Quote:

Anthropocene: Have humans created a new geological age? By Howard Falcon-Lang Royal Holloway, University of London Auckland skyline Cities will leave an unmistakeable mark in the geological record of our planet Human civilisation developed in a cosy cradle. Over the last 11,700 years - an epoch that geologists call the Holocene - climate has remained remarkably stable. This allowed humans to plan ahead, inventing agriculture, cities, communication networks and new forms of energy. Some geologists now believe that human activity has so irrevocably altered our planet that we have entered a new geological age. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote    Simply put, our planet no longer functions in the way that it once did” Jan Zalasiewicz University of Leicester This proposed new epoch - dubbed the Anthropocene - is discussed at a major conference held at the Geological Society in London on Wednesday. Yet some experts say that defining this "human age" is much more than about understanding our place in history. Instead, our whole future may depend on it. The term, the Anthropocene, was coined over a decade ago by Nobel Laureate chemist, Paul Crutzen. Professor Crutzen recalls: "I was at a conference where someone said something about the Holocene. I suddenly thought this was wrong. The world has changed too much. No, we are in the Anthropocene. I just made up the word on the spur of the moment. Everyone was shocked. But it seems to have stuck." But is Professor Crutzen correct? Has the Earth really flipped into a new geological epoch - and if so, why is this important? Back to the beginning Dr Jan Zalasiewicz of the University of Leicester is one of the leading proponents of the Anthropocene theory. He told BBC News: "Simply put, our planet no longer functions in the way that it once did. Atmosphere, climate, oceans, ecosystems… they're all now operating outside Holocene norms. This strongly suggests we've crossed an epoch boundary." Atomic weapons test DOE Early atomic bomb tests have left a tell-tale signature in soil Dr Zalasiewicz added: "There are three ideas about when the Anthropocene began. Some people think it kicked off thousands of years ago with the rise of agriculture, but really those first farmers didn't change the planet much. "Others put the boundary around 1800. That was the year that human population hit one billion and carbon dioxide started to significantly rise due to the burning of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution," he explained. "However, the really big changes didn't get going until the end of the Second World War - and that's another candidate for the boundary." To formally define a new epoch, geologists must show how it can be recognised in the layers of mud that will eventually form rocks. As it turns out, there is enormous practical advantage in fixing 1945 as the beginning of the Anthropocene. "1945 was the dawn of the nuclear age," explained Dr Zalasiewicz. "Sediments deposited worldwide that year contain a tell-tale radioactive signature from the first atom bomb tests in the States". So, thousands of years from now, geologists (if any still exist) will be able to place their finger on that very layer of mud. Extraordinary times? Nonetheless, the choice of 1945 for start of the Anthropocene is much more than just convenient. It coincides with an event that Professor Will Steffen of the Australian National University describes as the "Great Acceleration". Professor Steffen told the BBC: "A few years ago, I plotted graphs to track the growth of human society from 1800 to the present day. What I saw was quite unexpected - a remarkable speeding up after the Second World War". In that time, the human population has more than doubled to an astounding 6.9 billion. However, much more significantly, Professor Steffen believes, the global economy has increased ten-fold over the same period. "Population growth is not the big issue here. The real problem is that we're becoming wealthier and consuming exponentially more resources," he explained.

Quote:

This insatiable consumption has placed enormous stresses on our planet. Writing in the prestigious journal Nature, Professor Steffen and colleagues recently identified nine "life support systems" essential for human life on Earth. They warned that two of these - climate and the nitrogen cycle - are in danger of failing, while a third - biodiversity - is already in meltdown. "One of the most worrying features of the Great Acceleration is biodiversity loss," Professor Steffen said. "Species extinction is currently running 100 to 1000 times faster than background levels, and will increase further this century." Members of public walking along Canal Street levee, New Orleans Much of the city of New Orleans is already below sea level "When humans look back… the Anthropocene will probably represent one of the six biggest extinctions in our planet's history." This would put it on a par with the event that wiped out the dinosaurs. But perhaps more alarming is the possibility that the pronounced global warming seen at the start of the proposed Anthropocene epoch could be irreversible. "Will climate change prove to be a short-term spike that quickly returns to normal, or are we seeing a long term move to a new stable state?" asked Professor Steffen. "That's the million dollar question." If the Anthropocene does develop into a long-lived period of much warmer climate, then there may be one very small consolation: the fossil record of modern human society is likely to be preserved in amazing detail. Dr Mike Ellis of the British Geological Survey told BBC News: "As a result of rising sea level, scientists of the future will be able to explore the relics of whole cities buried in mud". Preserved buildings In New Orleans, large areas of the city are already below sea level. The disastrous combination of rising sea level and subsidence of the Mississippi Delta on which it is built suggest that it will succumb at some point in the future. Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts less than a metre of sea level rise over the next 90 years, more than five metres of sea level rise is possible over the coming centuries as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps melt. One application for exploring the changing coastlines of the Anthropocene world is Google Flood. It allows users to raise sea level by up to 14 metres and zoom into street level to see the effects. Plastic bottles washed up on beach at Prestwick, Scotland Humans are likely to leave behind many markers of their presence, including plastic waste Sea level rise of this magnitude will mean that the lower storeys of buildings will be preserved intact. Such "urban strata will be a unique, widespread and easily recognisable feature of the sedimentary deposits of the human age", Dr Ellis commented. Geologists of the future may also hunt for other, more unusual, "markers" of the Anthropocene epoch, such as the traces of plastic packaging in sediments. But geologists like Dr Mark Williams from the University of Leicester hold much more serious concerns: "One of the main reasons we developed the Anthropocene concept was to quantify present-day change and compare it with the geological record," he explained. "Only when we do so, can we critically assess the pace and degree of change that we're currently experiencing." Dr Williams added that while the Anthropocene has yet to run its course, "all the signs are that the human age will be a stand-out event in the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth".

I have read a theory (can't give the reference, sorry) that the last 12,000 or so years have been unusually stable climatically and this is what has allowd the human race to advance. We may be coming to the end of this stable period and reverting to a 'normal' climate pattern.

If this is the case then humans have had nothig to do with it, they have just taken advantage of a favourable blip in the Earths climate history.

Astro - they should call it the Fubarocene.

There is some theory  that the solar system orbits in & out of a
spiral arm in the Milky Way.
We spend 10,000 years outside the arm & 100,000 years inside.
That means because of the dust inside the arm that we get
10,000  warm years &  100,000 cold years in
a never ending cycle.

I am not sure if I can find the proof.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

There is some theory  that the solar system orbits in & out of a spiral arm in the Milky Way. We spend 10,000 years outside the arm & 100,000 years inside. That means because of the dust inside the arm that we get 10,000  warm years &  100,000 cold years in a never ending cycle. I am not sure if I can find the proof.

It probably wouldn't matter if you can or not Bobby....

It should be called the Plasticine.

 
http://www.coolhunting.com/images/blocsabbath.jpg

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/08/01/plasticine-iphone.jpg

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 2:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:54pm: There is some theory  that the solar system orbits in & out of a spiral arm in the Milky Way. We spend 10,000 years outside the arm & 100,000 years inside. That means because of the dust inside the arm that we get 10,000  warm years &  100,000 cold years in a never ending cycle. I am not sure if I can find the proof. It probably wouldn't matter if you can or not Bobby....

It matters a lot Gizmo.
It means that we are at the end of the warm period & anytime now
we could re-enter the cold period.
Why? - because we've had about 10,000 years of warm weather
which has allowed the human population to explode &
the cold weather would be devastating.
Also - it would mean that more CO2 emissions wouldn't matter.

Bobby. wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 12:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 2:30pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:54pm: There is some theory  that the solar system orbits in & out of a spiral arm in the Milky Way. We spend 10,000 years outside the arm & 100,000 years inside. That means because of the dust inside the arm that we get 10,000  warm years &  100,000 cold years in a never ending cycle. I am not sure if I can find the proof. It probably wouldn't matter if you can or not Bobby.... It matters a lot Gizmo. It means that we are at the end of the warm period & anytime now we could re-enter the cold period. Why? - because we've had about 10,000 years of warm weather which has allowed the human population to explode & the cold weather would be devastating. Also - it would mean that more CO2 emissions wouldn't matter.

What I meant bobby, was that even if you can find proof, half the people won't accept it, and if you can't find proof, the other half of the people won't accept that either..

Whether it's true or not won't make any difference...
I personally think your theory could well be right..  

Well Gizmo - it's only a theory but I'm sure there must be
some people working on it & if it's true, it will change everything.

Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

There is some theory  that the solar system orbits in & out of a spiral arm in the Milky Way. We spend 10,000 years outside the arm & 100,000 years inside. That means because of the dust inside the arm that we get 10,000  warm years &  100,000 cold years in a never ending cycle. I am not sure if I can find the proof.

Yeh, well of course that would be intersting!

Bobby. wrote on May 13^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:

Well Gizmo - it's only a theory but I'm sure there must be some people working on it & if it's true, it will change everything. Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory.

You are a wooly thinker Mr Bat.

muso wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 5:57pm: Well Gizmo - it's only a theory but I'm sure there must be some people working on it & if it's true, it will change everything. Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. You are a wooly thinker Mr Bat.

Muso - open your mind to new theories (but not the same as what I said):
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=454


Quote:

The Solar System encounters a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy on the order of about once every 100,000,000 years, and spends about 10,000,000 years crossing the main part of the arm and the order of 1,000,000 years in the dust compression lane.

The great power of forums is to find out about new theories & discuss them.

Bobby. wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory.

That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all.

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 1:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all.

Muso - don't be so pedantic.
Human induced climate change is a very good theory
but it is just one of many.

Interesting fact.
Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity,
which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases.
On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more
green house gases than humans.

Now read this:
http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/

Bobby. wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

muso wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all. Muso - don't be so pedantic. Human induced climate change is a very good theory but it is just one of many. Interesting fact. Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity, which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases. On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more green house gases than humans. Now read this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/

^^ That link is complete nonsense. Humans emit far more CO2 than volcanoes.

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all. Muso - don't be so pedantic. Human induced climate change is a very good theory but it is just one of many. Interesting fact. Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity, which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases. On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more green house gases than humans. Now read this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/ ^^ That link is complete nonsense. Humans emit far more CO2 than volcanoes.

But that's not what the link says astro...

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:33pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:28pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all. Muso - don't be so pedantic. Human induced climate change is a very good theory but it is just one of many. Interesting fact. Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity, which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases. On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more green house gases than humans. Now read this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/ ^^ That link is complete nonsense. Humans emit far more CO2 than volcanoes. But that's not what the link says astro...

Yes, the link is wrong, that's the point:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

Who is a more credible source? Some anonymous guy on a blog, or the United States Geological Survey?


Quote:

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity? People who are fortunate enough to live in or visit Hawai`i, or even those who have seen the right television documentaries know that the majestic presence of erupting volcanoes attests to their raw power. Don't try this trick at home, but if we took Kilauea (our own backyard volcano) and collected the lava that it erupted, just during the time it took you to read this sentence, there would be enough material to fill the gas tanks of about 1,000 Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs.) And though Kilauea is a medium-to-small-sized volcano, it has been discharging lava nearly continuously at this rate for the past 24 years. Demonstrations like this one, or catastrophic eruptions like those of Mount St. Helens or Mount Pinatubo, understandably cause people to sometimes think that human-caused effects on the biosphere are small compared to volcanic ones. But, as the saying goes, "it ain't necessarily so." At HVO, for instance, we are often asked about the influence of volcanic gas emissions on the atmosphere and whether these emissions dwarf those from human activity. Anyone who has stood downwind of Kilauea's vents, and sometimes even people who live in Honolulu, 250 miles away, know first-hand how these emissions can affect air quality and life on the regional scale. It's a fact that Kilauea has been releasing more than twice the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland. So it's also understandable that, with the emerging report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IGCC), some people want to understand how volcanoes might factor into the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations-specifically carbon dioxide (CO2)-that is being reported worldwide. The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature. And, after all, volcanoes are awesome natural forces that release lots of carbon dioxide (CO2) right? Could volcanoes be a significant global-warming villain? For numerous reasons, volcanologists have been interested in CO2 release from volcanoes for years and have been working to improve estimates on the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans by volcanic processes. Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do. Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady. Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles. There is now agreement at the top government level of the Earth's most prolific fossil fuel CO2 producer-the United States-that we need to reduce our dependence on oil in order to confront the challenge of global warming. As we work toward that goal, let's look forward to the day when volcanologists will give a different answer to the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?"

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:33pm: astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:28pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all. Muso - don't be so pedantic. Human induced climate change is a very good theory but it is just one of many. Interesting fact. Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity, which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases. On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more green house gases than humans. Now read this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/ ^^ That link is complete nonsense. Humans emit far more CO2 than volcanoes. But that's not what the link says astro... Yes, the link is wrong, that's the point: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

You just don't get it.....the link does NOT claim that volcanoes emit more Co2 than humans....

It says that one big eruption can produce more Co2 than people have managed to cut from their 'Footprint'...

Yes, it would have to be a supervolcano though. These have been known in geological times, but not in the last 70,000 years.

Emission by volcanoes is around about 1-3% of anthropogenic emissions per year.  I can get the figures if you like.



Quote:

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average carbon dioxide emission rate from coal-fired power generation in the United States is 1.02 metric tons per megawatt-hour. So, 1.02 metric tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, times 1,000 megawatts, times 24 hours per day, times 365 days per year, equals 8,935,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Thus, one of these submarine hot springs allegedly generates “far more” than 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year — or far more than three times the annual baseline output of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii! Just 12 of these hot springs would exceed carbon dioxide emission rate estimates for the entire 65,000-kilometer-long mid-ocean ridge system. To scale up volcanic carbon dioxide output to the current anthropogenic level would require adding thousands of volcanoes to the 50 to 60 normally active volcanoes of the subaerial landscape and more than a hundred additional mid-ocean ridge systems to the seafloor.

http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e

(Terry Gerlachis an emeritus geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory, in Vancouver, Wash. )

Bobby. wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 3:06pm:

muso wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all. Muso - don't be so pedantic. Human induced climate change is a very good theory but it is just one of many. Interesting fact. Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity, which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases. On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more green house gases than humans. Now read this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/

For an atheist, you seem to be surprisingly easily seduced by mythology.

sp@m? what is that?

You do understand what controls the warming mechanism on Mars, don't you? (hint - not the atmosphere as such)

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

You just don't get it.....the link does NOT claim that volcanoes emit more Co2 than humans.... It says that one big eruption can produce more Co2 than people have managed to cut from their 'Footprint'...

Sigh... This is why it's pointless arguing with deniers. That link has ZERO sources and has ZERO credibility, yet you guys accept it unquestioningly. And you call yourselves "sceptics" ::)


Quote:

Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic myths Along with the ash and lava, there have been many interesting asides tossed into the air for our consideration by the Eyjafjallajokull volcano. We have noticed just how reliant our globalised systems are on air travel. We have been reminded of nature's brute force and primordial beauty. And we have been intrigued by what a wonderfully complex language Icelandic appears to be – to Anglo-Saxon ears, at least. But one opportunity the volcano has gifted us in particular is the chance to put to bed once and for all that barrel-aged climate sceptic canard which maintains that volcanoes emit far more carbon dioxide than anthropogenic sources. It's always been a favourite, but has been pushed even further up the charts of popularity in recent months by the repeated claims of Ian Plimer, the Australian mining geologist who wrote the climate sceptic bible Heaven and Earth last year. Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:    The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day. John Cook of the increasingly popular Skeptical Science website currently lists the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" viewpoint as number 54 on his ever-growing list - 107, to date - of debunked sceptic arguments. It was also a point picked up by my colleague James Randerson when he interviewed Plimer last December. In Heaven and Earth, Plimer says: "Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." Randerson challenged Plimer on this point, stating that the US Geological Survey (USGS) states: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes." Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:    I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes. Despite having seemingly lanced this festering boil for good, the focus on Eyjafjallajokull over the past week has allowed this question to bubble back up to the forefront of people's minds. It was enough to trigger the Paris-based AFP news agency to seek some answers:    Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday.    Assuming the composition of gas to be the same as in an earlier eruption on an adjacent volcano, "the CO2 flux of Eyjafjoell would be 150,000 tonnes per day," Colin Macpherson, an Earth scientist at Britain's University of Durham, said in an email.    Patrick Allard of the Paris Institute for Global Physics (IPGP) gave what he described as a "top-range" estimate of 300,000 tonnes per day.    Both insisted that these were only approximate estimates.    Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development.    A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005.    Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount – less than a third of one percentage point – of global emissions of greenhouse gases. So, please, can we now put this hoary old chestnut to bed? One extra volcano-related aside: with European carbon market prices fluctuating around the €14 per tonne mark at present, this would mean that Eyjafjallajokull would theoretically be liable to a maximum daily bill of €4.2m if it were a fully fledged, carbon-trading nation or corporation. But who would dare get close enough to present it with an invoice?

muso wrote on May 19^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all. Muso - don't be so pedantic. Human induced climate change is a very good theory but it is just one of many. Interesting fact. Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity, which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases. On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more green house gases than humans. Now read this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/ For an atheist, you seem to be surprisingly easily seduced by mythology. sp@m? what is that? You do understand what controls the warming mechanism on Mars, don't you? (hint - not the atmosphere as such)

I don't know what the sp@m  website is.
What they are saying seems to be backed up on many other sites.

The climate on Mars used to be warmer when there was an atmosphere.
It was lack of volcanic activity that caused it to cool because
the CO2 dissipated into space & wasn't replaced.
Muso - I am surprised you didn't know this as you claim
to be a member of the Mars society.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

muso wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 3:14pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am: Human induced climate change will go out the window as an old wrong theory. That's the wooly bit. It isn't implied by the theory at all. Muso - don't be so pedantic. Human induced climate change is a very good theory but it is just one of many. Interesting fact. Mars is cold now because of the lack of volcanic activity, which a billion or more years ago, created green house gases. On Earth now - I read somewhere that volcanos still spew out more green house gases than humans. Now read this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/ For an atheist, you seem to be surprisingly easily seduced by mythology. sp@m? what is that? You do understand what controls the warming mechanism on Mars, don't you? (hint - not the atmosphere as such) I don't know what the sp@m  website is. What they are saying seems to be backed up on many other sites. The climate on Mars used to be warmer when there was an atmosphere. It was lack of volcanic activity that caused it to cool because the CO2 dissipated into space & wasn't replaced. Muso - I am surprised you didn't know this as you claim to be a member of the Mars society.

I was talking about seasonal warming - dust is what causes most warming on Mars.

muso wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 8:40pm:

dust is what causes most warming on Mars.

Or the lack thereof. Dust reflects heat energy away from the planet, the dustier it is the cooler it is. It is the major forcing in the Martian climate.

Muso.

Quote:

dust is what causes most warming on Mars

Can you provide a link?

Also you are missing my point.
When Mars had a lot more CO2 it was much warmer due to the greenhouse effect.
It may also have had methane in it's atmosphere.

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Muso. Quote: dust is what causes most warming on Mars Can you provide a link?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars


Quote:

Also you are missing my point. When Mars had a lot more CO2 it was much warmer due to the greenhouse effect. It may also have had methane in it's atmosphere

Yes, from volcanic activity back when Mars still had a tectonic system. In the short term, volcanoes have an overall cooling effect, as the particulates the eject into the stratosphere reflect light energy from the planet. Over a geological time-frame, the relatively small amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes can accumulate when you have extended periods of high volcanic activity. But on the scale we are talking the Icelandic volcano was a mere statistical blip that is dwarfed by the amount of CO2 human are pumping into the atmosphere every year.

Quote:

The scale of the effect we have on the planet is yet to sink in Mike Sandiford May 23, 2011 Comments 142 Surely it is inconceivable that human activity could rival the forces of nature. We are such insignificant creatures that it seems breathtakingly arrogant to believe our impact on the immense grandeur of our planet could be anything but minuscule. That's what some prominent climate sceptics indignantly assert. Their incredulity may be understandable, but they are just plain wrong. Our species is now a geophysical agent of unprecedented power, albeit with unsustainable growth expectations. Indeed, our impact is already so profound that my colleagues are seriously debating whether to christen this period ''the Anthropocene'' - a geological epoch dominated by the global effects of our own species. Advertisement: Story continues below This is a timely reminder that humanity is not only altering the composition and dynamics of the atmosphere and the oceans but leaving its mark on the planet in many other ways. Rivers and glaciers, for example, have moved about 10 billion tonnes of sediment from mountain to sea each year on average, over geological time. Each year humans mine about 7 billion tonnes of coal and 2.3 billion tonnes of iron ore. We shift about the same amount again of overburden to access these resources, along with construction aggregate and other excavations. In short, we are now one of the main agents shaping the earth's surface. In Australia, natural erosion removes between 50 and 100 million tonnes each year. Yet one proposed mining development alone plans to extract about 14 billion tonnes of rock over a 40-year period, with peak extraction rates of about 400 million tonnes per year. Our cities, transport routes, farms, forests and grazing activities have also altered the surface of more than half of all habitable ice-free lands. So rapidly are we extinguishing other species that future geologists will be able to discern this sudden mass disappearance from the fossil record - a mass extinction event seen only five times previously. But it is in our energy use that the scale of our activity becomes truly mind-boggling. Anyone who has seen film of a volcano erupt or those scenes of devastation from the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami can intuitively appreciate the immense energy involved in the natural processes that shape our planet as it vents heat stored deep within its interior. The rate at which heat is released from the earth - a measure of its natural ''metabolic'' rate - is about 44,000 billion watts, and reflects the average rate of energy used in moving all the continents, making all the mountains, the earthquakes and the volcanoes, in a process we call plate tectonics. During the 20th century, it is estimated that a touch under 1000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide was emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production. Now we are adding about 30 billion tonnes a year and the rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is doubling about every 30 years. To generate all that CO2 we annually consume more than 13 billion tonnes of coal, oil and natural gas as part of a global energy system that operates at a rate of some 16,000 billion watts. The human consumption rate is already more than one-third of the earth's natural heat-loss rate. And with our energy use doubling every 34 years, we are on course to surpass the energy released by plate tectonics by about 2060. To put those figures in a more sober context, we now consume energy at a rate equivalent to detonating one Hiroshima bomb (60,000 billion joules) about every four seconds and are on a trajectory towards one Hiroshima bomb every second before the end of the century. The ocean has already soaked up so much carbon dioxide that its acidity has increased by 25 per cent since pre-industrial times and, according to recent measurements, is now absorbing heat at a rate of about 300,000 billion watts. When my students measure the temperature in boreholes across Australia, they invariably see that as much heat is now going into the upper 30 to 50 metres of the earth's crust as is trying to get out - a result entirely consistent with the surface temperature rises measured by climate scientists. The world's human population has grown so much and so fast - trebling in one century and still soaring by more than 70 million a year - that it is perhaps not surprising that the vast scale of our combined environmental impacts is yet to sink in. Geologists don't readily tinker with their precious timescale - adding a new epoch is akin to adding a new verse to the Lord's Prayer. So proposing one named after us indicates that the international geological community fully understands the reality of the unprecedented impact we are having on our planet. Mike Sandiford is professor of geology and director of the Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne Read more:

Nice post Astro but it totally disagrees with this:

http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/


Quote:

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you. Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life. I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY. I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it. Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario. Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down. And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure. But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day! PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets? a good explanation showing that man only makes a tiny impact on climate compared to nature....

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 11:54pm:

Nice post Astro but it totally disagrees with this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/

Yes, but that's because your random soda head article is wrong, completely wrong. Humans emit far more CO2 than volcanoes and even if one volcano did emit a particularly large amount it would be statistically insignificant over the minimum thirty year window in which climate is measured.

astro_surf wrote on May 28^th, 2011 at 1:17am:

Bobby. wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 11:54pm: Nice post Astro but it totally disagrees with this: http://www.sp@m.com/living/carbon-credit-hoax/question-1576139/ Yes, but that's because your random soda head article is wrong, completely wrong. Humans emit far more CO2 than volcanoes and even if one volcano did emit a particularly large amount it would be statistically insignificant over the minimum thirty year window in which climate is measured.

I just wanted to show you that there are 2 sides to this debate & the
amounts of CO2 are really a point of contention.

Bobby. wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

I just wanted to show you that there are 2 sides to this debate & the amounts of CO2 are really a point of contention.

If by "contention" you mean "scientists say one thing, anonymous cranks on the internet who don't know what they are talking about say something else", then yeah I guess you're right. In the real world however it is not a mater of contention at all, we know precisely how much CO2 the Icelandic volcano emitted and it was less than 0.01% of what humans will emit this year.

astro_surf wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 10:55am: I just wanted to show you that there are 2 sides to this debate & the amounts of CO2 are really a point of contention. If by "contention" you mean "scientists say one thing, anonymous cranks on the internet who don't know what they are talking about say something else", then yeah I guess you're right. In the real world however it is not a mater of contention at all, we know precisely how much CO2 the Icelandic volcano emitted and it was less than 0.01% of what humans will emit this year.

Link please for proof of your statement?

Bobby. wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iFlK7AFMG1W1EKOCEcsMnheg0oow [quote]Volcano emitting 150-300,000 tonnes of CO2 daily: experts (AFP) – Apr 19, 2010 PARIS — Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday. Assuming the composition of gas to be the same as in an earlier eruption on an adjacent volcano, "the CO2 flux of Eyjafjoell would be 150,000 tonnes per day," Colin Macpherson, an Earth scientist at Britain's University of Durham, said in an email. Patrick Allard of the Paris Institute for Global Physics (IPGP) gave what he described as a "top-range" estimate of 300,000 tonnes per day. Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development. A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005. Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount -- less than a third of one percentage point -- of global emissions of greenhouse gases. Total emissions by six heat-trapping gases in 2005 were more than 36 thousand million tonnes (36 gigatonnes) as measured in CO2, according to the WRI index. "It's not of any significance compared to the anthropogenic [manmade] budget," said Kjetil Toerseth, director of regional and global pollution at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research. Specialists cautioned those who believe the eruption is good for climate change as carbon-emitting jetliners are unable to take to the skies. According to the European Environment Agency (EAA), daily emissions from the aviation sector in the 27 nations of the European Union are around 440,000 tonnes per day. Not all of this is saved because of the volcanic eruption, said the sources. Firstly, some airports in southern Europe have remained open for traffic. In addition, carbon is emitted when passengers stranded by air travel use the train, bus, car or ferry as an alternative. And many flights in, to and from Europe are merely being deferred until the crisis is over. "Whether the emissions occur now or three weeks from now does not change things fundamentally," said Herve Le Treut, a French climatologist. "Another point is that these emissions are of long duration. CO2 is dangerous because it stays in the atmosphere for about a hundred years. Its short-term effect is not the big problem."

And yet it is the opposite of the link I gave.  ::)

Yes. Your link is a CHAIN EMAIL. It ISN'T true, it CONTRADICTS the science. Can you not tell the difference between scientific opinion and the opinion of some anonymous CHAIN EMAIL????

astro_surf wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 8:57am:

Yes. Your link is a CHAIN EMAIL. It ISN'T true, it CONTRADICTS the science. Can you not tell the difference between scientific opinion and the opinion of some anonymous CHAIN EMAIL????

No I can't.
All links on the internet are suspect including yours.