybe, but not to geological researchers. Show me a scientific source similar to USGS in creditability that says otherwise. By the way a wikipedia link about Carbon Dioxide also contains the same conclusion (I know not reliable in itself, however keep reading on, as I included the citation below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide



They say activity, not eruptions, so basically that's the collective total of emissions factoring in both casual emissions and active volcanoes which erupt too obviously.

But here's the citation relating to that information, notice it's not USGS, but another source which is American Geophysical Union:

8 # ^ Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254-255

So they agree with that finding. It might be a older source and you'll try to catch me on that; but even if you factor in variations to present day activity, you'll never probably reach the same amount or more than human emission levels.

Also, explain where they got the 24 billion tons a year CO2 figure from? Now this should be interesting...

To quote again from that USGS source:


I acknowledge that 3.25 billion tons of that figure is probably attributed to the entire human population simply breathing. A single human produce around 900 grams of CO2 a day, (which I estimate is ~350 kilograms a year) according to a USDA source.

Where does the other 20.75 billion tons come from if not from what's quoted? Care to explain?

Don't use the "I don't believe that figure" excuse as the source is from USGS, not from a random climatologist blog or environmentalist blog either and the USGS is actually funded by the US Government. It as legitimate as you can get when it comes to arguing scientific research. As for trying to argue that sum represents CO2 emissions of all living things and natural events too, you can't say that either because I'm sure those would have been factored out already.

Last edited by Nexus on 13 Mar 2007, 8:23 am, edited 7 times in total.

No. A lot of the carbon was originally in the ground.

Are you Australian?

By the way, George W. Bush thinks global warming is a joke!

I'm Australian.

Also, Bush didn't think so in his latest state of the union address, he actually acknowledged climate change as a threat now, listen to the speech if you don't believe me.