Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[Mr. Pedantic]

The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), HCl, HF, HBr, NOx, SF6, COS, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include methyl mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogen oxide radicals

I admit Mt St. Helens did a lot, but we do more. For example, the forests felled during the eruption, we have done that, and more, probably hundreds of years in the years since then.

Yes, temperatures have been high, I acknowledge this. But this in itself is not proof that we have anything to do with it. All it suggests is a change in climate, but what causes this? I don't know. And that is why I am not prepared to make the same leap of faith as you or Al Gore

Yes, the temperature we have now is within range, but the increase over the last three decades is very abnormal. These sorts of changes often taken hundreds of years to perpetuate. Is it really a coincidence that the sharpest increase in global temperatures in history is in time with increased industrial activity in both the third world and in the industrialized world?

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Decebalus

Yes, and the ozone layer gap is also NOT man made..... Its alien made, or oh wait, it was here long long long before industrialization. ...

Are you on drugs? How is this statement supposed to make any sense - or is even relevant?

Originally Posted by Cleps

I admit Mt St. Helens did a lot, but we do more. For example, the forests felled during the eruption, we have done that, and more, probably hundreds of years in the years since then.

But that's gradual, incremental change. To paraphrase Al Gore - every tree we've cut down has just regrown somewhere else. If you don't believe me, visit New England.

Originally Posted by Sedistix

Incorrect. The amount of pollution mankind spills into the world every day from it’s various machines, and factories are equivalent to a severe volcanic eruption every day.

Incorrect. A "severe volcanic eruption" radically changes the temperature patterns on the whole planet. Ever heard of "the year without a summer"?

[Chemix2]

The first statement is sarcasm, the ozone has been facing heavily accelerated degredation and will continue to degrade for years to come because of what we have already done, stopping now may slow it down in the far future. It's like taking your foot off the gas to stop a car, if you keep your foot their, you'll keep on going, if you take it off, you'll slow down eventualy.

The second statement you've made is completely untrue, the rainforest hasn't grown back elsewhere, and seeding only does so much to help if anything. Seedlings consume very little CO2 and produce very little O2 in return, whereas the trees that we cut down have probaly been living for decades if not centuries, and do much more, meaning we are cutting down are filters faster than the new ones can grow to compensate. Furthermore, the ecosystems destroyed will not appear elsewhere, leaving many species extinct or on the brink of oblivion.

Your third statement is half true, a severe volcanic eruption, radically changes local weather, but this is do this is sudden release rather than our slow steady release, but it happens and then stops, whereas we continuously pour out pollutants into the air.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Incorrect. A "severe volcanic eruption" radically changes the temperature patterns on the whole planet. Ever heard of "the year without a summer

That is because of all the ash and pumice which has been vaporized and is floating in the upper atmosphere. In terms of actual gaseous pollutants, a volcanic eruption is relatively small in the global scheme of things, compared to say, bushfires.

[Joe Bonham]

That is because of all the ash and pumice which has been vaporized and is floating in the upper atmosphere. In terms of actual gaseous pollutants, a volcanic eruption is relatively small in the global scheme of things, compared to say, bushfires.

Better not tell Osama that secret. Bah - don't waste any more time on that nuke, start careless campfires!

Originally Posted by Chemix2

The first statement is sarcasm, the ozone has been facing heavily accelerated degredation and will continue to degrade for years to come because of what we have already done, stopping now may slow it down in the far future. It's like taking your foot off the gas to stop a car, if you keep your foot their, you'll keep on going, if you take it off, you'll slow down eventualy.

Of course the bulk of harmful chemicals damaging the ozone layer were outlawed years ago - so you should be happy we have nothing to worry about.

The second statement you've made is completely untrue, the rainforest hasn't grown back elsewhere, and seeding only does so much to help if anything. Seedlings consume very little CO2 and produce very little O2 in return, whereas the trees that we cut down have probaly been living for decades if not centuries, and do much more, meaning we are cutting down are filters faster than the new ones can grow to compensate. Furthermore, the ecosystems destroyed will not appear elsewhere, leaving many species extinct or on the brink of oblivion.

The basis of the global warming argument that it is all the Americans' fault. But our forests are doing fine - in fact, in many places they are expanding. True, in Africa and South America they are deforesting the place - but that's hardly OUR fault. What do you expect us to do? Send in the Marines?

You're trying to blame the actions of third world countries on us. I don't know about you - but that sounds a little unfair to me.

Your third statement is half true, a severe volcanic eruption, radically changes local weather, but this is do this is sudden release rather than our slow steady release, but it happens and then stops, whereas we continuously pour out pollutants into the air.

A volcanic eruption changes weather patterns across the entire planet. Of course, we're talking about explosions that could bury Manhattan Island in a mile of lava, so man's influence is pretty trivial compared to what nature does.

In the end - this theory is based on pride. We like to pretend we're not insignificant bugs that could be squashed suddenly at any time.

[Rich19]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

Better not tell Osama that secret. Bah - don't waste any more time on that nuke, start careless campfires!

If you were trying to make a point here, it's lost on me. Volcanoes really do alter the weather through ash blotting out the sun.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

Of course the bulk of harmful chemicals damaging the ozone layer were outlawed years ago - so you should be happy we have nothing to worry about.

Er, greenhouse gasses?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

The basis of the global warming argument that it is all the Americans' fault. But our forests are doing fine - in fact, in many places they are expanding. True, in Africa and South America they are deforesting the place - but that's hardly OUR fault. What do you expect us to do? Send in the Marines?

Hardly. For a start, China also is a growing problem. As someone said, saplings =/= large trees. And the US really is a massive CO2 emitter. That is a fact.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

A volcanic eruption changes weather patterns across the entire planet. Of course, we're talking about explosions that could bury Manhattan Island in a mile of lava, so man's influence is pretty trivial compared to what nature does.

Old age kills millions of people, so the mass-murder of 500 people is pretty trivial compared to what nature does. Does that mean we should ignore the mass-murder?

Besides, volcanoes disrupt the weather through the ash. It's a different process.

[Karst]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

The basis of the global warming argument that it is all the Americans' fault. But our forests are doing fine - in fact, in many places they are expanding. True, in Africa and South America they are deforesting the place - but that's hardly OUR fault. What do you expect us to do? Send in the Marines?

You're trying to blame the actions of third world countries on us. I don't know about you - but that sounds a little unfair to me.

About the logging of the rainforests: if that has nothing to do with us, don't you think it's strange not every brazilian has expensive mahagony furniture? These people can't afford their own tropical woods.
It's first world customers that the rainforest is cut down for.
Of course deforestation is only a small part of the problem.

A volcanic eruption changes weather patterns across the entire planet. Of course, we're talking about explosions that could bury Manhattan Island in a mile of lava, so man's influence is pretty trivial compared to what nature does.

A volcanic eruption that's huge enough to directly effect the global climate happens every few centuries, while there are 600 million automobiles that emit greenhouse gases all the time, not to mention industry and agriculture.



Looks like those volcanic eruptions you mention are some undefined part of the "Residential, Commercial and other sources" - some fraction of 10.3 %.

In the end - this theory is based on pride. We like to pretend we're not insignificant bugs that could be squashed suddenly at any time.

I hardly understand why you say that since global warming means that we will indeed be squashed if we don't do something.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Rich19

[/i]If you were trying to make a point here, it's lost on me. Volcanoes really do alter the weather through ash blotting out the sun.

That was his argument, not mine. He was trying to claim that "bush fires" are

Er, greenhouse gasses?

Greenhouse gasses don't burn holes in the ozone layer. Their effects are uncertain, hence the whole global warming debate.

If we could find a planet identical to earth, we could put greenhouse gasses in it and see if the results correspond to our own. But we can't do that, so we can only make educated guesses and theories about this subject.

Hardly. For a start, China also is a growing problem. As someone said, saplings =/= large trees.

I fail to see how this disproves what I just said. Our forests are doing fine. Visit any national park, or the rapidly growing forests in New England.

And the US really is a massive CO2 emitter. That is a fact.

But our pollution is steadily decreasing, while Europe's is going up - even though we didn't sign the Kyoto treaty but the EU members did. Ironic, isn't it?

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/ar...ill_rising.htm

Old age kills millions of people, so the mass-murder of 500 people is pretty trivial compared to what nature does. Does that mean we should ignore the mass-murder?

Taking into account the debacles in Iraq and Afganistan, the answer is clearly yes.

We put our whole military at risk trying to solve a trivial problem. Why should we risk the whole economy trying to solve another trivial problem?

Originally Posted by Karst

I hardly understand why you say that since global warming means that we will indeed be squashed if we don't do something.

Rome wasn't squashed. China wasn't squashed. Medieval Europe wasn't squashed. The British Empire wasn't squashed. Why will we be squashed?

[~LK~]

Originally Posted by Karst

Looks like those volcanic eruptions you mention are some undefined part of the "Residential, Commercial and other sources" - some fraction of 10.3 %.
.

I'm with ya on the rest of what you stated, though this last part is incorrect. A major volcanic eruption drawfs what we put out, though do not see this as an excuse because its not meant to be. One has little to do with the other.. its kind of like saying.. he stole somthing so I did to.. but he did it first!!! Its a stupid argument to make.

[Karst]

Originally Posted by ~LK~

I'm with ya on the rest of what you stated, though this last part is incorrect. A major volcanic eruption drawfs what we put out, though do not see this as an excuse because its not meant to be. One has little to do with the other.. its kind of like saying.. he stole somthing so I did to.. but he did it first!!! Its a stupid argument to make.

But look at the numbers: long term, volcanoes simply don't make that much of a difference compared to the steady manmade emissions.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

Rome wasn't crushed. China wasn't crushed. Medieval Europe wasn't crushed. The British Empire wasn't crushed. Why will we be crushed?

What i mean is that, if Global Warming goes unchecked, we as in humanity will crush ourselves. This isn't exactly comparable to great empires of the past.