It's not enough to bash in heads, you have to bash in minds
            

CO2: Man versus the Volcanoes

Many global warming global sceptics like to point out that humans can’t be responsible for global climate change because natural events like volcanoes produce MUCH more CO2.

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.volcano.und.edu

It seems that –maybe, just maybe- global warming sceptics were talking out of their asses, or as is more likely for my readers, they were simply mislead by a persuasive ass-talker. Here is a hint: you can usually spot ass-talkers by their horrible breath.

15 Responses to CO2: Man versus the Volcanoes

  1. Ugh.

    Anthropogenic CO2 sources are on top of what nature does, so eventually it was going to nip us back, regardless of the output of natural sources of CO2. The skeptics never were able todeal with that.

    I don’t even l’ike to call many of them skeptics. ‘Liars’ is a better word.

  2. I always loved that tired old arguement about volcanoes, I ussually like to ask the people who make this statement and the volumes a volcanoe puts out and then ask them for the tonnage that man produces.

    You can imagine the standard responce.

    Thanks for the link Dan, it will be well used in the future, again, and again, and again. I hope I don’t wear it out ;-)

  3. Great info, thanks Dan. I guess the ass talk explaines the lack of any ability at coherent articulation by skeptics….something i’ve seen rear its ugly head (ass) on my own climate posts. I”ve bookmarked this one. No doubt it will be invaluable in the future. cheers!

  4. All of the science I have read about shows patterns of warming not just in the past few hundred years we have used fossil fuels. The space agencies around the world cannot accept God and creation so they search beyond earth to prove they are right. Huge dish arrays scan deep space and still…nothing. Deep core samples like rings of a tree discounted the “Global Warming” theory so scientists naturally focus on trapped gas bubbles and say yep yep, yep yep we were right all along. Everyone knows it s getting warmer and the facts around the world cannot be dismissed. But, just as science cannot accept creation as TRUTH, they have to be right about “Global Warming” like a spoiled kid. All scientific models go back long before our creation of the engine and industry and the upward warming trend started long before we did anything. So is it the cows or Mexican food eaters or both that are really killing the environment? I believe it is the American diet and a huge reduction in green house gasses would come from wide spread use of BEANO! Man cannot cure the common cold and science seems to exist today just to prove God and creation is a lie. Conclusion, without God, man must grab the world with both hands and manipulate everything or the end will surely come. I say God knows what he is doing and science is barely observing the data of a complex system that eludes them and fuels their burning quest to be right at any cost. Why is it that educated men cannot understand the faith of a child? Why is it so hard to see that a higher power created all you see and complex systems are at work all over the universe? I am convinced that science without God is like the blind leading the blind.

  5. you are a bunch of hill-billies for beleiving in this global warming non-sence, there is no actual FACTS leading to this MYTH. “The glaciers are melting!” is what you claim…THEYVE ALWAYS BEEN MELTING and always will be melting…its a natural process

  6. Glaciers have been around a long time and are melting at a rate never before seen. Oh Joe god is dead and its time for man to come of age!! You are a hillbilly for blindly believing in super natural mumbo jumbo with not one shred of evidence to back up you blabbering baloney. I mean here you are knocking science that we have accumulated for thousands of years from peple like Galileo, Coppernucus, Newton, all the way to present day with your same old tired faith bull cocky. Wake up because Santa Clause and God are not real!!!!!!

  7. today my friend and i went on a run together. global warming came up as a topic and she used this same argument to deny that its happening. i was amazed.
    so, let’s say it is true that volcanoes produce lots of CO2 compared to people. but can you deny that all the people of this Earth, using up the resources and producing waste, do not make a difference (however small) in the atmosphere?
    outrageous. i don’t care if global warming is “happening” or not. the fact that concerns me is that people are finding a way to erase their responsibilities concerning the planet, which will someday, somehow, affect everyone. and if God is great and fellow human life means so much, then how about we all take care of one another…by not killing our home. sound good to you all?

  8. Don’t dis faith cos some people need them but any …
    CO2 is not the main sorce of global warming its one of the sorces, solar activity, wobble orbits and rotaion of the earth and the fact that we’re still in an ice age, the 2.1 billion year ice age, maybe we’re just leaving it and now its time for the earth to warm up.

  9. @ Matt

    While the other sources you mention (other than the ridiculous notion that we are still in an ice age) certainly have an effect on the earths climate, the peer-reviewed literature has been quite clear that the current change in climate cannot be attributed to these natural factors.

  10. your being too narrow minded, your looking at too small a time scale, the global temperature has been double wat it is today many times before long before humans were around, do you not remeber that not too long ago they were worried about there being another ice age, its all political propaganda, it all started with margret thatcher she put money on the table for her scientisits and said if you can prove to me that co2 is the bad for the evinrionment its yours because she was trying to push nuclear power and then it all went out of hand from there.

  11. oh and showing me graphs is realy stupid cos no matter what they say even if they prove me right and not you i still wouldn’t beleve them because someones made them and who ever has is always gonna be biased. Watch the global warming swindal movie which is also biased but makes some good points.

  12. do you not remeber that not too long ago they were worried about there being another ice age

    Your timing is impeccable. That myth has been debunked many times.

    its all political propaganda

    Every single scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with that. And so do I.

    oh and showing me graphs is realy stupid cos no matter what they say even if they prove me right and not you i still wouldn’t beleve them because someones made them and who ever has is always gonna be biased.

    Who is being narrow minded now? So who do you believe? Me personally I’ll continue to trust papers in peer-reviewed journals, and prestigious scientific institutions.

    Watch the global warming swindal movie which is also biased but makes some good points.

    I have, and it certainly did not make any good points. I hope you aren’t basing your opinions of climate change on a discredited documentary, that completely disagrees with the scientific literature.

  13. Your missing wat im saying, its the peer reviews that have become corrupt, the moment you publish proof against global warming its discreditted, all these people that claim that increased ammounts of co2 cause warming know they’re wrong, go learn about black body radiation and how these so called scientisits are claim that in the higher atmosphere it works differently which can disprove yourself with a weather balloon, i know i’ve done it.

  14. Forgive me if I don’t believe you that the entire scientific establishment has colluded to convince us of climate change when it is not supported by the data.

    Really this is the same argument used by proponents of Intelligent design. They claim that no scientist is ‘allowed’ to challenge the accepted theory of evolution, but in reality all that is needed to challenge an accepted theory is an alternative theory that stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. This is something which the skeptics have been unable to do.

Leave a Reply