Humanity's emissions '100-times greater' than volcanoes

The CO2 released annually by volcanoes hovers around 0.3 and 0.4 gigatonnes—roughly 100 times less than manmade emissions
The CO2 released annually by volcanoes hovers around 0.3 and 0.4 gigatonnes—roughly 100 times less than manmade emissions

Human activity churns out up to 100 times more planet-warming carbon each year as all the volcanoes on Earth, says a decade-long study released Tuesday.

The Deep Carbon Observatory (DCO), a 500-strong international team of scientists, released a series of papers outlining how carbon is stored, emitted and reabsorbed by natural and manmade processes.

They found that manmade drastically outstrip the contribution of volcanoes—which belch out gas and are often fingered as a major climate change contributor—to current warming rates.

The findings, published in the journal Elements, showed just two-tenths of 1 percent of Earth's total carbon—around 43,500 gigatonnes—is above the surface in oceans, the land, and in our atmosphere.

The rest—a staggering 1.85 billion gigatonnes—is stored in our planet's crust, mantle and core, providing scientists with clues as to how Earth formed billions of years ago.

One gigatonne is equivalent to around 3 million Boeing 747s.

By measuring the prominence of certain carbon isotopes in rock samples around the world, the DCO were able to create a timeline stretching back 500 million years to map how carbon moved between land, sea and air.

They found that in general the planet self-regulated atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, over geological timeframes of hundreds of thousands of years.

The exceptions to this came in the form of "catastrophic disturbances" to Earth's carbon cycle, such as immense volcanic eruptions or the meteor strike that killed off the dinosaurs.

"In the past we see that these big carbon inputs to the atmosphere cause warming, cause huge changes in both the composition of the ocean and the availability of oxygen," said Marie Edmonds, Professor of Volcanology and Petrology and Ron Oxburgh Fellow in Earth Sciences at Queens' College, Cambridge.

The team estimated that the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago, which killed off three-quarters of all life on Earth, released between 425 and 1,400 gigatonnes of CO2.

Manmade emissions in 2018 alone topped 37 gigatonnes.

"The amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by anthropogenic (manmade) activity in the last 10-12 years (is equivalent) to the catastrophic change during these events we've seen in Earth's past," Edmonds told AFP.

Celina Suarez, Associate Professor of Geology at the University of Arkansas, said modern manmade emissions were the "same magnitude" as past carbon shocks that precipitated mass extinction.

"We are on the same level of carbon catastrophe which is a bit sobering," she told AFP.

'Not a human timescale'

By comparison, the CO2 released annually by volcanoes hovers around 0.3 and 0.4 gigatonnes—roughly 100 times less than manmade emissions.

"Climate sceptics really jump on volcanoes as a possible contender for top CO2 emissions but it's simply not the case," said Edmonds.

"It's also the timescale."

Whereas Earth's atmosphere has frequently contained higher concentrations of CO2 than the present day, outside of catastrophic eruptions it has taken hundreds of thousands of years for such levels to accumulate.

In contrast, manmade emissions have seen CO2 levels rise two thirds in a span of a few centuries.

"Climate deniers always say that Earth always rebalances itself," said Suarez.

"Well, yes it has. It will rebalance itself, but not on a timescale that is of signficance to humans."


Explore further

Scientists quantify global volcanic CO2 venting; estimate total carbon on Earth

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Humanity's emissions '100-times greater' than volcanoes (2019, October 1) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-10-humanity-emissions-times-greater-volcanoes.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
4656 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 01, 2019
oh...good golly!

confirmed, verifiable facts

i can hear already,
the denierbots screaming
as their saudi masters
whip their asses raw
for failing to prevent the release of this information

once the looneyticks have salved their whipmarks?
they will be inundating the internet
with screams of outrage
that their fraudulent propaganda is,
once again,
proven worthless bunk

Oct 01, 2019
lol headline doesn't match the article

''The exceptions to this came in the form of "catastrophic disturbances" to Earth's carbon cycle, such as immense volcanic eruptions or the meteor strike that killed off the dinosaurs.

"In the past we see that these big carbon inputs to the atmosphere cause warming, cause huge changes in both the composition of the ocean and the availability of oxygen," said Marie Edmonds, Professor of Volcanology and Petrology and Ron Oxburgh Fellow in Earth Sciences at Queens' College, Cambridge.

Oct 01, 2019
"The amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by anthropogenic (manmade) activity in the last 10-12 years (is equivalent) to the catastrophic change during these events we've seen in Earth's past," Edmonds told AFP." Okay then, where's the loss of 3/4 of all contemporary life species? It happened 66 million years ago, right? We've done the equivalent in the last dozen years, right? So, um, where is the massive loss?

Oct 01, 2019
"The amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by anthropogenic (manmade) activity in the last 10-12 years (is equivalent) to the catastrophic change during these events we've seen in Earth's past," Edmonds told AFP." Okay then, where's the loss of 3/4 of all contemporary life species? It happened 66 million years ago, right? We've done the equivalent in the last dozen years, right? So, um, where is the massive loss?


It is going on right now.

Oct 01, 2019
"In the past we see that these big carbon inputs to the atmosphere cause warming, cause huge changes in both the composition of the ocean and the availability of oxygen,"


WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF LIFE EVERYWHERE.
More Alarmist fraud.

Oct 01, 2019
And yet, all it took was one Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming, for years.
https://earthobse...pinatubo

Oct 01, 2019
rh10, a slippery little cuss ain't you?
working hard at that selective reading
been avoiding the recent articles of data collected,
showing drastic die-offs
in many species of life,
all across the globe,
all throughout the biosphere

well, you & the other lickspittles for putin & the saudis
need to work harder at your lying agitpropping

even the most self-involved, nloatedly-entitled, unaware trump-chumps
are beginning to notice that there is something going wrong with the climate
where they live
easy for them & you to enjoy the misery off others
but now it's your own precious lives?
your cowardly inhumanity is breaking out of your elytra

& whether or not you wethers notice the weather?
the weather is coming to put both boots right up your well-abused anuses

Oct 01, 2019
And yet, all it took was one Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming, for years.
https://earthobse...pinatubo


You might want to actually read that article. Pinatubo lowered the temperature for less than two years, mainly thanks to the amount of particulates that it spewed out. After that, the climate returned to the upward anthropogenic climb it has been on for decades.

https://agupubs.o...1GL02788

Oct 01, 2019
Well, looks like those long suffering staff in the loony asylum overdosed willis again. He's drooling all over his keyboard.

Oct 01, 2019
"In the past we see that these big carbon inputs to the atmosphere cause warming, cause huge changes in both the composition of the ocean and the availability of oxygen,"


WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF LIFE EVERYWHERE.
More Alarmist fraud.


You might want to read the literature before declaring it false.

https://www.pnas....62.short

Oct 01, 2019
snoose
lol headline doesn't match the article


Yes it does - it matches the article very well.
By comparison, the CO2 released annually by volcanoes hovers around 0.3 and 0.4 gigatonnes—roughly 100 times less than manmade emissions

Oct 01, 2019
You might want to read the literature before declaring it false.


CO2 levels had nothing to do with the dinosaur extinction. That's the implication.
This is Alarmist BS.

Oct 01, 2019
"The amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by anthropogenic (manmade) activity in the last 10-12 years (is equivalent) to the catastrophic change during these events we've seen in Earth's past," Edmonds told AFP." Okay then, where's the loss of 3/4 of all contemporary life species? It happened 66 million years ago, right? We've done the equivalent in the last dozen years, right? So, um, where is the massive loss?
1. The biodiversity loss is ongoing, you only need to read the news every day.
2. The bio loss is not so sudden as the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago, because that released 425 and 1,400 gigatonnes of CO2 (let's assume an average of 1000 gigatonnes) almost instantly.
On the contrary 37 gigatonnes of CO2 were released in a full year (in 2018). That's the 1/27th of the Chicxulub impact CO2 release. Splitting that CO2 release in 27 years allowed much of the CO2 to be absorbed by plants, minerals and the ocean, which is why we are not dead yet. However .. cont..

Oct 01, 2019
You might want to actually read that article. Pinatubo lowered the temperature for less than two years,
--Anonym869597

Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).

Nope just the once was enough to understand that the cooling peaked at 1F for 15 months and then took even longer to slowly dissipate.

Oct 01, 2019
The bio loss is not so sudden as the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago, because that released 425 and 1,400 gigatonnes of CO2
--Sahstar
Uh huh, and that's just a drop in the bucket [pun intended] compared to the amount of water, the far more potent GHG, that was ejected.

Oct 01, 2019
cont.. However there are limits to how much CO2 the Earth can absorb. The oceans have got much more acidic due the extra CO2 they have absorbed. That puts fish and other ocean life (incl. corals) in danger. As temperatures rise the oceans absorb less and less CO2 (cool water absorbs CO2 better), and will soon start to emit it back.

Plants and forests thrive with more CO2 but they also have their limit. Besides burnt rainforests can absorb nothing, and also emit all their stored CO2 back. Minerals also have their limit. Beyond some CO2 level they reach a saturation point. The rest of the CO2 that cannot be absorbed contributes more CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn gives rise to higher temperatures... which in turn gives rise to more CO2 emissions from the oceans and the burnt forests etc etc, in a positive feedback loop.
Unless we start to address this major problem radically this planet has only a couple of survivable centuries left. That's not alarmism, it's realism.

Oct 01, 2019
And yet, all it took was one Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming, for years.
https://earthobse...pinatubo
Pinatubo did not cause a drop in temperature due to CO2 release. If it had released just CO2 (which is impossible for a volcano to do of course) it would have contributed to a (very small) temperature rise. Pinatubo's ash and aerosols quite simply blocked some sunlight. That's why the temperature dropped. CO2 cannot do that because it is transparent to sunlight. CO2 does not block sunlight but it is a greenhouse effect gas, just as methane is. The article you linked is very good. It is unfortunate that you clearly did not read it, since it says absolutely nothing to support your unscientific claims.

Oct 01, 2019
Pinatubo did not cause a drop in temperature due to CO2 release...

I could have done better at making my point. Which is a big deal is being made that humans are warming the planet with a 100 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes, yet just one was able to cancel all the claimed warming.

Oct 01, 2019
Pinatubo did not cause a drop in temperature due to CO2 release...

I could have done better at making my point. Which is a big deal is being made that humans are warming the planet with a 100 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes, yet just one was able to cancel all the claimed warming.


Pinatubo did not "cancel all the claimed warming"; it lowered temperatures slightly for a short period of time thanks to the particulates it put out. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Oct 01, 2019
plant trees
paint all artificial sky facing surfaces a reflective color
tell your leaders and social gadflies to stop flying chartered and private jet transport.

Oct 01, 2019
Pinatubo did not "cancel all the claimed warming"; it lowered temperatures slightly for a short period of time thanks to the particulates it put out. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Well, according to this - http://berkeleyea...ratures/ from 1980 to 2019 global temperature rose < 0.6C which according to my link was how much Pinatubo's cooling was for 15 months. What I'm asking is, how much man-made CO2 would have to be removed from the atmosphere for the same effect, 100, 200, 1000 times that emitted by all the volcanoes?

Oct 01, 2019
What I'm asking is, how much man-made CO2 would have to be removed from the atmosphere for the same effect, 100, 200, 1000 times that emitted by all the volcanoes?


Basically, all of the CO2 put in since 1980. This is a conservative system.

But what Pinatubo did was reflect sunlight away, thanks to all those particulates. (There is a lot of literature suggesting this was why temperatures cooled in the 1970s; the sulfur particulates from coal-burning.) In effect, Pinatubo increased the Earth's albedo until the particulates rained out and things went back to what passes for normal these days. It was a short-term effect that had nothing to do with the CO2 of Pinatubo; indeed, many other volcanoes have had erupted since then with no discernible cooling effect.

Oct 01, 2019
I just realized that you may be confusing "temperature" with "heat". (Easy to do since we measure proxies for temperature and calculate heat from that.)

The heat added to the Earth's system has created an average annual increase in air temperature of about 0.6C, but that heat has gone lots of places (e.g., the ocean, melting ice, expanding seawater) and it will take time for that heat to make its way back out of the system. That's why your statement about "cancelling the warming" is wrong. It is like putting a jug of water into the fridge and claiming it has instantly turned to ice because the air temperature inside the jug has dropped.

Oct 01, 2019
--Anonym869597
Exactly, hence my original post. And, you don't have to keep repeating the science behind volcanic cooling. What you need to research, is what happened to those sulphur particulates as a result of all the clean air acts enacted in the '70s and its effect on the appearance of the warming from the '80s onward.

Oct 01, 2019
--Anonym869597
Oh, so you think that graph is generated from ACTUAL air temperature measurements?

Oct 01, 2019
careful anon, you'll trigger infantile tantrums by auntieoral & cantthink
when you present verifiable data based on real science by real scientists

all their data is collected by auntieoral & cantthink from their magical ouiija board
& i'd suspect they were also abusing magical mushrooms at the time

the job of a denierbot is a pathetic excuse for being so nonfunctional
especially when everyone, including their own saudi masters, mock & sneer at this pair of losers


Oct 01, 2019
Around 1983 an Asian volcano blew up. For a couple years, evidence of its emissions could be SEEN in the atmosphere, weird sunsets, etc. That was the entire world. Nothing man has done has come close to that.

Oct 01, 2019
And yet, all it took was one Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming, for years.
https://earthobse...pinatubo


Actually you bring up a good point. Volcanic eruptions do add CO2 to the atmosphere, but the SO2 (sulfur dioxide) they put into the stratosphere causes global cooling. Explosive volcanoes like Mt Pinatubo, are measured on a scale, the VEI where every increase indicates a power of ten in the amount of ash and gasses ejected. Mt. Pinatubo was VEI 6, there are approximately three VEI 6 eruptions per century. VEI 7 eruptions occur about three times per thousand years. The last one was Mt. Tambora in 1815, causing "the year without a summer," and killing tens of thousands of people through famine. The last VEI 8, the Toba eruption (about 75,000 years ago) nearly wiped out the human race.

I don't lose any sleep over global warming. I worry about caldera (VEI 7 and 8) eruptions instead.

Oct 01, 2019
Well eachus, if you are worried about those high VEI eruptions then get ready to lose some sleep over global warming. You see, what those volcanoes do, is exactly what the Global Warmist Nutters plan with their geo-engineering, and it's guaranteed they will fuck things up, worse than any of those volcanoes. Those morons won't rest until their prophesies of doom and gloom, becomes self-fulfilling.

Oct 02, 2019
oh...good golly!

confirmed, verifiable facts

i can hear already,
the denierbots screaming
as their saudi masters
whip their asses raw
for failing to prevent the release of this information

once the looneyticks have salved their whipmarks?
they will be inundating the internet
with screams of outrage
that their fraudulent propaganda is,
once again,
proven worthless bunk

ROTFLMAO LOLOLOLOL ! ! ! ! :D ! That must mean antigoracle is salving his raw bum right now as he tries to thump the keyboard with vacuum filled comments yes ! ! ! ?

Oct 02, 2019
And yet, all it took was one Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming, for years.
https://earthobse...pinatubo
And monkey goes bananas again... in full force lol:

While volcanic eruptions are devastating locally, they do help with global warming a bit. But the effects don't last long, and in the medium to long run are completely overrun by human activities which contribute to warming. The most cataclysmic eruptions only put a fraction of the junk into the air as humans do (to the tune of 40 billion tons per year of just carbon dioxide). ;)

Oct 02, 2019
Around 1983 an Asian volcano blew up. For a couple years, evidence of its emissions could be SEEN in the atmosphere, weird sunsets, etc. That was the entire world. Nothing man has done has come close to that.
Really ??? Lol... which banana leaves have you smoked ? I think your banana droll blew up in your face, that must've been clogging the view of your sunset LOL !

The most cataclysmic eruptions only put a fraction of the junk into the air as humans do (to the tune of 40 billion tons per year of just carbon dioxide) ;)

Oct 02, 2019
I just realized that you may be confusing "temperature" with "heat".
You may be right; cranks can't count. Heat is energy; temperature is not. Temperature is dependent on many more factors than the simple heat energy added to a system.

Well played.

Oct 02, 2019
careful anon, you'll trigger infantile tantrums by auntieoral & cantthink
when you present verifiable data based on real science by real scientists

all their data is collected by auntieoral & cantthink from their magical ouiija board
& i'd suspect they were also abusing magical mushrooms at the time

the job of a denierbot is a pathetic excuse for being so nonfunctional
especially when everyone, including their own saudi masters, mock & sneer at this pair of losers
ROTFLMAO....Oh man i love these comments they are so spot on haven't laughed this hard in along time, i can just hear the whip cracking as antigoracle and his sockies gets lined up for yet another round LOLOLOLOL ! ! !

Oct 02, 2019
--Anonym869597
Oh, so you think that graph is generated from ACTUAL air temperature measurements?


Yes, it is. The data is adjusted to account for moving stations and so forth , typically by decreasing the temperature measured to match the previous baseline. (This also has the side effect of reducing the apparent warming trend.) As I noted previously, we measure temperature because it is far easier to measure than heat and serves as a good proxy.

This is very basic science. I'm surprised you don't know it.

Oct 02, 2019
the only surprise would be
if he accidentally understood
a scientific fact in context

Oct 02, 2019
--Anonym869597
Oh, so you think that graph is generated from ACTUAL air temperature measurements?


Yes, it is. The data is adjusted to account for moving stations and so forth , typically by decreasing the temperature measured to match the previous baseline. (This also has the side effect of reducing the apparent warming trend.) As I noted previously, we measure temperature because it is far easier to measure than heat and serves as a good proxy.

This is very basic science. I'm surprised you don't know it.

You are absolutely clueless. Do some research on -
How temperatures are measured at sea which covers 70% of the planet.
How temperatures are measured at the poles. You must think that there are thermometers all over the ice, right?
On data interpolation and why artificial station data is created and why it is artificially increasing the trend.
The difference between heat and temperature.

I'm not surprised that you are so ignorant.

Oct 02, 2019

You are absolutely clueless. Do some research on -
How temperatures are measured at sea which covers 70% of the planet.
How temperatures are measured at the poles. You must think that there are thermometers all over the ice, right?
On data interpolation and why artificial station data is created and why it is artificially increasing the trend.
The difference between heat and temperature.

I'm not surprised that you are so ignorant.


The only clueless person here is the one NOT providing anything to back up his assertions.

The temperature curve does not use "artificial station data". As for temperature measurement at the poles, try these sources:
https://www.polar...stations

WRT sea surface temperatures, we use a combination of buoys (for ground truth) and satellite data:
https://podaac.jp...perature

Again, this is basic science. Why are you so ill-informed?

Oct 02, 2019
LMAO.
Did you even read those links, far less comprehend any of it.
-100 hundred stations to cover the vast Antarctic continent and how many over the Arctic?
-You think SST is the air temperature, right?

The very fact that you are demonstrably clueless but keeps barking "this is basic science", just confirms it isn't, at least to you certainly.

Tell me, what is your understanding on how the global temperature in that graph is determined?
BTW. Ever wonder why you can't find any graph that shows how much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if we stopped all man-made CO2 emissions today?

Oct 02, 2019
Yes, I understand the science. I have a degree in planetology, so I'm fairly comfortable with this.

There is a known relationship between SST and air temperature.

We know that the poles are under-sampled, which is why we work so hard to ensure that the data is good.

As for "that graph", you'll need to be more specific. There are a lot of graphs out there.

And I've already pointed you to the peer-reviewed paper that tells you exactly how much the planet would cool at the current level of CO2 emissions. Perhaps you should read it?

Oct 02, 2019
Well, I can see comfortable certainly does not mean knowledgeable.

- What's the relationship between SST and SAT. Is there a relationship between solar irradiance and measured surface temperature? Now, ask yourself does the weather station thermometer always reflect the amount of solar irradiance?
- Good, so after I pointed it out to you, you realized that the poles are under-sampled. But, do you know what that means for the data that goes into plotting all those graphs that "prove" man-made CO2 is responsible?
- As for "that graph", you can choose any of the hundreds that claims global warming is correlated with man-made CO2 and "predicts" what the future warming would be.
So, what I'm asking is for you to find just ONE that predicts how much the global cooling would be, correlated with reducing man-made CO2.

Oct 02, 2019
I've already answered your questions. That you keep insisting that I have not merely demonstrates that you are unwilling to accept the answer. And that you confuse solar irradiance with temperature shows your abysmal lack of knowledge in the field.

BTW, there are no graphs showing that "global warming is correlated with man-made CO2". What there are is graphs that show what the temperature record is and (in the better ones) shows how that matches the predictions made all the way back in the early 1900s using the physics of the situation. So far, the climatologists are doing a very good job of predictions.

Again, here's the paper you have asked for:
https://www.rsc.o...3546.pdf

Oct 02, 2019
And that you confuse solar irradiance with temperature shows your abysmal lack of knowledge in the field.

LMAO.
Where do you think the energy comes from to warm the planet which is measured by those thermometers? Research radiative forcing and the foundation of global warming.

And, wow, a document from 1896, sure explains your posts.

Oct 02, 2019
And that you confuse solar irradiance with temperature shows your abysmal lack of knowledge in the field.

LMAO.
Where do you think the energy comes from to warm the planet which is measured by those thermometers? Research radiative forcing and the foundation of global warming.

And, wow, a document from 1896, sure explains your posts.

Yeah. That document from 1896 is the one "that shows how much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if we stopped all man-made CO2 emissions today". That you keep asking for one shows just how far behind the literature you are.

Then again, you also think that temperature and heat are the same thing (witness your repeated claim that "Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming") and don't understand how we monitor temperatures around the globe, so why should we expect you to be able to converse about this on any level?

Oct 02, 2019
Then again, you also think that temperature and heat are the same thing (witness your repeated claim that "Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming")

LMAO.
Then, you should get someone to explain the following to you.
https://www.cbsne...8-11-23/

Oct 02, 2019
Then again, you also think that temperature and heat are the same thing (witness your repeated claim that "Mount Pinatubo to defeat all that GloBull warming")

LMAO.
Then, you should get someone to explain the following to you.
https://www.cbsne...8-11-23/


You continue to make the basic error of assuming that temperature is the same as heat.

Pinatubo reduced the temperature of the Earth for less than two years. However, it did NOT remove the heat from the previous years not did it remove the effects of that heat. It did not lower the sea level rise caused by global warming, nor did it restore the glaciers that had melted. As noted before, your claim is the equivalent of saying that simply because the air temperature in a jug of water is below freezing when you put it in a refrigerator, you've made ice.

Oct 02, 2019
anon, if you haven't already reached a judgement?
on hypocrite sockpup-auntieoral's campaign of outright lies
& misinformation,
plagiarized out of context
from Real Scientists work?

it is a waste of your TIME to be disputing interpretations of reality with a yech! denierbot
that is nothing more than a cheap circuit board at a russian or saudi dark web site

maliciously programed to constantly repeat the same lying propaganda, endlessly

Oct 02, 2019
The researchers examined how practical and costly a hypothetical solar geoengineering project would be beginning 15 years from now. THE AIM WOULD BE TO HALF THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE CAUSED BY HEAT-TRAPPING GREENHOUSE GASES..

LMAO.
Wow, you can't even take sound advice. As I said, get someone to explain the following to you -
https://www.cbsne...8-11-23/ and then my post.

Oct 02, 2019

Wow, you can't even take sound advice. As I said, get someone to explain the following to you -
https://www.cbsne...8-11-23/ and then my post.


And you still confuse heat with temperature. Here's a hint: are they trying to reduce the amount of temperature that the Earth gets or the amount of heat?

Oct 02, 2019
Wow, you can't even take sound advice. As I said, get someone to explain the following to you -
https://www.cbsne...8-11-23/ and then my post.


Lol. You really are clueless, aren't you, woo boy (rhetorical)? Never did science did you, little boy? Again, that is rhetorical. A wee bit thick? Struggling mathematically? And scientifically? Got a chip on one's shoulder about being so dumb?
Not questions. Just facts. Shame. I find it hard to imagine what it would be like to maybe lose 60 or 70 IQ points, and you make sure that I never wish to find out! Razor blade time! Take my advice - do us all a favour! Death is infinitely preferable to continued stupidity. Do yourself a favour. Do it now. Do not breed. Just go!

Oct 02, 2019
And you still confuse heat with temperature. Here's a hint: are they trying to reduce the amount of temperature that the Earth gets or the amount of heat?
--Anonym
Please tell me what part of the following, from those SCIENTISTS who want to do geo-engineering that copies the effect of Pinatubo, don't you get.-
THE AIM WOULD BE TO HALF THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE CAUSED BY HEAT-TRAPPING GREENHOUSE GASES.

Oct 02, 2019
And you still confuse heat with temperature. Here's a hint: are they trying to reduce the amount of temperature that the Earth gets or the amount of heat?
--Anonym
Please tell me what part of the following, from those SCIENTISTS who want to do geo-engineering that copies the effect of Pinatubo, don't you get.-
THE AIM WOULD BE TO HALF THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE CAUSED BY HEAT-TRAPPING GREENHOUSE GASES.


Now read that back to yourself, slowly. Notice how the temperature change is caused by trapping heat and isn't the same as heat? Or are we still going too fast for you?

Oct 02, 2019
Ok, let's slow down.
Tell me what is TEMPERATURE and what is HEAT?

Oct 02, 2019
Ok, let's slow down.
Tell me what is TEMPERATURE and what is HEAT?


Mate, just leave science alone, yes? Why embarrass yourself further?

Oct 03, 2019
"planet-warming carbon"

Where is the evidence that CO2 is "planet-warming", as the article alleges without a shred of objectivity?

CO2 is a tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere & only absorbs a tiny fraction of the infrared part of the EM spectrum (most of which is already saturated by water vapour). So I fail to see how this makes CO2 a "planet-warming" gas.

Oct 03, 2019
Tell me what is TEMPERATURE and what is HEAT?
Sure. Temperature is the average velocity of particles in a medium; heat is how fast they go vs. what their mass is. That's the difference between velocity and kinetic energy, if you were paying attention.

Next?

Oct 03, 2019
Congratulations DaSchitebo, now pay attention. That conversation was NOT, Duh (you), Anon, me. Now, F OFF, because it earned you an IGNORE.

Oct 03, 2019
Da Schneib gave an excellent response to you rather basic question. No wonder you want to ignore them.

What you keep missing is that reducing the amount of incoming heat doesn't magically cool the planet; it takes time for the system to get rid of the heat stored in it.

Here's another basic example that might get the concept through to you: Imagine that you have put a pot of water on the stove at high heat and left it there long enough to raise the water temperature to 90°C. You then take the pot of water off of the heat. Does it magically return to room temperature or does it take some time?

What the scientists in the news article you keep citing are doing is effectively reducing the heat under that pot of water from high to medium. It still heats the water; it just takes longer to do so.

Now do you get it? Or are you determined to be trollish?

Oct 03, 2019
"planet-warming carbon"

Where is the evidence that CO2 is "planet-warming", as the article alleges without a shred of objectivity?

CO2 is a tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere & only absorbs a tiny fraction of the infrared part of the EM spectrum (most of which is already saturated by water vapour). So I fail to see how this makes CO2 a "planet-warming" gas.


Here's your evidence:
https://skeptical...fect.htm

Please note that this has been known since the mid-1800's so it isn't exactly new science.

Oct 03, 2019
What the scientists in the news article you keep citing are doing is effectively reducing the heat under that pot of water from high to medium. It still heats the water; it just takes longer to do so.

Now do you get it? Or are you determined to be trollish?

Alrighty. Now let's put that in the context of global warming and picture your pot is the planet and the stove is the sun.
So, the claim is that man-made CO2 is trapping HEAT and so is warming the planet, which is reflected in the TEMPERATURES measured. Right? / Wrong?
Now, the cure is to cut man-made CO2 which would "effectively reduce the heat under that pot of water from high to medium. It (the sun) still heats the water; it just takes longer to do so". Right? / Wrong?

How is that outcome different to that from the article?
Now do you get it? Or are you determined to be trollish?

Oct 03, 2019
Tell me what is TEMPERATURE and what is HEAT?
Sure. Temperature is the average velocity of particles in a medium; heat is how fast they go vs. what their mass is. That's the difference between velocity and kinetic energy, if you were paying attention.

Next?
ROTFLMAO.... Monkeydooo goracle smoking those banana drolls again ??

Oct 03, 2019
Congratulations DaSchitebo, now pay attention. That conversation was NOT, Duh (you), Anon, me. Now, F OFF, because it earned you an IGNORE.

No dummy we really don't care who you ignore, we do however enjoy you making a clown of yourself, and we are quick to point that out ;) especially because you enjoy it so much....LOL...sorry can't do anything about the whipping you get from your saudi masters though.

Oct 03, 2019
What the scientists in the news article you keep citing are doing is effectively reducing the heat under that pot of water from high to medium. It still heats the water; it just takes longer to do so.

Now do you get it? Or are you determined to be trollish?

Alrighty. Now let's put that in the context of global warming and picture your pot is the planet and the stove is the sun.
So, the claim is that man-made CO2 is trapping HEAT and so is warming the planet, which is reflected in the TEMPERATURES measured. Right? / Wrong?


Partially right. Increasing air temperatures is ONE of the ways that we can measure the added heat thanks to anthropogenic CO2. Other ways include melting glaciers, heating up the oceans (deep and shallow), and sea level rise due to thermal expansion. Climatologists look at all of these factors. Idiots, on the other hand, tend to focus on just the air temperature.


Oct 03, 2019
Now, the cure is to cut man-made CO2 which would "effectively reduce the heat under that pot of water from high to medium. It (the sun) still heats the water; it just takes longer to do so". Right? / Wrong?


Wrong. Reducing CO2 will reduce the amount of heat but there are other alternatives.

How is that outcome different to that from the article?


Because the article doesn't describe a method for reducing CO2. It describes a method for increasing the Earth's albedo, reducing the amount of insolation, by spraying particulates into the atmosphere.

Reducing CO2 can help in the long run (and make us money). Spraying particulates is a temporary fix at best; it is the equivalent of dropping some ice cubes into a pot of hot water without turning down the heat. Sure, it cools things down for a bit, but then the water starts right back heating up.

Now do you get it? Or are you determined to be trollish?

Oct 03, 2019
monkey goracle and his trolls getting ready for another whipping round

Oct 03, 2019
"planet-warming carbon"

Where is the evidence that CO2 is "planet-warming", as the article alleges without a shred of objectivity?

CO2 is a tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere & only absorbs a tiny fraction of the infrared part of the EM spectrum (most of which is already saturated by water vapour). So I fail to see how this makes CO2 a "planet-warming" gas.

Dummy antigoracle sockpuppet just does not understand the science:
The "common sense" scale argument that a very small part of something can't have much of an effect on it, it only takes 0.1 grams of cyanide to kill an adult, which is about 0.0001% of your body weight. Compare this with carbon dioxide, which currently makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and is a strong greenhouse gas. Meanwhile, nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere and yet is highly unreactive.

Oct 04, 2019
..air temperatures is ONE of the ways that we can measure the added heat thanks to anthropogenic CO2. Other ways include melting glaciers, heating up the oceans (deep and shallow), and sea level rise due to thermal expansion. Climatologists look at all of these factors. Idiots, on the other hand, tend to focus on just the air temperature.

Well, I'm sure you don't get, that even an idiot like you can go sit outside and tell the variation in heat, from sunrise to sundown, more accurately than any climatologist, with the best of equipment, can measure melting glaciers, heating up the oceans (deep and shallow), and sea level rise due to thermal expansion. Far less determine how much of it is caused by anthropogenic CO2. You see those systems are also full of unknowns, that introduce uncertainties which are essentially noise. And, you are full of, yet will still be as mentioned. Now, do you get, why you blindly accept what those climatologist tell you? Of course not.

Oct 04, 2019
Gee, haven't we seen a lot of articles on this site on the effects on humans of particulate pollution?

Does this seem like a real great idea to anyone?

Looks about like the bungling Chinese trying to sell coal power plants to the Africans.

Oct 04, 2019
You see those systems are also full of unknowns, that introduce uncertainties which are essentially noise.
No dummy you shouldn't believe all the noise your saudi whipmasters tell you, nor that of the asylum walls you think is talking to you, these uncertainties are taken into account, the overall conclusion from decades of science around the world is not thumb sucked by a bunch of saudi goons creating a troll out of you...lol reminds me of a kids toon i once have seen my children watch, gummy bears, the idiot duke and you are one of his trolls... O this is so relevant... LMAO...

Oct 04, 2019

Well, I'm sure you don't get, that even an idiot like you can go sit outside and tell the variation in heat, from sunrise to sundown, more accurately than any climatologist, with the best of equipment, can measure melting glaciers, heating up the oceans (deep and shallow), and sea level rise due to thermal expansion.


No, you can't. Again you confuse heat with temperature. But that's your pattern, isn't it? Lie about the science and then blame others when your errors are pointed out.

Far less determine how much of it is caused by anthropogenic CO2.


Actually, we know that pretty well. We can calculate it from first principles and we can then check our answers with direct measurements.
https://skeptical...nce.html

Oct 04, 2019
LMAO.
So, you are saying that you're so stupid, that if you go and sit outside, that you won't be able to discern the variation in warmth as the sun rises, move across the sky and sets in the evening.

Oct 04, 2019
@antigoracle

Ad Hominem (Abusive)

argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Oct 04, 2019
LMAO.
So, you are saying that you're so stupid, that if you go and sit outside, that you won't be able to discern the variation in warmth as the sun rises, move across the sky and sets in the evening.
ROTFLMAO... monkeyyyy... I see the evidence is really challenging those 2 peas of yours today eh... o..actually is see everyday LOL.. let those 2 peas compute what they can best, (counting those bananas) leave the science to the clever people ;)

Oct 04, 2019
LMAO.
So, you are saying that you're so stupid, that if you go and sit outside, that you won't be able to discern the variation in warmth as the sun rises, move across the sky and sets in the evening.


No, I'm saying that you're so stupid that you keep demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between heat and temperature. A temperature of 20°C can feel just as warm as a temperature of 30°C, given the right environmental conditions. In addition, you don't understand the difference between weather (one day's temperature variations) and climate (the averaged variation over a long period of time).

Oct 04, 2019
A temperature of 20°C can feel just as warm as a temperature of 30°C, given the right environmental conditions.

And, what are those conditions?

In addition, you don't understand the difference between weather (one day's temperature variations) and climate (the averaged variation over a long period of time).

And, what is that long period of time?

Oct 04, 2019
A temperature of 20°C can feel just as warm as a temperature of 30°C, given the right environmental conditions.

And, what are those conditions?

https://en.wikipe...at_index


In addition, you don't understand the difference between weather (one day's temperature variations) and climate (the averaged variation over a long period of time).

And, what is that long period of time?


Typically on the order of a decade:
https://www.clima...ages-map

That you don't know these basic things speaks volumes about your ability to say anything meaningful on the topic.

Oct 04, 2019
So, if humidity can make you feel 20°C is 30, are thermometers similarly affected?
If so, then how are the actual temperatures determined?

"Typically on the order of a decade:"
Why a decade? Why not 20, 30, 50 or a 100 years?

The fact that you blindly accept without comprehension those "basic" things, speaks volumes about your ability to say anything meaningful on the topic.

Oct 04, 2019
So, if humidity can make you feel 20°C is 30, are thermometers similarly affected?
If so, then how are the actual temperatures determined?


No, thermometers are usually better at determining the temperature than humans. Strange that you wouldn't know that.


"Typically on the order of a decade:"
Why a decade? Why not 20, 30, 50 or a 100 years?


The longer periods are also used for some purposes (in some cases, thousand-year periods are useful). For this discussion, the noise averages out after about eight years or so, allowing the trend to become obvious. Climatologists use a decade because it is easy to remember and simpler for normilization purposes.

Again, this is basic knowledge; I leave it out because anyone who wants to discuss the topic should be informed enough to know these things.

Oct 04, 2019
No, thermometers are usually better at determining the temperature than humans. Strange that you wouldn't know that.

So, you are saying thermometers are NOT affected by humidity?
If not, then why not? What makes them immune?

Climatologists use a decade because it is easy to remember and simpler for normilization purposes.

Really?
Is there a scientific paper to back that up or is that just your "basic" knowledge?

Oct 04, 2019
No, thermometers are usually better at determining the temperature than humans. Strange that you wouldn't know that.

So, you are saying thermometers are NOT affected by humidity?
If not, then why not? What makes them immune?


Not what I said. I guess that's just more proof that you don't understand science. You might be asking about the wet-bulb temperature. Then again, given that you still don't know the difference between temperature and heat, you could be asking about anything.


Climatologists use a decade because it is easy to remember and simpler for normilization purposes.

Really?
Is there a scientific paper to back that up or is that just your "basic" knowledge?


Sure. Here's the dumbed-down version for you:
https://www.ncdc....-normals

(NB: they use three decades here for the normalization and shift it at the start of each new decade.)

Oct 04, 2019
Well, first you claimed, humans are affected by humidity in determining temperature.
Then I asked if thermometers are also affected by humidity.
Then you said - "No, thermometers are usually better at determining the temperature than humans."
So, now I'm asking.
How are thermometers better? Are they immune from humidity? If so, then how are they immune?


(NB: they use three decades here for the normalization and shift it at the start of each new decade.)

NB: I did not ask you WHETHER, I asked you WHY they use 30 years?

Oct 04, 2019
Well, first you claimed, humans are affected by humidity in determining temperature.
Then I asked if thermometers are also affected by humidity.
Then you said - "No, thermometers are usually better at determining the temperature than humans."
So, now I'm asking.
How are thermometers better? Are they immune from humidity? If so, then how are they immune?


I've answered that. If you don't understand the answer, perhaps you shouldn't play on the internet any more.


(NB: they use three decades here for the normalization and shift it at the start of each new decade.)

NB: I did not ask you WHETHER, I asked you WHY they use 30 years?


And that was in my very first statement on the subject. If you want the math, it is here:
http://www.public...sis.html

Oct 04, 2019
Your answer was - "No, thermometers are USUALLY better at determining the temperature than humans."
If they are "USUALLY" better, then that means sometimes they are not. So, how do we know when they are and how do we know when the temperature is correct?

IF YOU WANT THE MATH, IT IS HERE:
And, where in that maths did you see the explanation for choosing 30 years?

Oct 04, 2019
Your answer was - "No, thermometers are USUALLY better at determining the temperature than humans."
If they are "USUALLY" better, then that means sometimes they are not. So, how do we know when they are and how do we know when the temperature is correct?


See the comment on wet bulb temperature.


IF YOU WANT THE MATH, IT IS HERE:
And, where in that maths did you see the explanation for choosing 30 years?


It is obvious to anyone who understands math.

Oct 04, 2019
And, what does wet bulb temperature have to do with accurately measuring the air temperature?

So, it's obvious to you. Now show me, where did they explain the reason for choosing 30 years?

Oct 04, 2019
And, what does wet bulb temperature have to do with accurately measuring the air temperature?


If you knew the science, you'd know the answer.

If you were honest about wanting to discuss the science, you'd research the answer.


So, it's obvious to you. Now show me, where did they explain the reason for choosing 30 years?


Ibidem.

Oct 04, 2019
If you knew the answer and were honest about discussing the science, then you would tell me the answer so that the discussion could progress.

Stupidem -->YOU.

Oct 04, 2019
If you knew the answer and were honest about discussing the science, then you would tell me the answer so that the discussion could progress.


I've already told you the answers. You just refuse to understand them.

Oct 04, 2019
Yep and now you are on IGNORE you ignoramus.

Oct 04, 2019
@Anonym869597, you are doing very well. You should choose a username here, if you are interested in maintaining privacy something catchy that you have never used or mentioned anywhere. It will make you easier to address, and given your obvious perspicacity, support.

Anonym869597 is kind of unwieldy. But I only suggest, I do not direct. If we have to we'll try to keep you straight from all the other anonymous accounts, but frankly most of them are cranks, which you are not. You might get some backspatter due to that, and that is why I suggest it.

I have no comment on your posts; you seem to be doing, as I said, well.

Oct 05, 2019
If you knew the answer and were honest about discussing the science, then you would tell me the answer so that the discussion could progress.


I've already told you the answers. You just refuse to understand them.

ROTFLMAO, its not a question of refusing to understand the science, it's a limitation between the ears, monkey antigoracle spends his life swinging trees chest thumping and peeling bananas, everytime he replies it gets funnier, the saudi whipmasters is having a blast with this one LOL

Oct 05, 2019
Yep and now you are on IGNORE you ignoramus.

Oooo... Really ???? Dummy... does it look like we care at all ? LOL we and the world gets to see the utterly dumb and stupidity of your comments, you being utterly incapable of understanding even the Basics of Science, whether you ignore the science or nor not YOU still get to be seen by the world as a crank, funnier it does not get... comedy gold... LOL !

Oct 05, 2019
@Anonym869597, you are doing very well. You should choose a username here, if you are interested in maintaining privacy something catchy that you have never used or mentioned anywhere. It will make you easier to address, and given your obvious perspicacity, support.


I had intended to do so. But I goofed and missed the spot on the registration where you could set a username and now, according to support, it is too late. Such is life.

Oct 05, 2019
@Anonym869597
it is too late
only for the current profile
You can create another profile and simply state you're previously known as Anonym869597 in the first few posts

The literate will know who you are simply by your posts but you will probably receive snark from the pseudoscience and other ideological fanatics

Just FYI, though you likely already know based on the above exchange, antigoracle (aka - antig) is just trolling you. he's a denier of climate science due to his political ideology.

welcome to the nut house

Oct 05, 2019
LMAO.
The LY.ING StumPID troll biatch can't handle the truth, so he runs here to bit.ch and bray his lie.

Oct 05, 2019
@Anonym869597
it is too late
only for the current profile
You can create another profile and simply state you're previously known as Anonym869597 in the first few posts


According to the nice gentleman at support, I'd have to wait a month to create a new profile. I like you folks too much to wait that long.


Just FYI, though you likely already know based on the above exchange, antigoracle (aka - antig) is just trolling you. he's a denier of climate science due to his political ideology.


Oh, yes; I recognized the sea lioning almost immediately. I respond mainly to keep others from being confused by his nonsense.


welcome to the nut house


Ook!

Oct 05, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 06, 2019
LMAO.
The LY.ING StumPID troll biatch can't handle the truth, so he runs here to bit.ch and bray his lie.
antisciencegorilla showing his commitment to LYING and competing for the next banana (guess what, he always wins.. LOL)

Oct 06, 2019
Watch out for the LY.IN StumPid, troll. Look at his posts, absolutely nothing, but trying to provoke those who he wants to get banned.
But YOU are the monkey Troll LOL

See how you were given the correct answers over and over but still those 2 peas could not fathom truth from fiction posting even dumber questions instead LMAO

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more