What I came up with is as follows: Annual worldwide human activity (cars, electrical power generation, etc.) produces as much CO2 (carbon dioxide) as about 200 Mount Pinatubo eruptions (I think the number was 214).
So, to have a natural activity that would produce the equivalent amounts of CO2 we would need to have 200 Mount Pinatubo eruptions EVERY YEAR.
Thanks for the info. Do you have the amounts (weight, volume)?
Also, did your studies also include the sun spot/flare effects on the upper atmosphere gas/chemical perturbations, and the ocean floor volcanic venting resulting in a possible increase in ocean temperature and its effects on the interdependent environment, plus the non-absorbed volcanic gas releases from oceanic sources?
Or, if you did not carry your study that far, did you run across a web site or other resource that might contain such data?
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
Last edited by A.W. Bowman; 11-23-2009 at 09:10 PM.
The thing about human versus natural activity is what gets me. If there were 200 Mount Pinatubo eruptions in the coming year and the Philippines, Japan and much of Eastern China fell off into the sea - that would be "okay" because it's "natural."
Looking for sources of the climate temperature change and their percentage of each source's contribution, CO2 being one of the major drivers, but not necessarily the only one, but a good one to start with.
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
Thanks for the info. Do you have the amounts (weight, volume)?
Also, did your studies also include the sun spot/flare effects on the upper atmosphere gas/chemical perturbations, and the ocean floor volcanic venting resulting in a possible increase in ocean temperature and its effects on the interdependent environment, plus the non-absorbed volcanic gas releases from oceanic sources?
Or, if you did not carry your study that far, did you run across a web site or other resource that might contain such data?
I'd have to go back to the sources for the amounts. I was just looking at readily available information on the Internet for the numbers.
And, no. The only thing this particular search did, or could do was to evaluate the amount of CO2 ( the most abundant "greenhouse" gas - though hardly the most effective) humans produce and compare that to naturally occuring events.
There are obviously lots of variables that influence the planets temperature. In my opinion, it's a bit of hubris to think that humans could influence such a vast and complex system which involves so many forces that are totally out of our control. We can of course make a mess of things, especially on a local scale. And given that humans are "everywhere" - that can be a really big mess.
But in our climate debate - and we should be having a debate, not having rigged numbers thrown around - the human production of CO2 gas is considerable. However, since CO2 is about the "weakest" greenhouse gas, what real effect does this have; especially compared the many other factors that you cite?
Looking for sources of the climate temperature change and their percentage of each source's contribution, CO2 being one of the major drivers, but not necessarily the only one, but a good one to start with.
There is a great deal of information at the following sites:
ICECAP: http://icecap.us/index.php
Check out the Climatge Library, it is a searchable database that has some awesome information that is very much science driven and not just op-ed stuff.
Climate Audit http://www.climateaudit.org/
This is the blog of one of the formost scientists on the Skeptics side. The guy that runs it (Steve McIntyer) is the guy who "broke the Hockeystick"
This is a great blog spot with lots of links and some great information http://climatedepot.com/
This is Anthony Watts blog. He is a meterologist and his site is very informative and very searchable. (great information on Ocean Acidification)
If you are looking for hard science, this post here is one of the best. It is by Lord Moncton and it outlines the science very nicely. It also includes a rebuttle by a AGW supporter, with Moncktons replies to that. very long and very interesting.
This is one of my favorites. It is not direct AGW skeptic stuff but it is the best source of information on hurricanes on a global scale and the detail in this science is crazy good at refuting the AGW-Hurricane link. Ryan Maue is a scientist and hurricane researcher at Florida State and is very highly respected in his field. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Hope that helps. there is a lot more out there. I will look for a couple of papers that I really think are important and post links.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
This is a fantastic paper that reconstructs global temerature record without tree ring proxies. it goes back 2000 years.
This paper is important on 2 levels, first, Mann, Jones, Briffa et all use tree ring proxies to recreate historical temperature records that elminate the MWP and create the "Hockey Stick"
Second, this record proves global Warming in the Mideavil period.
And an energy crisis hit the world in the 70's.... not.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
This is also some very important information regarding the Medieval Warming Period.
It connects the MWP to Peru and thus goes some distance to disproving the "hockey stick's" acertion that the MWP was a Eurpoean event and not global.
**edit** This paper is extremely important for one over riding reason. It shows that Maize was grown during the MWP above 3300 meters. That owerver ended during a cooling period in the late 16 century and has only in the last few years been reproducable. In other words, the current warming is just now approaching a level that existed for about 400 years starting around 1200 BC. Quote:
For instance, the pollen in the cores says that there was maize being grown under the Incas around the lake at 3,300ms a.s.l. Until recently the upper level for maize around the Urubamba valley was 3,000-3,100ms. In the past few years the maize level has moved up and today there is maize being grown again above Marcacocha.
Linear Mode
