Climate catastrophe isn't so certain

[orogenicman]

I don't disagree with any of that. But - CO2 has to be dealt with if we are going to deal with, for instance Methane releases, because much of that release is a natural result of the warming causes by CO2 emission. And the methane emission will only get worse as the planet warms.

But you are right, there are many other pollutants and other environmental issues that must be addressed. Groundwater contamination as well as depletion is among the most critical because over half of the world's human population depends on groundwater.

[KichigaiNeko]

I personally feel that THESE are of MORE importance than CO2 emissions (although they ARE important), as a "Global Society" we SHOULD be addressing our MESS as it stands NOW !

[orogenicman]

I personally feel that THESE are of MORE importance than CO2 emissions (although they ARE important), as a "Global Society" we SHOULD be addressing our MESS as it stands NOW !

We need to address all of these issue. But I think you might be missing why CO2 is such a high priority. CO2 takes about 100 to go through the carbon cycle. So anything we do to mitigate it right now will not have effects for quite some time. Which is why it needs to be done now. On the other hand, even though Methane is a more potent GHG, it only stays in the atmosphere for a few years.

[Anomalocaris]

Another issue is the enormous volume of CO2 we produce. Our CO2 production outstripe our methane production by a far greater factor than the relative potency of methane as a GHG compare to CO2.

As to water vapor, we are probably not a large direct net contributor of water vapor into the atmosphere. Any major net addition of water vapor into the atmosphere we might be responsible for probably came from indirect means, like increased evaporation resulting from the temperature impact of other GHG gases.

[Polaris]

Right now we are experiencing what is a microcosm of the Permian Extinction with the excessive volcanic activity (five major eruptions a century) in the previous millennium, which had not occurred in such ferocity for millions of years.

SO2 and CO2 were released in great quantities. Sulfur dioxide was the first affect and significantly reduced the average temperatures on earth in what is now called the Little Ice Age (likewise, the same happened 250 million years ago). The second effect was the result of the CO2 emitted (a lot of CO2 is being released by man as well now) which had the opposite effect...in the Permian Extinction, the change was much more devastating and created a runaway greenhouse effect....when the temperature reached critical, the frozen methane in the oceans was released with temperatures going well past critical and bye bye 83% of life on Earth.

[popeyespappy]

In other headlines....

Dry Lands Getting Drier, Wet Getting Wetter: Earth's Water Cycle Intensifying With Atmospheric Warming

[Anomalocaris]

Right now we are experiencing what is a microcosm of the Permian Extinction with the excessive volcanic activity (five major eruptions a century) in the previous millennium, which had not occurred in such ferocity for millions of years.
.

That's untrue. There is no evidence the eruptive frequencies of separate volcanic systems flucturate together. Major volcanic induced climate disturbances are usually caused by extraordinarily high activity in a single volcanic system, such as a single large resurgent caldera or clusters of calderas, or a single hot spot driving a single flood basalt eruption. There simply has been no such truly huge eruptions in the last century or last several tens of thousands of years.

There has only one moderately large eruption in the last 2 thousand years, but at least 4 in the 4 thousand years before that. This suggest even by coincidence, there hasn't been any significant increase in rate of serious eruptions in the last thousand years. Couple this with the fact that the biggest eruption in the last 12000 years is only a fraction of the size of a major resurgent caldera eruption, which happen roughly once every 100,000 years or so somewhere on the globe, which in turn is a tiny fraction of large basalt igneous province eruptions, which happens every few tens of millions of years somewhere on earth.

So it is hard to argue volcanic activity is currently powering any major global climate change.

[orogenicman]

Indeed, Chuck. Not only has there not be an increase in the rate of volcanic emissions, there have been no significant atmosphere-altering eruptions since Tambora, in 1815. Pinatubo did cause minor changes over the course of a year or two, but it was inconsequential compared to, for instance, the changes that occurred during the formation of the Deccan trapps or the Siberian trapps or any other large flood basalt event.

[NoahsFarce]

Let me first say I was convinced of global warming long before I found out that NGT (aka GOD) is also on my side. Not a big shocker since he's you know... a legitimate scientist.








I also suggest you guys take a little time to understand Venus and then revisit the global warming issue.





Not trying to make this an argument from authority... but NGT has never let me down... just sayin...

[Polaris]

Right now we are experiencing what is a microcosm of the Permian Extinction with the excessive volcanic activity (five major eruptions a century) in the previous millennium, which had not occurred in such ferocity for millions of years.
.

That's untrue. There is no evidence the eruptive frequencies of separate volcanic systems flucturate together. Major volcanic induced climate disturbances are usually caused by extraordinarily high activity in a single volcanic system, such as a single large resurgent caldera or clusters of calderas, or a single hot spot driving a single flood basalt eruption. There simply has been no such truly huge eruptions in the last century or last several tens of thousands of years.

There has only one moderately large eruption in the last 2 thousand years, but at least 4 in the 4 thousand years before that. This suggest even by coincidence, there hasn't been any significant increase in rate of serious eruptions in the last thousand years. Couple this with the fact that the biggest eruption in the last 12000 years is only a fraction of the size of a major resurgent caldera eruption, which happen roughly once every 100,000 years or so somewhere on the globe, which in turn is a tiny fraction of large basalt igneous province eruptions, which happens every few tens of millions of years somewhere on earth.

So it is hard to argue volcanic activity is currently powering any major global climate change.

Atmospheric changes have a long-lasting affect. Krakatoa was the last but was actually almost a century past the worst of the volcanic eruption cycle. The worst is believed to have come from Iceland, the worst eruptions seen in several million years. These were not your typical volcanic eruptions you think about, but created mass magma fields which were much more devastating to the climate (it's these that are also believed to have lead to the end of the Cretaceous.

They ended near the beginning of the early 19th century...I had always assumed that the Industrial Revolution with its CO2 emissions had curtailed the affect of the SO2 until it was revealed in new data that there was a rebound effect from volcanic activity of this magnitude. Venus is the best example of this. It just does not end when you cut off the switch...that's why it's called a runaway greenhouse effect.