Thursday morning links

"One minor volcanic eruption basically emits as much pollution and green house gases that civilization emits for 30 years..."

I've often wondered about that. Does anyone have a reference that backs this up (or debunks it)?

#1 Hairless Joe on 2021-09-30 09:27 (Reply)

Hairless Joe: I've often wondered about that. Does anyone have a reference that backs this up (or debunks it)?

Volcanoes actually have a short-term cooling effect on the surface due to the release of sulfate aerosols and dust into the atmosphere. Note there is no attenuation of the overall warming trend.
https://photos.mongabay.com/j/berkeley.earth.results.tempgraph.568.jpg

#1.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 09:43 (Reply)

That settles it. If Zach denies it you know it's true.

#1.1.1 OneGuy on 2021-09-30 10:55 (Reply)

Hahaha A trillion up votes.

#1.1.1.1 B. Hammer on 2021-09-30 11:45 (Reply)

QUOTE:

One minor volcanic eruption basically emits as much pollution and green house gases that civilization emits for 30 years...

That is not correct. Global volcanic emissions of atmospheric greenhouse gases are dwarfed by human emissions.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/volcano-v-fossilfuels-1750-2013-620.png

#2 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 09:35 (Reply)

Now tell us how they measured it.

#2.1 Aggie on 2021-09-30 09:46 (Reply)

See Gerlach, Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide, EOS 2011.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 09:51 (Reply)

Note that even large volcanic eruptions have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_vs_Volcano.gif

#2.1.2 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 10:08 (Reply)

Once again we see Zachriel's deceit. The inquiry was about greenhouse gases, of which there are several. The link she provided was only about CO2 emissions.

Not that it really matters, the hypothesis that the release of CO2 would lead to an overall rise in Earth's atmospheric temperature has been around for decades, but the data do not support it in the least.

The theory is generally dismissed on this. Although it would seem reasonable for a few researchers to keep investigating as new data or information may be discovered.

#2.1.3 DrTorch (Link) on 2021-09-30 11:40 (Reply)

DrTorch: The link she provided was only about CO2 emissions.

The claim was that "One minor volcanic eruption basically emits as much pollution and green house gases that civilization emits for 30 years." We addressed CO2, which is certainly a stronger argument than "Whatabout something or other?" If you have specific support for the claim, we'd be happy to consider it.

DrTorch: the hypothesis that the release of CO2 would lead to an overall rise in Earth's atmospheric temperature has been around for decades, but the data do not support it in the least.

From first principles, if there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is.

DrTorch: The theory is generally dismissed on this.

The theory is generally accepted because of the depth and breadth of the evidence. You could start with the blackbody temperature of the Earth.

#2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 12:02 (Reply)

No, you avoided the claim by providing an answer to one small fraction of greenhouse gases. My comment holds.

From first principles, if there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is.

First principles of what? This is some absurd red herring that has no bearing on what I wrote.

The theory is generally accepted because of the depth and breadth of the evidence. You could start with the blackbody temperature of the Earth.

Pfft. I could start? How about you start? You made the claim. The point of course is that you can't b/c

1. You know nothing about physics, chemistry or any of the relevant subjects.

2. The models are demonstrably wrong and thus my claim is supported by the breadth of the evidence.

3. The theory (as is) is widely dismissed by numerous experts in this and related fields.

As usual any time you are challenged with any specific you try to dodge the issue with trite rhetoric. Trite b/c you really know nothing and can't elaborate beyond one or two staccato sentences, and rhetoric b/c nothing you advocate has any substantial dialectic support.

#2.1.3.1.1 DrTorch (Link) on 2021-09-30 13:52 (Reply)

DrTorch: No, you avoided the claim by providing an answer to one small fraction of greenhouse gases.

99% of volcanic emissions are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. If the Earth was a dry world, then water vapor emissions might be important, but the Earth's surface is 75% water. Consequently, water vapor is in equilibrium in the atmosphere, and excess water vapor is precipitated out. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but volcanic emissions are dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions. Sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, but forms aerosols with carbon, which generally cool the climate in the short run. Not sure what else you think might be happening, but please let us know, and we will be happy to consider it.

DrTorch: First principles of what?

The physics of energy, in particular, the physics of a black or gray body being heated radiatively.

DrTorch: How about you start?

We already did. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's surface would be 33°C cooler.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html

#2.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 15:05 (Reply)

Z: and excess water vapor is precipitated out.

However, as the Earth warms due to CO2, the atmosphere is moistening, which amplifies the CO2 warming, an effect known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896.

#2.1.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 16:01 (Reply)

I read that article. It doesn't say that.

#2.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 DrTorch (Link) on 2021-10-01 08:54 (Reply)

DrTorch: I read that article. It doesn't say that.

QUOTE:

Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896: We now possess all the necessary data for an estimation of the effect on the earth's temperatue which would be the result of a given variation of the aërial carbonic acid... In consequence of the variation (t) in temperature, W {water vapor} must also undergo a variation.

When CO2 warms the earth's surface, water vapor increases, amplifying the warming. Arrhenius also notes Arctic amplification due to changes in albedo.

#2.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-01 11:25 (Reply)

No you failed to start. I pointed out a very specific error in the hypothesis and you addressed some other point.

That's your typical approach, you answer a different question b/c you're not capable of answering the difficult ones that show you're lying.

#2.1.3.1.1.1.2 DrTorch (Link) on 2021-10-01 08:56 (Reply)

DrTorch: No you failed to start.

Indeed, we address the blackbody temperature of the Earth, and that the Earth's surface is observed to be 33°C warmer due to the greenhouse effect. And we addressed the original claim, that volcanoes are a significant source of greenhouse gases, having discussed the various volcanic emissions.

We then invited you to make a substantive response, but you neglected to do so. Let us know if you decide to engage the claim that "one minor volcanic eruption basically emits as much ... green house gases that civilization emits in 30 years."

#2.1.3.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-01 11:04 (Reply)

You forgot to mention in your answer: One is by direct measurement, auditable because at its base, hydrocarbon consumption begins as a commercial transaction.

The other is a subjective estimate.

Sounds like the start of another bad faith discussion! In the meantime, since the US's CO2 emissions have been declining for the past 15 years: What are you doing about China?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/03/the-record-of-recent-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2013/

#2.2 Aggie on 2021-09-30 10:37 (Reply)

Aggie: The other is a subjective estimate.

You have a very odd definition of subjective. Among the papers cited by Gerlach, Allard concerns observations of outgassing of Mount Aetna, Varecamp concerns observation of the East Sunda Arc, Sano and Williams concerns observations of the mantle C flux in subduction zones, and Marty and Tolstikhin concerns observed CO2 fluxes from mid-ocean ridges, arcs and plumes. Other evidence includes Khatiwala on the buffering capacity of the oceans. Check the citations.

Even granting a large margin of error, the difference between volcanic emissions and anthropogenic emissions is vast.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 11:11 (Reply)

As a George Carlin fan observing that you posted a NOAA government site is not one bit convincing.

#2.3 indyjonesouthere on 2021-09-30 11:59 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: As a George Carlin fan observing that you posted a NOAA government site is not one bit convincing.

We followed that with a citation to a review article that included numerous empirical studies.

#2.3.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 12:03 (Reply)

Empirical studies from someone that got a government grant to provide the government with the numbers they wanted or they wouldn't get another government grant. It doesn't seem to matter if its covid, covid, codvid or agw, agw, agw.

#2.3.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2021-09-30 15:40 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Empirical studies from someone that got a government grant to provide the government with the numbers they wanted or they wouldn't get another government grant.

And Galileo is in the pay of Big Heliocentrism.

There are a wide variety of studies by scientists all over the world, in different political systems, and different cultures. Just waving your hands doesn't make the Earth stand still. If you have evidence these studies are in error, then you have to actually address the studies.

#2.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 16:14 (Reply)

Just waving your "studies" around doesn't prove diddly...most aren't peer reviewed and many that are will be reviewed by "friendly" reviewers. Just like the russia, russia, russia data. AGW data is famous for its "incestuous" data review.

#2.3.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2021-09-30 17:10 (Reply)

indyjinesouthere: most aren't peer reviewed and many that are will be reviewed by "friendly" reviewers.

The cited observational studies were peer reviewed. But sure, geologists are in the thrall of Big Volcano.

#2.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 17:42 (Reply)

Geologists in academia are in thrall of big "study" grants.

#2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2021-09-30 19:37 (Reply)

One minor volcanic emission, possibly. Several (and there are several going on as I write) will combine to produce a significant. And a massive eruption such as that at Krakatoa (1883) sent up clouds of smoke and fine particles that influenced the weather for a couple of years.

#2.4 Frances on 2021-09-30 21:49 (Reply)

Frances: And a massive eruption such as that at Krakatoa (1883) sent up clouds of smoke and fine particles that influenced the weather for a couple of years.

That’s right. As first proposed by Benjamin Franklin, volcanic eruptions can create a short term cooling effect, not long term greenhouse warming, as shown here:
https://farmingfirst.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CHARTII1.png

#2.4.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 23:02 (Reply)

>Why Science Can't Settle Political Disputes

Because the role of "science" in political disputes is quite minor; "science" can tell you the probable effect of a policy, but not whether that effect is good/bad, worth the cost, better than the alternatives, infringes upon individual rights, etc.

#3 OldCurmudgeon on 2021-09-30 10:14 (Reply)

Who is Sidney Reilly? Never heard of him.

Vegan restaurant bites dust: Well, so long as it's VEGAN dust....

YouTube Announces It Will Ban All 'Anti-Vaccine' Content: Ve KNOW vat iss rrrrright!!!!!

Republicans Get Out of the Way as Democrats Form a Circular Firing Squad: Not safe enough! Must be behind steel-cased concrete blocks! Or underground!

#4 Sam L. on 2021-09-30 10:16 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Attempts to scientifically “rationalize” policy, based on the belief that science is purified of politics, may be damaging democracy.

This guy warned against it (emphasis mine):

QUOTE:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

President Dwight Eisenhower, Jan 1961

#5 CapitalistRoader on 2021-09-30 11:16 (Reply)

via Instapundit

QUOTE:

The best short credo of liberalism came from the pen of the once canonical left-wing literary historian Vernon Parrington in the late 1920s. “Rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class,” Parrington insisted, referring to both democracy and capitalism, “and the artist and the scientist will erect in America a civilization that may become, what civilization was in earlier days, a thing to be respected.” Alienated from middle-class American life, liberalism drew on an idealized image of “organic” pre-modern folkways and rhapsodized about a future harmony that would reestablish the proper hierarchy of virtue in a post-bourgeois, post-democratic world.

So from that point of view, “liberalism,” while changing its spots somewhat over the past decade to encompass “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” is still working as the original “Progressives” redefined it.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/476520/#respond

#5.1 feeblemind on 2021-09-30 14:07 (Reply)

Here https://notthebee.com/article/heres-a-video-of-an-antiracist-openly-calling-for-the-literal-and-total-end-of-the-united-states an anti-racist black woman tells you how to fix the problem

#6 Anon on 2021-09-30 11:34 (Reply)

The "climate crisis" is a scam. The elite recognize this golden opportunity to decimate the middle class and take their money, rights and power and to do so with their consent. Have you ever seen a proposed solution to climate change that does not involve either taxing you or restricting you or both??? There is a great example of this in the trillion dollar boondoggle in congress right now; an 8 cent per mile tax on your driving. Can you even comprehend the cumulative cost and negative effect on you for the rest of your life from this simple invasive tax and control law? Why? Well of course to transfer billions of private money to the government under the guise of fighting climate change. It is a scam and the worst part of this scam is it shows how stupid Americans are.

A large container ship emits more greenhouse gas in a year than 50,000,000 cars do. Why not ban (not tax or limit, but outright ban) all container ships? A large jet flying from NY to LA emits more greenhouse gas than driving 400 SUVs from NY to LA does. Why not ban all airplanes? The simple and honest answer is this isn't about greenhouse gas or climate change and their goal is NOT to prevent climate change; the goal is to take your money and your freedom.

This is all tied into the Covid mandates. Yes, I didn't believe it at first either, I thought it was just stupidity on the part of our leaders. But the mask and social distancing was a scam to divide us and force us to accept tyranny in the name of doing good. It worked, in fact it worked so much better then the government thought it would. It has accelerated our shift to the left/communism/fascism.

I know... I get it. You don't believe this... yet. You will.

#7 OneGuy on 2021-09-30 12:11 (Reply)

OneGuy: A large container ship emits more greenhouse gas in a year than 50,000,000 cars do.

You seem to be mixing up a few statistics. The world's shipping fleet emits far more SOx than the world's car fleet, but the world's car fleet emits more CO2 than the world's shipping fleet.
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/10/IEA-Transport-to-2070-1536x970.png

OneGuy: Why not ban (not tax or limit, but outright ban) all container ships?

Efforts are already underway to reduce both CO2 and SOx shipping emissions.

#7.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 12:29 (Reply)

if you're taking flak you're over the target.

If I was wrong you wouldn't bother trying to convince anyone I was wrong, you would simply leave me hanging out there for all to see. It is because I'm right that I MUST be confronted and "fact checked".

"Efforts are already underway to reduce both CO2 and SOx shipping emissions."

Not accurate. The effort is to "tax" these activities. That is after all the whole purpose of this scam.

Imagine you really wanted to stop these emissions. You would stop the activity. Simple as that. But now imagine that it is a scam to increase taxes. Ahhh! Now it makes sense, you DON'T want to stop the activity because then it would diminish your tax revenue. You only want to tax it and secretly hope it continues unabated while your cofferes and your power grows.

#7.1.1 OneGuy on 2021-09-30 16:00 (Reply)

OneGuy: The effort is to "tax" these activities.

Because shipping is international, primarily regulation through the International Maritime Organization is the mechanism, not taxes.
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-ships.aspx

#7.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-09-30 16:09 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, September 30. 2021

Thursday morning links