[iNow]

keep_talking, on 9 January 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

If we are truly responsible for the largest contribution to GHG...what % of GHG comes from say...erupting volcanoes?

http://volcanoes.usg...gas/climate.php

Quote

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

More here: http://www.agu.org/p...011EO240001.pdf

[JohnB]

I was reading some papers recently that changed the estimates for volcanic outgassing. IIRC the amounts were about tripled, however that doesn't take from iNows point that anthropo causes are still far larger than volcanic ones.

I find that this is an area where there is some confusion and meaning has to be made clear. For many trying to understand the various arguments the terminology can be confusing so it's always advisable to make sure whether you are talking about "amounts" or "flux".

Consequently when talking about volcanoes then the anthropo emissions "dwarf" them, however when discussing the annual carbon cycle and fluxes, the anthropo content is "dwarfed" by the natural amounts.

http://globecarboncy...eBackground.pdf
http://science.nasa....n-carbon-cycle/

[Essay]

JohnB, on 12 January 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Consequently when talking about volcanoes then the anthropo emissions "dwarf" them, however when discussing the annual carbon cycle and fluxes, the anthropo content is "dwarfed" by the natural amounts.

JohnB, a good point. Of course you are not confusing "the annual carbon cycle and fluxes" [the "natural" amount that dwarfs the anthro CO2] with the natural volcanic amount that is dwarfed by anthro CO2.

And just think... if we could shift that flux in the "natural amounts," which do dwarf anthro emissions ...shifting just 1% or 2% would solve the problem, eh?

That is the point about focusing upon land use--and the rhizosphere--to make a big difference.
http://www.sciencefo...post__p__648780
re: your "Here is where we differ" post.
Note: the relevant quote from that post is bolded below (p.31).

Also from the 2007 book, "The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective

"Globally, the input of C to the soil [is] ...approximately one order of magnitude larger than the global annual rate of fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic emissions...."
"Thus small changes in the equilibrium between inputs and decomposition could have significant impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations...." --p.31

...also relevant:

Quote

"Whether the perspective is one of mechanics or of chemistry, the rhizosphere represents a highly significant interface between biology and geology, an interfacial environment with broad consequences for earth's biogeochemistry [including climate] and soil formation." --p.196

"As agriculture has evolved, the degree of intervention has grown steadily, culminating with the current, resource-intensive "Green Revolution" production systems where management interventions are often the dominant force shaping agroecosystem structure and function." --p.128

"It is against this backdrop of a highly modified soil environment and the cascading effects on soil biota that we examine the rhizosphere in agriculture and consider how to redirect management to restore rhizosphere processes and agroecosystem function." --p.133

~ "Thus small changes in the equilibrium....

[iNow]

http://www.smartplan...g-is-real/10021

Quote

If there were any doubt that a real warming trend is upon us, scientists at NASA have produced a visualization that depicts the recent rise in global temperatures as felt over a span of 130 years (see video above).

While the video shows a clear pattern of seasonal temperature changes along with momentary spikes throughout the centuries, you can see that it’s only recently that temperatures in most regions of the world (represented with intensified colors) started to really peak. In fact, since the year 2000, we’ve experienced nine of the 10 warmest years on record. And the researchers have noted that within the past 11 years, temperatures were significantly hotter than in the middle and late 20th century. For instance, the average temperature globally in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than baseline temperatures in the mid-20th century.

The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, registering as a virtual tie.

“We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,” said James E. Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record.”

The weather data was culled from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature and recordings from an Antarctic research station. Researchers then used a computer program (available to the public) to calculate the difference between the surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place from 1951 to 1980, which served as a baseline for the analysis. Similar results from the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center corroborated with NASA’s findings.

And if you’re wondering about the link between CO2 and global warming, here’s what the data from NASA shows:

• The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins.
  
• By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million.
  
• Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace.

While scientists don’t expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year, they do expect those figures to continue climbing over decades with extreme temperatures predicted in the next two to three years due to increased solar activity and the effects of El Nino on the tropical Pacific region.

“It’s always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it’s safe to say we’ll see one in the next three years,” Hansen said. “It won’t take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010.”

[Santalum]

JustinW, on 16 December 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period. The largest green house gases, from what I hear, is water vapor. What do you plan to do about that.

I believe that it is AGW deniers and the media that have over emphasized the problem as global warming.......because it is then easier for them to argue to the poorly science educated that any cold days any where in the world are evidence disproving climate change.

But those with reasonable science and maths education know very well that some cold days prove nothing about climate change either way.

[iNow]

JustinW, on 16 December 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

Where are the facts that prove this. Speculation if you ask me. I thought the term GLOBAL WARMING was dropped and replaced by the term CLIMATE CHANGE since they couldn't prove that it wasn't a natural warming period.

I think it's been made clear by now, but you thought wrong.


http://www.csmonitor...mate-change-now

Quote

A common argument from those who don't believe in man-made climate change goes like this: A few years ago, everyone was calling it "global warming." Now they're calling it "climate change." What gives?

Some doubters smell conspiracy lurking in this semantic shift. Asserting that global temperatures peaked in 1998 and are now falling – an assertion that is completely bogus, but whatever – they claim that environmentalists have sensed that the jig is up. Unable to continue calling it "global warming" in the face of pesky facts, the argument goes, the greenies started calling it "climate change" and hoped nobody would notice.

Is that how it really went down? If the enviros aren't trying to pull a fast one, then why did they suddenly start using a different term to describe the same phenomena?

They didn't. "Climate change" predates "global warming" by many years. "Global warming" came into vogue beginning in the 1980s, temporarily eclipsing the older term. But people have been using the phrase "climate change" all along. <continue reading>

Quote

...to describe 'climate change' as a recent coinage is simply false. Much like claims that all the scientists were working about 'global cooling' in the 1970s (they weren't), such a description seeks to paint the dire warnings of climate scientists as nothing more than a fad.

It isn't.

http://www.treehugge...ntil-1980s.html

Quote

In case you're one of those people who think that the semantic shift from everyone saying 'global warming' a few years ago to 'climate change' today is some vast conspiracy led by tented-fingered Al Gore to somehow grift you, you neighbors and put a stop to your way of life Bright Green Blog will set you straight. The phenomena now called climate change was so-named for decades before 'global warming' really came into vogue in the 1980s:Looking at Google archives of past stories, the first reference they found to human-induced climate change dates back to the 1937 and an article in the Los Angeles Times.

Some references to 'climate change' continue through the 1950s and 1970s -- which a solitary reference to 'global warming' in 1969 in a UPI story. The real shift happened in the 1980s, and in particular post-1988 when James Hansen gave testimony to Congress on rising global temperatures. From that time until 2000, references to 'global warming' were nearly twice as popular as 'climate change'.

And, from way back in 1958:

---

Santalum, on 25 January 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

...because it is then easier for them to argue to the poorly science educated that any cold days any where in the world are evidence disproving climate change.

But those with reasonable science and maths education know very well that some cold days prove nothing about climate change either way.

Strange as it may sound to some, it's also rather possible that the warming could lead to another ice age, such as when the contact point between glaciers and the land beneath them begins to melt... leading to a reduction in friction at the contact point... resulting in glaciers floating on a thin layer of liquid water and beginning to move more rapidly.

Add that to any changes in the gulf stream or other warm ocean currents and the warming itself could ultimately lead to extreme cold in many parts of the world.

[Santalum]

iNow, on 25 January 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

I think it's been made clear by now, but you thought wrong.


http://www.csmonitor...mate-change-now





http://www.treehugge...ntil-1980s.html




And, from way back in 1958:

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

---

Strange as it may sound to some, it's also rather possible that the warming could lead to another ice age, such as when the contact point between glaciers and the land beneath them begins to melt... leading to a reduction in friction at the contact point... resulting in glaciers floating on a thin layer of liquid water and beginning to move more rapidly.

Add that to any changes in the gulf stream or other warm ocean currents and the warming itself could ultimately lead to extreme cold in many parts of the world.

Yes I am aware of that hypothesis. The ultimate paradox - a brief period of global warming triggers another ice age. If it happened ot would be far more deadly for much of human civilisation in the higher latitudes.

[JohnB]

I see Winston Smith is alive and well.

The term "Climate Change" is indeed older then "Global Warming", the bit that is being left out is that in the early usage of term it referred to natural climate change. This term was replaced by "Anthropogenic Global Warming" and now with the switch back even the "Anthropogenic" gets dropped. This is because all climate change is obviously anthropogenic in nature and therefore the word is no longer needed.

However to claim that the generally accepted meaning of the term "Climate change" is the same now as it was then is misleading and dishonest. Unless the further claim is being made that "Climate Change" has always been viewed as anthropogenic in nature?

As much as some would like it to, Climate Change != Anthropogenic Climate Change.

PS. Loved the 1958 vid. If temperatures rise a couple of degrees the ice caps will melt and flood the planet. A novel concept considering that the average temp in Antarctica is considerably below zero. I'm sure the ice at Vostok is going to melt when the temp rises to a balmy average of -53 degrees C.

This post has been edited by JohnB: 25 January 2012 - 03:41 PM

[iNow]

JohnB, on 25 January 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

The term "Climate Change" is indeed older then "Global Warming", the bit that is being left out is that in the early usage of term it referred to natural climate change. <snip> However to claim that the generally accepted meaning of the term "Climate change" is the same now as it was then is misleading and dishonest.

Uhmm... No. Nice try, though. From my first link:

Quote

The earliest stories about human-caused climate change that use the term start to show up in Google's archives in the 1930s. Here's one from 1937, by the Los Angeles' Times's William S. Barton, headlined "Is the Earth Changing its Face."

[JohnB]

The statement that isn't behind the paywall says;

Quote

SCIENTISTS are wondering in all seriousness if they can discover how to control the earth's climate before the next scheduled Ice Age grinds civilization to bits beneath ten-mile-high glaciers!

Note the use of the word "if". This article doesn't appear to be about human induced climate change, but about whether humans will be able to effect the climate before the next ice age arrives. (In about 20,000 years.) Your link does not support your assertion, or that of the blogger.

But I love watching double standards unwind. An article from 1937 that mentions scientists "wondering if they can discover a means to control the climate" means that human induced climate change was an accepted part of science back then but a series, starting with Newsweek and spreading across the globe in the 70s only shows a media beatup about global "cooling" and says nothing about the prevailing opinion.

But by all means keep trying to rewrite history.

[iNow]

JohnB, on 27 January 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

But I love watching double standards unwind. An article from 1937 that mentions scientists "wondering if they can discover a means to control the climate" means that human induced climate change was an accepted part of science back then but a series, starting with Newsweek and spreading across the globe in the 70s only shows a media beatup about global "cooling" and says nothing about the prevailing opinion.

I made no such claim. I made the claim that the term climate change was in use prior to global warming. You then shifted the goal posts.

[JohnB]

Um, no. To quote your own quote;

Quote

The earliest stories about human-caused climate change that use the term start to show up in Google's archives in the 1930s.

If you weren't claiming "human caused" climate change, why quote a sentence that contains the phrase? The question is not whether the term was used, but whether it was used with the same meaning. If the meaning has changed, then the fact it was used is moot.

And again, the article was about whether it was possible, not whether it was happening.

[iNow]

Because I was supporting the contention that the term "climate change" was in use prior to the term "global warming." Cause of change is tangential to what I was supporting.

[JohnB]

To a great degree semantics. Another thing to discuss while holding onto the floor.