Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

liejunkie01

Grimpachi

liejunkie01
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

A little bit of an update on the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes.

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.   

m.livescience.com...

Thank you for the update but I think that was already factored however going from 100 million to 200 million metric tons probably isn't going to move the scale much when we are dealing with numbers like 440 billion metric tons.

Here is an interesting site. It is pretty up to date.

trillionthtonne.org...

edit on 31-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

I think you might be confusing your numbers a little.

The link you posted is for cumulative carbon dioxide in the air.

Estimated cumulative emissions from fossil fuel use, cement production and land-use change since industrialization began are

578,724,871,256

Now this is the number since idustrialization began. And exactly when was that you might ask?

The first Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[7] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[8]

www.princeton.edu...
P
The article that I produced said that the volcanic CO2 output per year was believed to be 200 million tons a year, but now the output is now believed to be around 600 million tons a year. With new data came new higher numbers. Now take that number and myltiply it by the amount of years since the indutrial revolution began. It is a quite a bit there.

Notice the "per year" in the estimate

I was only pointing out in my original post that the amount of CO2 believed to come from volanoes, the estimates have risen six fold since rhe article you posted earlier in the thread.

Now I know, because of the education I got from ATS , that fossil fuel CO2 can be distinguished from natural CO2, and I realize that we are pumping more than that into the atmosphere. With that being said, the volcanoes are billowing out alot of CO2 at a constant rate. Which they did help to instigate "climate change" in the past.

I only gave that link for cumulative because I thought it was an interesting site. Maybe I should have made a separate post.

My point was that going from 100 to 200 metric tons does not move the scales much even if you put it up to 600 metric tons.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you can see from the chart we are dealing with numbers in the billions. Vegetation/land factors in volcanos so even if they used an older number when that was made adding 500 million is still well within the absorption rate. Worst case scenario vegetation/land would be at -9 instead of -10.

I didn't mean to confuse with the other link.

Climate change is happening, the data doesn't lie, unless someone can prove falsification of the data. In the end, it doesn't matter what's causing it, if things keep going at the rate they're going, geological, or more human causes, we'll be lucky to get another 200 years. It's hard to face your species eventual mortality, but it is inevitable. In a scant 500m years, without any influence from humanity, the sun's output will disable photosynthesis and any plant life still hanging around will go extinct. The oceans will evaporate and the earth will again become a molten rock of lava. Eventually, maybe 1.7 billion years from now, the sun will consume our planet, and it will be gone forever, BUT much more of our solar system will become more conducive for life, and the cycle will continue.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Skymon612

 

Just another foolish document produced by the IPCC with lots of doom porn ...Anyone believing this crap care to answer me this one question ...When did AGW start ?...Peace

More science.....

I don't know about you but I think science is important and something to be involved in.

I was wondering what about science and scientific consensus bothers you?

reply to post by Syyth007

In a scant 500m years, without any influence from humanity, the sun's output will disable photosynthesis and any plant life still hanging around will go extinct. The oceans will evaporate and the earth will again become a molten rock of lava. Eventually, maybe 1.7 billion years from now, the sun will consume our planet, and it will be gone forever, BUT much more of our solar system will become more conducive for life, and the cycle will continue.

Your time scale is a bit off. We've got at least a billion years before the oceans boil away and 4 billion before it becomes a red giant. From there, give it another 2 billion before it eats Earth.
www.ap.smu.ca...

But even 500 million years is hardly "scant."

At this point, it really doesn't matter to me whether or not "climate change" is real. Because even if it is, TPTB will obviously just exploit it in order to get more control and to better manipulate us.

For instance, pretty much no one will argue there is no such device as a TV. It is a fact. It exists. But what it has done to people's minds just might make a lot of people wish it didn't exist at all.

The Guardian:

The first report, released last September in Stockholm, found humans were the "dominant cause" of climate change, and warned that much of the world's fossil fuel reserves would have to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.

We all know that climate change is occurring. At first it was sporadic and random events out of the norm, but gradually the sporadic events of higher magnitude weather impacts began to establish themselves repeatedly, showing a gradual shift from stable temperate climate to unstable high energy systems that have been affecting and impacting the planet globally. Whether humans play a causal factor in feeding the climate change triggers is still an on-going debate. That is an argument I am not going to go into.

What I do believe is that climate scientists still do not see the 'bigger' picture and all the variables driving the changes, but are certainly capable of seeing a part of it where they are able to extrapolate meaningful data with significant certitude. One certitude is that there is not one 'trigger', but a whole set of triggers that are gradually coalescing into repeatable weather effects. The variations in the jet stream, wildly fluctuating from the patterns that gave us temperate climate, and thus driving high energy weather systems into areas of the planet where they normally never happend is a significant aspect and sign of climate change.

Climate change is exactly a change in expected seasonal climate norms. One off events can be termed as climate disruption, but the climate returns to normal expected stability. What is being seen and felt globally are not one off events that can be termed climate disruption, but should now (because of the repeatability) be viewed as a continual climate change that has yet to stabilise into new normal weather patterns.

At the moment, because it cannot be fully determined beyond doubt that human activity is helping to drive climate change, which I think it is, the issue is moot, and to argue for a non-change in policy until the seas or oceans are up to the bottom lip of our mouths, really is imprudent and ignorant. All possible factors should be taken into consideration, including human activity, no matter how large or small the effects ultimately turn out to be. We have to prepare for the impact climate change is going to make upon our environments, after all, we have to live in those environments and the adjusting and adjusted climates they are experiencing. The climate may very well stabilise, but when it does, what type of climate will it be, and how far from the norm we are used to in each of our own countries?

We need to be proactively philosophical on this issue, and to gauge as best we can the effects upon the environments we all live in, and adapt accordingly. If we don't do it out of any real concern, nature will force us to, but then it mayt well be too late to adapt in time, and that is the real issue. Adapting while we still can, and not try to adapt at the last minute.

reply to post by Skymon612


Back in the day when the earth was flat there was a consensus .....As for science I find some of it interesting and helpful but science that works on better ways to destroy life I am not fond of ...peace

reply to post by elysiumfire

You are talking about trends and we do need a certain amount of time to establish a certain trend .When I look at the sun over a long time frame there are or appear to be trends that are predictable ,but even some of those surprise the scientist that study it I am thinking about the solar cycle that we are in now ....One of the craziest and scariest things are tornadoes .Think tornado ally and how man adapts to it .It's not a new thing but as of late there are less and they seem to be less intense .How many hurricanes made land fall last year ? Not many but that does not make a trend and they may come back bigger then ever .Earth quakes are another thing and although we build buildings to withstand the shaking but the cynomie's that can be created are crazy .There are more serious things that we know about that are likely to happen to be ready for then what could happen with AGW .The debate about it is still going on and we are told that the risks can be mitigated by imposing taxes ..If we were really serious about the possibility of destruction from natures forces I would think we would have acted on the others first because we have seen first hand those destructive forces .....peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Back in the day when the earth was flat there was a consensus

When was that? The ancient Greeks knew the world is round and that's before there was anything like science.

reply to post by the2ofusr1

The debate about it is still going on and we are told that the risks can be mitigated by imposing taxes

Not much debate actually, not in the scientific community.

reply to post by Skymon612


lol...the only science to "climate change", is that it's a natural cycle, that's been occurring since the beginning of time..

perhaps the things we do have an impact on that cycle, but i don't think it's anywhere near as large as the "experts" would have us believe...yes, there are things we could be doing to have less(read: measurable) of an impact on the environment, but those things would not necessarily be financially advantageous to certain industries, so we won't hear about them.......instead, they decide it's better to just scare the bejesus out of people with B.S. doom porn, to frighten them into handing over MORE control of their daily lives to people who do not have their best interests at heart....because, you know, people are too stupid to think for themselves, AMIRITE?

liejunkie01

boymonkey74
I wish people would look at the data before automatically thinking it is BS.
What If it isn't? are you willing to bet your grandkids future on it?.

Why would I have to bet my grandchildren's future on it?

Why can we not adapt to the changing climate? Um like our ancestors had to do.

To think we can keep the climate the same just for us is cimpletely arrogant.

Mankind has survived in the past. We can survive in the future.

If we can "fix it" then I am sure we can find a way to live in a changing environment.

Climate change is happening, nobody can really argue about that. The questions that science ask, and seeks to find evidence of, are:

1. Is this a completely natural event?
2. Is this a completly man made event?
3. Is this a natural event being agravated or accelerated by man?
4. What are the impacts and what controlls are necassary to limit the impact of each of the above?

You ask why we can't adapt like we did during the last ice age. At that point in time, the total population of man on the planet numbered somewhere in the 100 thousands, and were easily able to find "comfortable" habitats with a "plentiful" supply of food. (Comfortable and plentiful are relative terms, I'm fairly sure that by our standards it was neither comfortable and food was probably scarce)

Now, reduce the available, shared living and "food growing"space to a narrow band around the equator and try and cram nearly 7 billion people into it. Take a look at a map and see how many large land masses lie on, or near the equator....south america and south Africa.


As the question again about why you might be gambling you grandchildren future.

neo96
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Last time I checked plants, and trees need co2 to 'breathe'.

Makes more sense to plant more trees than to tax people in to oblivion.

Unfortunately, by planting more trees, you take away Ronald McBurger Kings pasture land that he needs to feed Americans (OK, hands up, that was a cheap shot, apologies)

The statement that you make is correct, and one of the contibutary factory's to climate change is identified as deforestation. While we should be planting trees, we're cutting them down instead.

reply to post by Phage

Well you are correct about not much debating because the AGW team wont show the data to the skeptics and just want us to trust them .As you have claimed to be a denier I hardy see any sense in discussing things with you .You are pretty sure of yourself and have already responded to one of my simple questions in a manner that showed you didn't want to answer genuine way ...peace

Well, perhaps this article throws a spanner in the works.

Seem scientists have discovered a "Methane" creating Microbe contributed to the Earth "Mass Extinction" of 252 million years ago.

The cause was the excess release of carbon dioxide by the Earths Volcanism, that provided a feeding stock for the microbes in the Earths oceans.
Up to 90% of all sea life and 70% of all land base life was destroyed.

Did'nt someone mention increased Volcanic activity?

au.news.yahoo.com...

Either way, we better start building those interstallar craft.
What's the weather like on Mars this time of year?

Goteborg

I think you've stated some things as fact which are in fact debatable but I'm willing to guess that we both know what the other would say so I agree with you on there being no need to go into that and I will also ignore the appeal to emotion.

I've read and re-read your post and the argument you've made is Malthusian and that has far more to do with scarcity than it does with climate, you seem to me to be advocating a population cap. If I got that part wrong please feel free to elaborate.

Money is not just a "piece of paper", it is an abstraction of someone's education and labor. Confiscation isn't justified without a clear understanding of what is happening and how it can be fixed, or even if it can be fixed.

I was not trying to advocate a population cap to be honest, rather I was focusing on the compound effect of the large consumer population. One person might not affect anything at all, when millions do it though during a longer period, sooner or later certain effects on the nature will happen.

Up to certain point, I agree with you on the money´s defnition, although I do believe everything should not be measured in money. There are intangible things, like environment, health, life etc. You can not set monetary value to the extinction of certain species, creating a wasteland out of productive land, polluting the whole city air, which leads to many health effects etc. There should be far more regulations on such matters, as well as some global system which would disable companies taking advantage over nations, where corrupt governments have sold the country off to corporations by setting incredibly low environmental standards. Currently one large problem lies in there not being enough regulations as well as setting the short term profit a priority compared to long-term effects. Companies mostly do not care about the long-term effects of their actions, what matters is the financial aspect, the short-term gain over long-term consequences.

The whole economic system is not sustainable in the long run, especially considering the fact that population is growing. Population would not be that much of a problem, if the human values shifted away from consumerism, which is the driving force of the current economy. When something like that does not happen, sooner or later the effects on the planet will become too extreme. How our actions affect the surrouding world should become top priority, otherwise problems will arise sooner or later, whether global warming or something even worse. If these can be prevented, if there is even a slight chance that humans might affect these, these should be prevented, as the potential consequences are immeasurable in material wealth.

Generally the actions taken towards global warming have been quite reasonable in my eyes, having lots of benefits also towards the health of people, especially when it comes to air quality. Higher standards for cars, for factories have lead to better air quality, better infrastructure (especially for people who hate waiting in the traffic) at least round here. Generally I believe more action should be taken by setting higher standards to corporations. Prices will rise, but the quality of products would also, as well as the long-term effects of these. Of course there will be winners as well as losers, yet at anything where money can be made, there are people who try to make it. Despite the motive being the same - making money - the long-term consequences of the products are like day and night.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Phage

 

Well you are correct about not much debating because the AGW team wont show the data to the skeptics and just want us to trust them .As you have claimed to be a denier I hardy see any sense in discussing things with you .You are pretty sure of yourself and have already responded to one of my simple questions in a manner that showed you didn't want to answer genuine way ...peace

I showed evidence that the climate is changing and its getting hotter and dryer where I am.

Why don't you go through your local weather almanac and see how your home town is doing in the last 30yrs. See how its changed.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


I have lived here for 60 years and it's weather as usual ...It's not as dry or wet as some years or hot or cold as others .I will say at present we do have more snow then normal but I have seen winters like this in the past .I pay close attention to the sugar maple woods in the spring and make hay in the summer ....I can believe that there are regions in the world that have big swings like Texas and Australia what with drought and fires ...There are places across Canada that can have big extremes and if you didn't know any better you could think that it's global climate change but it's happened in the past and will probably happen in the future .That's the nature of climate ....

amazing
I'll quote one of the smartest people on the planet here again.

MICHIO KAKU, PHYSICIST: Climate change is the 800-pound gorilla in the living room that the media dances around. But in the scientific community it's a settled question: 95 percent of scientists believe this is happening with 100 percent confidence temperatures are rising.
With 90 percent confidence, we believe it's human activity and not natural cycles that is driving the increase in temperature on the Earth.

Why not 100?

That is my point. Not enough data to say 100%. And 90 is an inflated number.

Hell, even the deniers believe we are warming, yet only 95% of scientist believe that?

It sounds like some people would like a bit more data before we decide.