This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Natural pollution vs human pollution
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gnomerdon
volcanoes are actively happening all around the world. they release chemicals that are volatile, acidic, and will destroy ecosystems.
we humans burn fossil fuels which I call human pollution.
Which rate is causing more pollution? human pollution or natural pollution.
let's look at this
volcano lake
. these gasses typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).
so, unto the burning question.
do humans cause more pollution than natural pollution?
are we speeding the process of global warming, or is it completely fake.
where do you stand?
Post by
Pwntiff
Climate change is
real
. The only question should be are humans at fault? And we have no real data to prove or disprove the question.
Post by
Adamsm
Of course, without that volcanic ash and other minerals they release into the air, certain areas would be unable to grow...and don't forget that volcanoes blowing their top helps to create new land masses in the ocean.
And we still put up a crap ton more pollution then they do, since it would require all of the Ring of Fire to suddenly go off at the same time to achieve another global climate change; like what may have happened during the ice ages. Look at Mt St. Helen's and the ecosystem change there.
Post by
Monday
Of course, without that volcanic ash and other minerals they release into the air, certain areas would be unable to grow...and don't forget that volcanoes blowing their top helps to create new land masses in the ocean.
And we still put up a crap ton more pollution then they do
, since it would require all of the Ring of Fire to suddenly go off at the same time to achieve another global climate change; like what may have happened during the ice ages. Look at Mt St. Helen's and the ecosystem change there.
But the question is, is that making a difference?
Post by
613797
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
But the question is, is that making a difference?Probably affecting it, but I don't think it's speeding it up as much others do. Heck, I've said before I think the Global Warming is just part of the natural cycle of Earth; could we be speeding it up? Who knows in that regards. Are we messing up the planet with the pollution we put out there? Well that's a bit of a duh.
Post by
Squishalot
Fill up a bathtub up to the 98% mark. Now, take a bucket with 5% of the bathtub's capacity, and pour it in. See it overflow?
It doesn't matter that nature's 98% is massively more than our 5%. Our actions are what's causing the bathtub to overflow.
Now, we don't know what the overflow is in relation to climate change. All we know is that we're in control of the 5%.
Post by
MyTie
Fill up a bathtub up to the 98% mark. Now, take a bucket with 5% of the bathtub's capacity, and pour it in. See it overflow?
It doesn't matter that nature's 98% is massively more than our 5%. Our actions are what's causing the bathtub to overflow.
Now, we don't know what the overflow is in relation to climate change. All we know is that we're in control of the 5%.
I've heard this before. You are repeating it. Your source? I could claim that the ocean won't overflow if I spit in it. What good is that argument, though? The world is not a bathtub. Give us something firm.
My opinion: I'm not sure. I've seen data presented for both sides, and both sides have been politicized. The 'hate humans first' attitude of liberals has made me skeptical of all the claims against humanity. The 'nothing to see here' attitude of conservatives has made me skeptical of all the claims that there is no problem with pollutants.
I'm more than willing to look at data. My mind is far from decided. I'm going to be skeptical as hell of everything presented, though.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie - my point is that irrespective of the numbers, we only control one thing in the equation - what we're pouring in.
I honestly don't care what sizes the numbers are. Just like I wouldn't want to unnecessarily live in my own garbage, I don't want to unnecessarily live in my own pollution either, irrespective of how much existing pollution there is.
Post by
gnomerdon
Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
this claim from the link sounds fishy? :/
how can someone actually measure / find / locate all of the C02 emissions caused by the all subaerial and submarine volcanoes.
There are places in the ocean that we've never been to that has these eruptions going on every second.
Post by
gamerunknown
this claim from the link sounds fishy? :/
Google the papers and read the abstracts - the whole point of scientific papers is that they're peer reviewed. One gets about as much cred in the community for successfully finding a flaw in someone else's methodology as one does for publishing a paper. Course, the propaganda channel for the Republican party chooses to ignore that, so Americans are alone in the world in doubting climate change. Actually, a poll of Bush voters in 2003 found that they thought George Bush supported the Kyoto protocol, since it was so obvious to them that it'd be beneficial.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gnomerdon
thank you
Post by
pezz
JGR paper here.
Speaking as a professional volcanologist, anthropogenic emissions vastly outweigh volcanic. The idea that human emissions are much smaller and therefore inconsequential is a lie.
I read the abstract closely, and I confess I skimmed over some of the science-y bits, but I'm confused by some of the language:
Anthropogenic emission of SO2 and conversion into SO4 2− is argued to be the most important factor
damping and modulating
the global greenhouse effect.
I don't consider 'damping and modulating' to be synonymous with 'exacerbating.' In fact, 'damping' sounds like an antonym for 'exacerbating.' Is this not a paper about worsening greenhouse gas-driven climate change?
The results show that natural S sources are at least as important as the anthropogenic ones, even though their source strength is much smaller.
What does he mean by 'at least as important?' It sounded like volcanic emissions tend to occur in more 'vulnerable' (probably not the right word but I'll use it) atmospheric areas. Is that the correct interpretation?
Finally, just out of curiosity, has anyone ever looked into reducing volcanic or other natural emissions rather than human ones? Volcanic emissions seem like they would be more concentrated over a smaller area (i.e., London or Houston produce more emissions than a volcano, but a volcano has a much smaller area). If you tried some mechanism to capture emissions, it would be easier to put it into place on volcanoes, it seems.
To use an extended metaphor, just because we're the ones who placed 'the straw (or entire bale of hay) that broke the camel's back' doesn't mean that particular straw/bale is necessarily the easiest one for us to remove.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie - my point is that irrespective of the numbers, we only control one thing in the equation - what we're pouring in.
I honestly don't care what sizes the numbers are. Just like I wouldn't want to unnecessarily live in my own garbage, I don't want to unnecessarily live in my own pollution either, irrespective of how much existing pollution there is.
So from bathtub equations to preaching. I could tell you that I don't want to live in a world where there are no V8 cars, but that doesn't matter to the argument. We are here to talk about human effects on global warming. I agree that pollution is a problem, but is it one that is the cause of global warming, and if so, where is the
data
?
Post by
MyTie
Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
this claim from the link sounds fishy? :/
how can someone actually measure / find / locate all of the C02 emissions caused by the all subaerial and submarine volcanoes.
There are places in the ocean that we've never been to that has these eruptions going on every second.
There's a range of different methods employed - chase up the references in the Gerlach paper here if you're itnerested in the specifics:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/2011/gerlach_92_24.shtml
However, basically the science is pretty straight forward: We know how fast the various spreading ridges are operating, so we can calculate the volume of magma being emplaced anually. In conjunction with observed activity and measurements of CO2 release from these monitored sites, we can then extrapolate out to the global system. Because mid ocean ridges all behave in the same way, emplacing the same type of melt, generated in the same way, and we know how much new material is being emplaced, we have very high confidence. There is variability according to estimates of the degree of degassing, but they're all of the same order.
Again - from that paper, a statistical summary of the estimates of CO2 release from
13 different studies
of mid ocean ridge emissions (in Gt/y)
min 0.01
max 0.22
range 0.115 ± 0.105
This looks like nothing more than estimates of volcanic emissions. It looks like a bunch of really sketchy estimates, at that. How do they gather data on deep ocean magma production? I understand that estimates can be made based on plate movement, but massive tectonic plate activity doesn't necessarily precede massive volcanic eruptions, and massive volcanic activity doesn't have to have a massive earthquake. Techtonic activity provides an estimate, and a rough one. Nothing more. I'd even question non marine measurements of gasses produced from subterranean sources. How many sources go unaccounted for? Certainly volcanos can be monitered, but what about caves, vents, hot springs, etc? How many of those go completely undocumented? My favorite line is:Four studies provide estimates as ranges, giving a sense of estimate uncertaintyIt's as if it is pointing out its own flimsiness.
This is the problem with climate science. We are using today's limited technology to get a snapshot on something too massive, and expecting conclusive and specific information. That doesn't mean we shouldn't bother, or that climate science is somehow wrong. I just doubt anyone that says they have 'the answer'.
Post by
Squishalot
So from bathtub equations to preaching. I could tell you that I don't want to live in a world where there are no V8 cars, but that doesn't matter to the argument. We are here to talk about human effects on global warming. I agree that pollution is a problem, but is it one that is the cause of global warming, and if so, where is the data?
Actually, it matters hugely to the argument. My point is that our actions have an impact, however big or miniscule, on global warming, to the extent that we produce additional carbon dioxide and other gases that can impact the atmosphere.
My turnaround question / challenge to you: Are you trying to argue that human actions do not have an impact on global warming, or that it has an insignificant impact on global warming? I'm arguing on the basis that you currently believe the latter.
Post by
MyTie
Actually, it matters hugely to the argument. My point is that our actions have an impact, however big or miniscule, on global warming, to the extent that we produce additional carbon dioxide and other gases that can impact the atmosphere.I'm asking you for data supporting this argument. No need to repeat yourself. Give me
DATA
. I don't need data that we produce pollutants. I need data supporting CAUSATION of global warming. I've seen lots of correlative data, and passionate sermons from global warming enthusiasts, as well as politicians who wish to produce ridiculously expensive populist legislation based on this correlative data, with little understanding of how to solve a problem that isn't yet understood. We need to go back to look at data, and if possible, location of causation.My turnaround question / challenge to you: Are you trying to argue that human actions do not have an impact on global warming, or that it has an insignificant impact on global warming? I'm arguing on the basis that you currently believe the latter.
My opinion: I'm not sure. I've seen data presented for both sides, and both sides have been politicized. The 'hate humans first' attitude of liberals has made me skeptical of all the claims against humanity. The 'nothing to see here' attitude of conservatives has made me skeptical of all the claims that there is no problem with pollutants.
I'm more than willing to look at data. My mind is far from decided. I'm going to be skeptical as hell of everything presented, though.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm more than willing to look at data. My mind is far from decided. I'm going to be skeptical as hell of everything presented, though.
So to be clear, the first fundamental bit of data that you're looking for is the idea that CO2 results in an increase in air temperature?
Give me DATA. I don't need data that we produce pollutants. I need data supporting CAUSATION of global warming.
Take a fish tank with a ball inside. Shine a hot light at it. Measure temperature.
Fill the fish tank with carbon dioxide. Shine a hot light at it. Measure temperature. Compare.
There are basic scientific principles that are at work here. I don't think there is anyone in the scientific community who is attempting to argue that excessive atmospheric CO2 doesn't cause an increase in atmospheric temperature. The debate between the 'liberals' and 'conservatives', as you refer to them, is around whether the human-generated component of that is significant or not. That's a big difference from arguing over whether the causation actually occurs in the first place.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.