Global warming? Scotland sees its best snow in a decade

[Carsonal]

Global cooling as some may put it


Global warming? Scotland sees its best snow in a decade

David Lister

David Lister
Times Online
April 17, 2008

The restaurant at the top of the mountain is packed, though the queues are not for tartiflette or omelette savoyarde but for the distinctly un-haute cuisine of haggis and neeps and tatties.

In the shop by the funicular railway, Loch Ness Monster books and goat’s- milk soap from a local crofter are on sale next to ski goggles and thermal leggings. The weather forecast — “Some buffeting on higher slopes” — sounds particularly Scottish, while the signs for the “Cairngorm Poo Project”, an initiative to cut human waste left by walkers, would be hard to imagine in Courchevel or Val d’Isère.

Only a year after experiencing its worst season, the CairnGorm Mountain resort near Aviemore is defying the doomsayers of global warming and predictions of its demise.

The car park is full and the slopes busy. When the sun comes out, it is almost warm. After several weeks of decent snowfalls, the spring skiing conditions are, according to everyone who knows, the best in living memory. The resort has even run out of up-to-date piste maps, and has had to advertise for extra staff because many of its seasonal workers have already left.

Read Entire Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/uk_and_roi/article3775931.ece)


TruthNews.com (http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2171)

[Broccoli]

Global Warming, if it's real, doesn't mean that the entire planet will heat up.

[Vulgotha]

Research indicates that for the past 10 years the earth has been getting colder. Read articles etc for your own opinion.

Point is, the debate isn't over yet. I think the earth fluctuates via natural cycles due to the earth's position in orbit around the sun. In conjunction with the cycles of the sun itself. I have a hard time believing that human emissions, in such a short period of time, are doing this much.

Not all the links agree with my point of view per se, but everything is a state of flux right now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010336/posts

(and for the next 10 years):
http://www.homeadvisoryservice.co.uk/research-shows-earth-cooling-for-10-years.html

Related cooling stuff:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=68277
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_ice_age/2008/04/24/90591.html

[Pgsley]

I have always said that i do not believe in global warming yes i understand that the planet is changing but i do not see this a reason to panic, it is going through it normal cycle there have already been dry years in the past, ice ages, everything it is just a matter of time before it happens again.

[zeon9881]

i thought that since the north was melting that the current will turn cold via the air and via scotland (and everywhere else)

[Husker86]

Global Warming, if it's real, doesn't mean that the entire planet will heat up.

I guess whoever coined the term "Global Warming" was pretty stoned then, huh?

[2Tfps]

Boy, this was an old thread. :)

Had to fill in with a informative test here

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/

I don't know about the site, but it sounds legit.

[DayWalker]

global warming =

hotter hots and colder colds

hot when its spose to be cold, cold when it spose to be hot.

shorter/longer summer, winters.

lets try to look a little bit past the title ok people?

[LeisureSuitLarry]

Global warming =

Science + Politics (- Science)

[Aerial Life]

Wow, I havent read on Global Warming in a long time, last thing I read was about how all the planets not just earth was going through this cycle and it was mostly due to the Sun and it was normal for the planet. Yup, its been a while since I checked, I think the North Pole ice is melting while the South Pole Ice is increasing.

I dont like people who say we are destroying the Earth through Global Warming, Carbon Emissions, Pollution and all that. The Earth has survived asteroid impacts, meteor crashes, and all that jazz before we were even here, trust me when I say that Global Warming will not destroy Mother Earth, it will still be here even long after we're gone, so its us that are screwed, not the Earth.

[weskurtz81]

WOOHOOO, something else we can debate on DW.

Why do you think global warming is legitimate?

I think it's BS intended to line the pockets of those pushing it. I we have been on the earth for far to short of time, and recorded history for an even shorter period of time, and cannot yet comprehend everything that effects the weather, nor do we know enough about the Sun. I think we may be getting a little to big for our britches here.

Disclaimer: I do think we should conserve and not pollute, but not at ANY cost.

[2Tfps]

I have to agree with you Larry, it really seems to be about politics and money.

On that site I gave above, they state it's a fact that the greenhouse gases are only a part of approx 2 per cent of the earths atmosphere, of which water is 95+ per cent of those greenhouse gases. In that perspective, it really smells fishy talking about global warming in the same sentence of human involvement/pollution.

Edited for the per cent of water and greenhouse gases.

[Aerial Life]

WOOHOOO, something else we can debate on DW.

Why do you think global warming is legitimate?

I think it's BS intended to line the pockets of those pushing it. I we have been on the earth for far to short of time, and recorded history for an even shorter period of time, and cannot yet comprehend everything that effects the weather, nor do we know enough about the Sun. I think we may be getting a little to big for our britches here.

Disclaimer: I do think we should conserve and not pollute, but not at ANY cost.

I really thought it had been debunked (global warming being caused by humans), as for the Sun, here's something interesting :

March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.
Like the quiet before a storm.
This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.


Source : Science@Nasa (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm)

[Scotracer]

Erm, what snow? There was barely any snow here last winter :-|

[MrGixxer750]

Global warming =

Science + Politics (- Science)

LOL (While at work [Thx alot])

[Axe&Hammer]

Global warming is/or was what he we now call Climate Change.But
the Earth is not geostatic hence its climate is bound to change based on the actions that happen within the planet-atmosphere system and other external factors i.e the sun and cosmic brick-a-brack.I for one see climate change as a good mesh that fill filter out the less fit nations and humans.

oh yeah

[redass]

if al gore had never been alive, global warming would still be supported by scientific evidence. I dare anyone on here to find one major scientific organization that believes global warming is made up.

or...

we could just ignore all the science and pretend it's only political because my brain can't understand (or refuses to believe) that something could be both inconvenient for me and scientifically viable.

edit: somebody actually thought it had been debunked? based on what exactly... I'd love to see the evidence.

[DayWalker]

:lol:

its gonna suck to have to say "told ya so"

drill baby drill!!!! :roll:

read a book. :|

[weskurtz81]

redass,

I think the big question here is whether it is MAN MADE or NATURAL, not that the weather on earth doesn't change. The fact is no one really knows why it happens, and MANY groups make different claims with "evidence" to back them up. So, choose your poison.

[Aerial Life]

edit: somebody actually thought it had been debunked? based on what exactly... I'd love to see the evidence.

I said that, far as its human made that is, but I'm going to agree with weskurtz81, I can pull off a bunch of links, articles and someone else can also do the same to prove we are responsible for it.

[redass]

redass,

I don't think the big question here is whether it is MAN MADE or NATURAL, not that the weather on earth doesn't change. The fact is no one really knows why it happens, and MANY groups make different claims with "evidence" to back them up. So, choose your poison.


not really sure what you are saying here, but I think the "don't" is extraneous. what I should have said previously is that there is not a single major scientific group that believes mankind has not had an effect on the climate. we're not talking about weather, we're talking about climate.

[redass]

I said that, far as its human made that is, but I'm going to agree with weskurtz81, I can pull off a bunch of links, articles and someone else can also do the same to prove we are responsible for it.

yeah, you can pull links, but can you pull links from internationally respected scientific organizations and associations or peer-reviewed journals? there is a huge difference between junk science on the internet and real science.

[Ixquiz]

Global warming is a fact, the earth does go through trends where it naturally warms and cools, global warming does not mean that humans are making it happen, even though they are contributing to how fast it is occurring. Next, just because its called global warming does not mean that the entire earth will heat up, it refers to the increase of the average measured temperature. In actuality, if all the ice caps melted it would actually make it colder for europe because all of the cold water from the ice caps would disrupt the oceanic currents, stopping the flow of warmer water in the area.

[Typical guy]

It's amazing how so much of our chemistry is correct. We're able to do all kinds of amazing things with chemistry. With physics we've split the atom and predicted atmospheric lensing of light before it was proven. We have electricity in our homes, microprocessors in our computers and video game consoles. We've decoded the human genome and even spliced fish genes with corn and eat these genetically modified foods in our daily life.

The one thing we apparently can't do, is predict atmospheric chemistry. We can do so many other things but we can't figure out how a few gases in the atmosphere bond to one another. Apparently these are extremely complicated gases, I mean come on, it's carbon di oxide. THat's right, there's TWO oxygen and one carbon, very complicated. Far too complicated to figure out what happens when bonded with various other atmospheric gases, I mean, it's not like it's something simple like sending a rover to Mars.

The fact that global warming is accepted as a fact virtually everywhere in the world OTHER THAN the USA just goes to show how brainwashed THEY are. THE REST OF THE WORLD is clearly wrong and we (some of us) are clearly right! Oh and lets not forget that virtually all the studies that show that global warming might not be true are funded by the energy companies and these studies are not peer reviewed but these companies have our best interests in mind. The majority of studies (those showing global warming to be true) are clearly flawed and fake. They are no doubt performed by the greedy and rich(?) alternative energy companies(?) and communists that just want to bring us down.

[Aerial Life]

yeah, you can pull links, but can you pull links from internationally respected scientific organizations and associations or peer-reviewed journals? there is a huge difference between junk science on the internet and real science.

This is the last thing I read way back when I was looking things up about the subject.

US Senate Report : Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007, Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said. Source (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece)

Climate Change Hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece)

Solar Storm Warning
March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.
Like the quiet before a storm.
This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.

Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
"History shows that big sunspot cycles 'ramp up' faster than small ones," he says. "I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011."
Who's right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.

Source (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm)

Lol, so thats what I remember from the last time I looked things up. Do humans contribute to it? YeS I think we do, is it our fault this is happening? I believe we arent. I still think no matter what we should reduce ommisions and find alternate source of energies.

[Typical guy]

US Senate Report : Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007, Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"


The US Senate is not an accepted scientific organization. If you try hard enough, you can find 400 scientists that will say anything. Show me 40,000 and then we'll talk.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/effects.html

[REFLEX]

OK. The fact is that we should be less worried about the Earth warming up, and MORE worried about pollution in general. They are tied together, but in many things that we can do, they are not. Focus, it need to be shifted.

[weskurtz81]

not really sure what you are saying here, but I think the "don't" is extraneous. what I should have said previously is that there is not a single major scientific group that believes mankind has not had an effect on the climate. we're not talking about weather, we're talking about climate.

I edited the "don't" out. I was apparently typing something and changed mid sentence without properly modifying it.

Now, what I should have said is climate, and not weather. The climate obviously changes independent of human activity as well. The big question is what effect do humans have on top of the natural climate change. I honestly don't think anyone knows for certain, and it from what I remember reading 4 years ago in comparison to what I remember reading today, the general consensus of the science community continues to change year after year. It seems to me that they see a change, and try to find out what is causing it, but they aren't really sure. I don't really have time to go to far into this right now, but in the coming days, and maybe over the weekend after the hurricane passes I will try to form a post based more off of what other scientists have said other than my opinion.

[Restricted]

Global Warming, if it's real, doesn't mean that the entire planet will heat up.

Actually no, global warming means that when it is supposed to be cold it is hot, and when it is supposed to be hot it is cold. It causes allot of in frequencies in the weather and has made the weather more unpredictable than ever before.

[weskurtz81]

Actually no, global warming means that when it is supposed to be cold it is hot, and when it is supposed to be hot it is cold. It causes allot of in frequencies in the weather and has made the weather more unpredictable than ever before.

I don't know if I would say "ever" since there is NO WAY we could know that. Also, it seems to me that weather has always been pretty unpredictable.

[MysticStrummer]

The list of scientists you find depends on where you look. I've seen claims that there is a list of 30,000 scientists that dispute AGW, but the longest list I've found had 132. Personally I don't see why it's so hard to believe that humans can have an adverse effect with all the crap we pour into the environment. We teach the concept of an ecosystem very early on yet we still have a fairly large group of people who are in favor of dumping toxic materials into the place where we get food, water, and oh yeah air. Amazing. I believe the planet can correct itself up to a point, but where that point is... who knows? From the information I've found, the planet does indeed go through cycles of warming and cooling, and we should be cooling now, not warming. For the folks who can't understand the concept of GLOBAL warming, it's an overall temperature. It doesn't mean that some spots aren't cooler. There is indeed more ice in the southern hemisphere, but the amount of ice lost in the northern hemisphere is such that am overall loss is the result. Global Warming is a fact. The only debate now is how much of an effect, if any, we have. The point that we don't know enough about the system is a good one, but once again I have to ask... Why dump crap into the system? We don't need to. Hell, Carter installed solar panels on the White House 30 years ago... and Reagan took them down. Green technology is no longer in the future, but I suspect not much will change anytime soon. This issue, like many issues stems from one thing. The majority of people are stupid. My personal opinion on why this general stupidity is getting worse over time is that the races aren't mixing fast enough and it's causing a cumulative effect like in-breeding. Damn. I'm rambling now. I'd better play some Warhawk and unwind. Don't worry, moronic majority, I'm sure that in the name of commerce we'll continue to dump crap into the world and make a small number of people very wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

[Vulgotha]

Actually no, global warming means that when it is supposed to be cold it is hot, and when it is supposed to be hot it is cold. It causes allot of in frequencies in the weather and has made the weather more unpredictable than ever before.

Not necessarily. The trapping of greenhouse gases *IN theory* can cause some cool effects (SOME) but overall it will trap (in theory) our planet underneath many insulating gases which will trap the heat.

Think that hellhole of a planet known as "Venus".

http://www.tivas.org.uk/solsys/images/venus_magellan.jpg

Commonly referred to as earth's "Sister planet", most thought it'd be very similar to us and possibly habitable- that was until we landed probes there and the things melted in under 30min.

Frankly? I'm not buying it regarding earth. Humanity has been here and polluting for under 500 years, yet nature pollutes on a scale so far above and beyond humanity that I'm supposed to think we tipped the balance over the proverbial edge?

Nah.

[Aerial Life]

Don't worry, moronic majority, I'm sure that in the name of commerce we'll continue to dump crap into the world and make a small number of people very wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

I like you mystic, lol, good post. I agree that we contribute to it but I dont agree that we're the reason why this is happening. I believe that we have to change. I'm not denying its happening, I just feel that its not man-made.
Found an article but it doesnt count because its not in an internationally respected scientific organization and associations or peer-reviewed journals.

Information gleaned from a Greenland ice core by an international science team shows that two huge Northern Hemisphere temperature spikes prior to the close of the last ice age some 11,500 years ago were tied to fundamental shifts in atmospheric circulation.
The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.

Source (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/uoca-gic061808.php)

I agree with Reflex that we should focus, I also think its cool how they are making money off this problem.

[Typical guy]

Check it out, this is a pretty cool, it shows you the sea ice of the arctic on Sept 16th for the last 5 years.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/warming_trends/index.html

I think a big part of the problem is that once it starts to melt in mass - it will accelerate melting. While the ice is there, it reflects most of the light but sea water absorbs the energy. This means that generally over time, arctic sea ice will melt at increasing rates. Also, a lot of the ice is thinning out. Where it was once very thick, the ice that is there is also thinning out.

[MysticStrummer]

Humanity has been here and polluting for under 500 years, yet nature pollutes on a scale so far above and beyond humanity that I'm supposed to think we tipped the balance over the proverbial edge?

Nah.

Nature pollutes? That's funny. If you're talking about volcanic eruptions you're correct in a way, but that's not pollution. It's part of a natural system that will still be going on long after we wipe ourselves out in the name of a loving God and/or money. Pollution is the extra mess that we throw into the equation. I live in a relatively small city north of Dallas/Ft. Worth and I can SEE the difference in air quality when I'm driving toward those cities. When I go to New York, I'm guaranteed to get a headache and a film on my contact lenses. We've seen the effects that an oil spill can have on the environment, and the long term effects of Chernobyl are still being felt. Even if we have no effect in global terms, why do it to ourselves when we don't have to? If we have a very small effect, then we're screwing with the future of the human race. We live on what should be a self sustaining paradise. Plenty of room and resources to go around. Instead we act like the early humans in 2001 : A Space Odyssey, fighting over a watering hole and the imaginary line that makes it belong to one side more than the other. Dammit. Off topic again. I should change my name to MysticRambler.

[gta0004]

Seriously, its cold in CA in the morning, unusual for this time of the year. It doesn't usually start till a month from now.

[magma12]

Seriously, its cold in CA in the morning, unusual for this time of the year. It doesn't usually start till a month from now.

Tell me about it, and also it used to rain in October through January almost non stop but by 2OO1 I started to notice a drastic climate change. Now the rainy season starts in December and doesn't last. Were doomed!!

[Vulgotha]

Nature pollutes? That's funny. If you're talking about volcanic eruptions you're correct in a way, but that's not pollution. It's part of a natural system that will still be going on long after we wipe ourselves out in the name of a loving God and/or money. Pollution is the extra mess that we throw into the equation. I live in a relatively small city north of Dallas/Ft. Worth and I can SEE the difference in air quality when I'm driving toward those cities. When I go to New York, I'm guaranteed to get a headache and a film on my contact lenses. We've seen the effects that an oil spill can have on the environment, and the long term effects of Chernobyl are still being felt. Even if we have no effect in global terms, why do it to ourselves when we don't have to? If we have a very small effect, then we're screwing with the future of the human race. We live on what should be a self sustaining paradise. Plenty of room and resources to go around. Instead we act like the early humans in 2001 : A Space Odyssey, fighting over a watering hole and the imaginary line that makes it belong to one side more than the other. Dammit. Off topic again. I should change my name to MysticRambler.


Volcanic eruptions aside (such as Mt. St. Helens, for example) nature pollutes considerably:

Massive methane contributions thanks to mammals (such as cows and people).

Sea Vents.

Plants (believe it or not).

Btw Volcanoes (not Helens) on average cause the same amount of pollution upon eruption as the total contribution of America (North America) over several years.

[Aerial Life]

Seriously, its cold in CA in the morning, unusual for this time of the year. It doesn't usually start till a month from now.

I love it lol, better than being hot in the morning. Remember when there was a mini-tornado here like a year or two ago? Everyone was freaking out. I guess they forgot thats not the first time it has happened.

[Typical guy]

Volcanic eruptions aside (such as Mt. St. Helens, for example) nature pollutes considerably:

Massive methane contributions thanks to mammals (such as cows and people).

Sea Vents.

Plants (believe it or not).

Btw Volcanoes (not Helens) on average cause the same amount of pollution upon eruption as the total contribution of America (North America) over several years.

http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volcano_watch/000440.shtml


CO2: Humans vs. Volcanoes
Posted by HVO (volcano@hawaiinews.com) at 9:17 AM on Feb 15, 2007 | 1 Comments (http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volcano_watch/000440.shtml#comments)
Volcano Watch (http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volcano_watch/main.shtml) People who are fortunate enough to live in or visit Hawai`i, or even those who have seen the right television documentaries, know that the majestic presence of erupting volcanoes attests to their raw power. If we took Kilauea (our own backyard volcano) and collected the lava that it erupted, there would be enough material to fill the gas tanks of about 1,000 Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) in the time it took you to read this sentence. And though Kilauea is a medium-to-small-sized volcano, it has been discharging lava nearly continuously at this rate for the past 24 years.

Demonstrations like this one, or catastrophic eruptions like those of Mount St. Helens or Mount Pinatubo, understandably cause people to sometimes think that human-caused effects on the biosphere are small compared to volcanic ones. But, as the saying goes, "it ain’t necessarily so."

At HVO, for instance, we are often asked about the influence of volcanic gas emissions on the atmosphere and whether these emissions dwarf those from human activity. Anyone who has stood downwind of Kilauea’s vents, and sometimes even people who live in Honolulu, 250 miles away, know first-hand how these emissions can affect air quality and life on the regional scale. It’s a fact that Kilauea has been releasing more than twice the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland.

So it’s also understandable that, with the emerging report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IGCC), some people want to understand how volcanoes might factor into the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations — specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) — that is being reported worldwide. The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature. And, after all, volcanoes are awesome natural forces that release lots of carbon dioxide (CO2) right? Could volcanoes be a significant global-warming villain?

For numerous reasons, volcanologists have been interested in CO2 release from volcanoes for years and have been working to improve estimates on the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans by volcanic processes.

Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) (CDIAC) website helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don’t produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.

There is now agreement at the top government level of the Earth’s most prolific fossil fuel CO2 producer—the United States—that we need to reduce our dependence on oil in order to confront the challenge of global warming. As we work toward that goal, let’s look forward to the day when volcanologists will give a different answer to the question: "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" Activity Update

This past week, activity levels at the summit of Kilauea Volcano have remained at background levels. The number of earthquakes located in the summit area is low (usually less than 10 per day are large enough to locate).

Eruptive activity at Pu`u `O`o continues. On clear nights, glow is visible from several vents within the crater. Lava is fed through the PKK lava tube from its source on the southwest flank of Pu`u `O`o to the ocean. About 1 kilometer south of Pu`u `O`o, the Campout flow branches off from the PKK tube. The PKK and Campout tubes feed two widely separated ocean entries, at East Lae`apuki and East Ka`ili`ili, respectively. Both entries are located inside Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park.

A third entry, fed by an offshoot of the Campout flow, has been active since December 26. It is located at Kamokuna, about midway between the two older entries. In the last week, intermittent breakouts from the Campout tube have continued on the slope of Pulama pali and on the coastal plain near Kamokuna. A new breakout from the main PKK tube has been advancing down the pali in the past three weeks, more than a kilometer west of the Campout tube. The terminus is now within the rope line above the East Lae`apuki entry.

Access to the sea cliff near the ocean entries is closed, due to significant hazards. The surrounding area, however, is open. If you visit the eruption site, check with the rangers for current updates, and remember to carry lots of water when venturing out onto the flow field.

One earthquake beneath Hawai`i Island was reported felt within the past week. A magnitude-2.8 earthquake at 7:49 p.m. H.s.t. on Sunday, February 11 was located 5 km (3 miles) northwest of Kawaihae at a depth of 25.7 km (16 miles).

Mauna Loa is not erupting. During the past week, earthquake activity remained low beneath the volcano (one earthquake was located). Extension of distances between locations spanning the summit, indicating inflation, continues at slow rates.

This article was written by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey's Hawaii Volcano Observatory (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/) and is republished by HawaiiNews.com with permission.

[MysticStrummer]

Volcanic eruptions aside (such as Mt. St. Helens, for example) nature pollutes considerably:

Massive methane contributions thanks to mammals (such as cows and people).

Sea Vents.

Plants (believe it or not).

All of these things are part of the system. Pollution is the stuff that is dumped into the environment that cannot be reintegrated with that environment. Maybe I'm just off with my definition of pollution, but that's the way I think of it, and after looking the word up on dictionary.com, that's the way many people think of it. The words "contamination" and "defilement" appear in several of the definitions. There is also a funny connection to the word "semen", and one definition out of the nine does say that pollution can be from natural sources.

[Vulgotha]

No. Pollution are chemical releases which are man made which have observable side undesired side effects on the planet.

Problem is nature expels much of these "Green house gases" "naturally".


Without knowing it, typicalguy actually firmly proved my argument. Sure, Volcanoes and etc no longer output as much as "The Human Race" but the fact that comparisons can be made to humans directly proves that humanity isn't doing this "All by itself".

The cycle is already there, and quite frankly? It's a cycle we know little about. Human's havent been studying and protecting the planet for thousands of years- just what? since we STARTED polluting lol?

For all we know this could be a planetary cycle. We did just come out of an Ice Age not too long ago (relatively speaking).

Look at MARS! The ice caps there receded- where are it's SUV's and factories? Mars doesn't even have a molten core for crying out loud. So no vegetation, no people, no volcanoes and it's ice caps receded?

Hint: Probably solar activity.

Odds are: It's happening here too.


And that's if indeed the earth is suffering from "Drastic" and "Irreversible" changes. So far the "Evidence" for the (evil) case of "Global Warming" is weak and doesn't really withstand scrutiny all too well. More like a politically expedient way to win the happy vote from green people and get widely acclaimed as revolutionary.

[Typical guy]

No. Pollution are chemical releases which are man made which have observable side undesired side effects on the planet.

Problem is nature expels much of these "Green house gases" "naturally".


Without knowing it, typicalguy actually firmly proved my argument. Sure, Volcanoes and etc no longer output as much as "The Human Race" but the fact that comparisons can be made to humans directly proves that humanity isn't doing this "All by itself".

The cycle is already there, and quite frankly? It's a cycle we know little about. Human's havent been studying and protecting the planet for thousands of years- just what? since we STARTED polluting lol?

For all we know this could be a planetary cycle. We did just come out of an Ice Age not too long ago (relatively speaking).

Look at MARS! The ice caps there receded- where are it's SUV's and factories? Mars doesn't even have a molten core for crying out loud. So no vegetation, no people, no volcanoes and it's ice caps receded?

Hint: Probably solar activity.

Odds are: It's happening here too.


And that's if indeed the earth is suffering from "Drastic" and "Irreversible" changes. So far the "Evidence" for the (evil) case of "Global Warming" is weak and doesn't really withstand scrutiny all too well. More like a politically expedient way to win the happy vote from green people and get widely acclaimed as revolutionary.

The fact that you assume that we are not making an impact is quite strange to me. We understand chemistry well enough to know what gasses do when they interact with one another. WE are releasing massive amounts of gas into the environment. There may indeed be a "natural cycle" but this "natural cycle" does not include us dumping tens of billions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yes we are making an impact and that impact is far greater than the natural cycle. Yes there have been rapid changes in the past but those changes are generally the causes of mass extinctions such as massive world wide volcanic eruptions or meteors/comets hitting the planet. Why are we creating an impact on the planet similar to that? Why would that be considered "insignificant"?

Quite frankly, if people were pandering for votes, they wouldn't be going for the "green votes'. They'd be going for the petrochemical companies. They have a lot more money. That's where the republicans get a lot of their money after all. A lot of what you type sounds quite a lot like Rush Limbaugh. That guy is nothing more than a cheerleader telling people that everything they do is fine and to keep doing what they're doing. I heard on his show one time, he said that "we will never run out of oil because it's not created from dead animals/plants but rather produced by the planet itself" and "The human race can never destroy the planet, God made the planet is such a way that it can take a lot more than most people believe - nothing we can do will possibly destroy it". I guess if we nuked the polar ice caps, nothing bad could possibly happen to the planet. I'm sorry but a lot of these republican "entertainers" that sound a lot like you are nothing more than cheerleaders getting paid by the very people that profit most from destroying the environment.

[Vulgotha]

You do realize that like 35-65% of these "Greenhouse" emissions are water vapor right?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.png



Lol..


Although CO2 is like..what? 3-7%? The only real issue with IT is that it has like a longer "Life span" so to speak within the atmosphere. Can't be rained out or etc.


But yea, most of that "Bad crap" up there is water vapor and most of it not put out by humans.


The other "bad gases" (some of which are natural) are:
NO2, CO2, and Methane. The last two constitute less than 1%.

Most WV is not contributed by humans, btw.


It should be noted:

WV is largely dependent on local climates. So it can range anywhere from 35% (low) to 80-90%. Overall, it's speculate to be about "High 80's" to "Low 90's" in total greenhouse gas makeup within our atmosphere.

But local statistics and calculations are kinda hard. Apparently.

I'll put it to you this way- no one knows for sure. This isn't 100% decided proven and fact and quite frankly I side with Sam Wilson when I say that alot of this is almost a "Pseudo religion" and scare tactics by Environmentalists into getting their agenda pushed. This is NOT to say that I don't think we should help protect and take care of our planet- it's our job to be good stewards of this earth. I simply view 90% of all this PURE political conjecture and various pressures to get agendas enacted.


(http://www.lrnit.com/greenhouse_data2.htm)

[redass]

you can't possibly think that every single internationally recognized group of scientist has just happened to forget all the revolutionary points you've brought up in this thread.

you've got one thing right... one side in this argument is most certainly a "pseudo religion". you know... the side that denies global warming despite all of the scientific evidence that points towards it.

you can add 1-2% of a chemical to plenty of reactions and have it change everything. I'm not sure why you note that co2 only makes up a small percent of the atmosphere, nobody is saying the temperature of the earth is going to double or triple; even a small change can lead to drastic changes.

[Twiztid]

There are two subcategories in the overarching category of people who don't believe in global warming. The first can be said to be individuals who are traditionally conservative; and the second to consist of a new generation of young people who identify anyone in the position of authority to be untrustworthy; even scientist. The last is truly insidious because it has been consider the realm of youth to carry on causes of progressive nature. That ultimately change the world.

[weskurtz81]

Twiztid,

Just to be clear here, are you referring to global warming in general, or man made global warming? I think it is pretty obvious that the world temps do and are fluctuating, but I think most people here are questioning whether or not it is man made or not.

Also, just broadly placing anyone who doesn't agree with you in a couple categories doesn't really accomplish anything. Maybe you are just trying to start a flame war, but if not, a better tactic might be to actually state your position, and back it up with some sort of proof.

Just a thought.

[2Tfps]

Some sporadic things I wanted to say:

* The greenhouse gases are close to 2% of the total atmosphere, Water vaport being the bigest thief.
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
* Environmental pollution is a big deal. Lake Aral being halved in size. Back when, was the bigest lake in the world (Not 100% sure). So I can see humans making a big difference here.
* 18,000 years ago earth climate changed to warmer and since then the overall temp has risen til this day.
Temperature data inferred from measurements of the ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to the sea floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks changes in the global ice volume.
And so has CO2 levels.
* about 7,500 years ago a warm period (holocene maximum) rose to be warmer than it has been so far. But this period not being far off in being warmtempered. Holocene Maximum lasted for over 1000s of years.
*
* There was a "small" ice age in between 1500 - 1880? I dont recollect exact period but it was some 100s of years and it ended late 1800. Then, somewhere in this time frame, the english channel frose. Still CO2 levels rose constantly and has been doing so since those darn 18,000 years ago.
* In the 30s it was warmer.
* In the recent years it's been smaller warm and cold periods occuring.
* Since about the 90s to this day it has been a long period of steadily increasing temperature.
* This winter is said to be colder than it 'usually' is of now. Just to bounce back next year.

Fluctuations. I find us looking in a very short time perspective calling this period for "global warming". It's too early to tell if it really is. To be safe, why not try to save the earth? From pollution I say. Not global warming. This period can stagnate in temperature and stay like this for centuries. (My conclusion)

Warmer periods in earths life usually stays from 15,000-20,000 year frames and exchanges with about 100,000 years of ice age. Why?

The sun lowers it's output at the same time the earth's orbit tilts to increase effect of cooling and warming. Depending if it's the end of an ice age or a 'global warming period'. It has been 18,000 years without an ice age breaking out. That is very more likely we are on the tip to plunge down in temperature than it will come to an actual global warming. If global warming stops, then you can start to get worried.

Temperature-sun variations:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191.gif

In conclusion, if humans are reason for temperatures rising, it cannot be because of the CO2 levels or the greenhouse gases. Humans stands for 0.3 per cent of those 2 per cent of total greenhouse gases filling the total atmosphere. That is 0.02 times 0.003 of the total (1.000) atmosphere, or 0.006 per cent of the total atmosphere.

But, since CO2 is the topic, and the amount increasing. Last time an ice age began, the levels of CO2 was as high as it is now.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

I can see the correlation between CO2 levels and a new ice age. The time it takes for earth to have those levels of CO2 is what it takes for sun and earth to change for a new ice age to happend.

But don't worry, I use a bike to work each day and takes the bus for longer trips. :)
I just sleep a bit better not worrying too much. about me or humanity contributing to global warming in such an extent it actually matters

[bobjenkins]

wasn't there a story recently on the news about global warming killing bigfoot? Because hes got all that hair and couldn't get cool?