I think that global warming is just an opinion. Who here in the science comunity agrees?!?

I think that global warming is just an opinion. Who here in the science comunity agrees?!?

 

Nothing in the science community should be left to opinion and I think you're trololololing...

Opinions are not science, and science is not opinion. If you actually are a scientist, or have a passable understanding of science, you should know this.

That global warming is a hoax is an opinion. That it's happening and human activity is the primary driver is not.

I think that global warming is just an opinion.

Why do you think that? What evidence has lead you to that conclusion?

I think gravity is just an opinion. Anyone agree?

If gravity were real then planes couldn't fly. HA. Checkmate, liberals!!1!!!one!21!

I think gravity is just an opinion. Anyone agree?

It's invisible fairies holding on to our feet and letting go just the right amount as we walk.

I think gravity is just an opinion. Anyone agree?

It's not even an opinion, it's just a theory.

Edited December 18, 20169 yr by Daecon

I think that global warming is just an opinion. Who here in the science comunity agrees?!?

You appear to have walked through the wrong door. Perhaps you intended to ask the pseudoscience community?

I think that global warming is just an opinion. Who here in the science comunity agrees?!?

Wow, such persons are a blessing to make our earth drearier.

#savetheearthfromthem

I think minus seven rep points with just one post is a record.

However I haven't checked, so- for the moment- it's just an opinion.

I think minus seven rep points with just one post is a record.

 

 

That IS quite impressive - I think she knew exactly what she was doing when she asked the question. lol

I mean - even if Scientists were wrong and it turns out that GW isn't driven by humans.... which seems very unlikely from the studies done..... OPINION would still have absolutely nothing to do with it. lol Lets make it -8. lol.

I've often heard that a volcanic eruption gives more CO2 then the CO2 caused by humans.

Is this true or not?

I've often heard that a volcanic eruption gives more CO2 then the CO2 caused by humans.

Is this true or not?

 

Apparently not.

I've often heard that a volcanic eruption gives more CO2 then the CO2 caused by humans.

Is this true or not?

It wouldn't matter if it was.

The number of volcanoes- and the CO2 released by them is pretty much stable, so their contribution to the CO2 in the air can't be responsible for the rise in CO2.

And global warming is due to the rise in CO2.

 

Also, we know how much CO2 humans produce because we know how much fossil fuel we burn- not least because we usually pay tax on it.

QUOTE John: "it wouldn't matter if it was.."

 

I beg to differ. If each volcano chucked out more CO2 than we had ever made then that would put our contribution into the realms of irrelevancy with the number of volcanos that erupt all the time. However, as the addition of CO2 from each eruption is pretty small in comparison (200MT compared to 240BT by man in that article above)... then it becomes pretty mute anyway.

Just to clarify - For some reason, in the past, I was led to believe that a volcano produced more CO2 than humans (decade ago maybe??) and that kept me sceptical to the human cause of GW. However, when I learned that it was made up rubbish I changed my tack regarding GW and it does seem that we, humans, are a big contributor to the cause. It is important as a scientist (in my view) to be able to admit when I have been wrong and actually change my thinking accordingly when the facts have been presented to me in a way that completely debunks my argument.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by DrP

Nope,

In fact, up till recently the concentration of CO2 in air was about 300 ppm, and now it's near 400.

If the volcanoes were pumping out ten times as much then, in order for us to have reached a pre-industrial equilibrium at 300 ppm , the plants would have to have been absorbing ten times more.

And then we added some and it went up to 400.

How it came to be 300 before (it could be a big source and a big sink, or a small source and a small sink) doesn't really matter.

 

Obviously, if the turnover was bigger, it may well have been more difficult for us to perturb it- but it also might have been more sensitive.

 

The fact is that we changed; the volcanoes didn't *; so we are responsible for the changed outcome.

 

* if you can show that the volcanoes have changed then that's a valid argument, but I see no plausible mechanism or evidence.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by John Cuthber

QUOTE:"Nope"

 

Nope what!?... IF volcanos chucked out 240BT CO2 each eruption then we wouldn't even be here! We'd probably be super hot already... The world would be totally different. To say this would not matter seems incredible. Of course our contribution would be negligible if that were the case. It is NOT the case though, as I have conceded after seeing recorded figures for this, such as the ones in Prometheus' link.

It is important as a scientist (in my view) to be able to admit when I have been wrong...

I think you may agree with me that it is more than important. It is essential. If one does not follow that route then one is not entitled to call oneself a scientist.

QUOTE:"Nope"

 

Nope what!?... IF volcanos chucked out 240BT CO2 each eruption then we wouldn't even be here! We'd probably be super hot already... The world would be totally different. To say this would not matter seems incredible. Of course our contribution would be negligible if that were the case. It is NOT the case though, as I have conceded after seeing recorded figures for this, such as the ones in Prometheus' link.

Not if there was a sink for that amount of CO2. The concentration only changes if the introduction rate and loss rate differ. If they are equal, no matter the magnitude, the concentration will remain constant.

Not if there was a sink for that amount of CO2. The concentration only changes if the introduction rate and loss rate differ. If they are equal, no matter the magnitude, the concentration will remain constant.

Well, yes, but nobody has suggested what the additional sink is, but we know that we are the additional source. Whatever was taking care of volcanic CO2 in Newton's days is still doing it now.

 

 

Whatever was happening before: it had reached a dynamic equilibrium- until we disturbed it.

QUOTE:"Nope"

 

Nope what!?... IF volcanos chucked out 240BT CO2 each eruption then we wouldn't even be here! We'd probably be super hot already... The world would be totally different. To say this would not matter seems incredible. Of course our contribution would be negligible if that were the case. It is NOT the case though, as I have conceded after seeing recorded figures for this, such as the ones in Prometheus' link.

But we are here.

So the only way that volcanoes could dump 10 times as much CO2 would be if there were a sink for 10 times as much CO2 pulling the concentration down to 300 ppm (or whatever).

And, unless there was an additional sink to make up for our additional source the concentration would go up.

 

The point is that I don't know, or care, how much CO2 the volcanoes produce.

That CO2 was already being mopped up somehow.

We added some more, but we didn't add a corresponding sink- so we have raised the net concentration.

 

Imagine that we lived on a world without vulcanism.

There would still be forest fires and bacterial decay producing CO2.

There would still be photosynthesis removing it from the air.

And if we added more by burning fossil fuels then there would be more in the air.

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by John Cuthber

 

That CO2 was already being mopped up somehow.

We added some more, but we didn't add a corresponding sink- so we have raised the net concentration.

 

 

 

With the extent of our deforestation over the years we have actually reduced the natural sink by a fair bit too I would expect.

It would be good if Patti would follow up her opinion that global warming is merely opinion with something. Preferably something more than more opinion. That she (I'm assuming she) has started with a provocative statement doesn't concern me - some good discussions start that way - but some reasons why she holds that view would go some way to directing the discussion into realms of greater relevancy. Sounds suggestive of a philosophical "how can science know what it knows" objection but I don't know.

It May Be Too Late to Stop Global Warming

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/late-stop-global-warming/story?id=17557814