35 ms·

The majority of science studies, papers and reports disagree with you. Humans can and do have a huge impact on the world.

ommunist 11y ago
Since when number of publications became the measure of truth? There were numerous publications before Leonardo since Aristotle that flies have 8 legs. They all still have 6 though. Humans are nothing in impact comparing to a single volcano.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Well your evidence sure is overwhelming! Hundreds of man-years of research based on multiple, independent lines of evidence pointing towards a singular conclusion and you, the voice of reason, here to refute it all without the aid of satellite data, ice cores, spectrometers or computers models.
  - skadamat 11y ago
    I think this is exactly Bret's point that he makes in the essay. Citizens aren't empowered to find out for themselves and are instead asks to trust smart people: "And why trust them? Their rhetoric is catchy, but so is the horrific “denialist” rhetoric from the Cato Institute and similar. When the discussion is at the level of “trust me, I’m a scientist” and “look at the poor polar bears”, it becomes a matter of emotional appeal and faith, a form of religion. Climate change is too important for us to operate on faith. Citizens need and deserve reading material which shows context — how significant suggested actions are in the big picture — and which embeds models — formulas and algorithms which calculate that significance, for different scenarios, from primary-source data and explicit assumptions."
    - Daishiman 11y ago
      Do you check psychology journals every time you want to consult with a psychologist? Check the materials of the replacement parts in your car and run them against a material model to make sure that they're within the specified bounds of safety? Put food fragments on petri dishes to check bacterial content? For 99.9% of people, scientifically validating the opinions of the scientific consensus in all fields of life is a non-issue, except here. We trust other human beings because society and ecology are systems far too complex for anyone to make falsifiable assertions about them without serious research beyond the scope of single individuals. If anything, on the thing we can actually check up on, which is the integrity of climate scientists as an institution, they've been a hell of a lot more trusworthy than dozens of other institutions for which we rely on all the time. Maybe you've heard of them: the FDA, SEC, WHO, AMA, and dozens upon dozens of bodies of researchers, advisors, and experts. They all fuck up significantly from time to time, but by and large, their assesments are useful and have helped to bring some of the benefits of modern society. Now, I'm all in favor of people wanting to verify and corroborate data and evidence, but let's keep in mind that realistically, very few of us are capable of even asking the right questions. The best we can do is read up a little and check for consistency and reasonable explanations coming from the very scientists. So far, anyone who has listened to dudes like Michael Mann, Jason Box, and a plethora of other climatologists cannot seriously question their legitimacy any more than their own peers.
  - ommunist 11y ago
    Ironically all that system is not designed to find the truth. It is designed to find more funding to support itself. I know that, because I did that myself. A single set of glacial cores from Greenland tells you more that all that satellite BS. If you remotely closely familiar with principles of climatic modelling, you 'd be rotfl, looking at someone trying to validate or backtrace that models. Because you'd be familiar with valid and comparable data scarcity. We lack actual climate data. Ice cores are really the only thing we really have.
    - Daishiman 11y ago
      Yeah, your assertion doesn't seem to be validated at all. Not only do Jason Box's reconstructions refute that, but the reality is that with the current temperatures we have in Greenland the level of glacial melt is unprecedented. If not, mind explaining to us how exactly, if average temperatures have been higher in Greenland, then it hasn't experienced the melt it's going through right now? https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337
      - ommunist 11y ago
        Well, climate change this than: http://yer.io/img/globalwarm-this.png http://yer.io/img/globalwarm-this.png And global warm that: http://yer.io/img/gisp-last-10000-new.png http://yer.io/img/gisp-last-10000-new.png
      - ommunist 11y ago
        It is evident from the observations of Sohn et al. (2008) & Reves-Sohn et al. (2008) that the Northwest Passage was opened up by powerful volcanic activity under the Arctic Ice along the Gakkel Ridge, while West Antarctic melting (as opposed to thickening of ice throughout the rest of Antarctica) can be explained by recent volcanic activity beneath the ice (Corr & Vaughan, 2008). Moreover, there are simply too many volcanoes to deny that the atmospheric concentration of the most erupted gas next to water is predominantly controlled by the balance or lack thereof between volcanic activity and photosynthesis. Furthermore, there is simply no established volcanic CO2 fingerprint by which we may distinguish atmospheric proportions of anthropogenic and volcanogenic contributions. This leaves us with no empirical method by which we may attribute the 20th century rise in CO2 to human energy consumption.
- XorNot 11y ago
  > Humans are nothing in impact comparing to a single volcano. This is a myth which you can easily disprove yourself with a little research. If a single volcano vastly dwarfs human eCO2 output, then surely measurements of atmosphere eCO2 levels in years volcanos erupted will show significant spikes in atmosphere eCO2 concentration? Sources: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.... Globally, cars and trucks alone are responsible for about 15 times the CO2 emissions of all volcanos and that number is still growing. Consider the CO2 record of the past few years: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full From that, you would not pick that the largest volanic emissions of CO2 over that range occurred in 1980 and 1991 or shortly around those times.
  - ommunist 11y ago
    I actually did some research, and delivered a course in Environmental Legislation for three semesters at Moscow Industrial University. There are huge margins in estimations of both consumption and production of CO2. We lack actual data from one side and we have too many stakeholders with vested interest in "raising awareness about climate change", and selling more "cleaner" cars to take this subject seriously. Ever asked yourself how much of the CO2 footprint the "green" car have? Its way larger than Ford T.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      But you'll note, again, that the data I referred to isn't about what cars do or do not emit specifically. It is about whether volcanic eruptions track with significant increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. Which they do not. Where as your sources are still absent.
      - ommunist 11y ago
        Look, data for individual eruptions: Year Volcano Mean Sulphurous Output Source Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption 1883AD Krakatoa 38 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 26.14 MtCpa 1815AD Tambora 70 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 48.16 MtCpa 1783AD Laki 130 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 89.44 MtCpa 1600AD Huaynaputina 48 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 33.02 MtCpa 1452AD Kuwae 150 MtH2SO4pa Witter & Self (2007) 67.40 MtCpa 934AD Eldja 110 MtSO2 Shinohara (2008) 75.68 MtCpa 1645BC Minoa 125 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 86.00 MtCpa circa 71,000BP Toba 1100 MtH2SO4pa Zielenski et al. (1996) 494.24 MtCpa Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Gerlach is Guesswork ;-)
- yongjik 11y ago
  Ahem, > The volcano released approximately 0.15 million tonnes of CO2 each day, but the massive reduction of air travel occurring over European skies caused by the ash cloud, saved an estimated 1.3 to 2.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere by 19 April 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_April_2010_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull_eruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_April_2010_Eyja... > The grounding of European flights avoided about 3.44×10^8 kg of CO2 emissions per day, while the volcano emitted about 1.5×10^8 kg of CO2 per day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%...
  - ommunist 11y ago
    One small volcano vs all European flights. Now look at this: | Year | Volcano | Mean Sulphurous Output | Source | Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption | | +----------------+--------------+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--+ | 1883AD | Krakatoa | 38 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 26.14 MtCpa | | | 1815AD | Tambora | 70 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 48.16 MtCpa | | | 1783AD | Laki | 130 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 89.44 MtCpa | | | 1600AD | Huaynaputina | 48 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 33.02 MtCpa | | | 1452AD | Kuwae | 150 MtH2SO4pa | Witter & Self (2007) | 67.40 MtCpa | | | 934AD | Eldja | 110 MtSO2 | Shinohara (2008) | 75.68 MtCpa | | | 1645BC | Minoa | 125 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 86.00 MtCpa | | | circa 71,000BP | Toba | 1100 MtH2SO4pa | Zielenski et al. (1996) | 494.24 MtCpa | | +----------------+--------------+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--+ Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001)

ommunist 11y ago

Since when number of publications became the measure of truth? There were numerous publications before Leonardo since Aristotle that flies have 8 legs. They all still have 6 though. Humans are nothing in impact comparing to a single volcano.

Daishiman 11y ago
Well your evidence sure is overwhelming! Hundreds of man-years of research based on multiple, independent lines of evidence pointing towards a singular conclusion and you, the voice of reason, here to refute it all without the aid of satellite data, ice cores, spectrometers or computers models.
- skadamat 11y ago
  I think this is exactly Bret's point that he makes in the essay. Citizens aren't empowered to find out for themselves and are instead asks to trust smart people: "And why trust them? Their rhetoric is catchy, but so is the horrific “denialist” rhetoric from the Cato Institute and similar. When the discussion is at the level of “trust me, I’m a scientist” and “look at the poor polar bears”, it becomes a matter of emotional appeal and faith, a form of religion. Climate change is too important for us to operate on faith. Citizens need and deserve reading material which shows context — how significant suggested actions are in the big picture — and which embeds models — formulas and algorithms which calculate that significance, for different scenarios, from primary-source data and explicit assumptions."
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    Do you check psychology journals every time you want to consult with a psychologist? Check the materials of the replacement parts in your car and run them against a material model to make sure that they're within the specified bounds of safety? Put food fragments on petri dishes to check bacterial content? For 99.9% of people, scientifically validating the opinions of the scientific consensus in all fields of life is a non-issue, except here. We trust other human beings because society and ecology are systems far too complex for anyone to make falsifiable assertions about them without serious research beyond the scope of single individuals. If anything, on the thing we can actually check up on, which is the integrity of climate scientists as an institution, they've been a hell of a lot more trusworthy than dozens of other institutions for which we rely on all the time. Maybe you've heard of them: the FDA, SEC, WHO, AMA, and dozens upon dozens of bodies of researchers, advisors, and experts. They all fuck up significantly from time to time, but by and large, their assesments are useful and have helped to bring some of the benefits of modern society. Now, I'm all in favor of people wanting to verify and corroborate data and evidence, but let's keep in mind that realistically, very few of us are capable of even asking the right questions. The best we can do is read up a little and check for consistency and reasonable explanations coming from the very scientists. So far, anyone who has listened to dudes like Michael Mann, Jason Box, and a plethora of other climatologists cannot seriously question their legitimacy any more than their own peers.
- ommunist 11y ago
  Ironically all that system is not designed to find the truth. It is designed to find more funding to support itself. I know that, because I did that myself. A single set of glacial cores from Greenland tells you more that all that satellite BS. If you remotely closely familiar with principles of climatic modelling, you 'd be rotfl, looking at someone trying to validate or backtrace that models. Because you'd be familiar with valid and comparable data scarcity. We lack actual climate data. Ice cores are really the only thing we really have.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    Yeah, your assertion doesn't seem to be validated at all. Not only do Jason Box's reconstructions refute that, but the reality is that with the current temperatures we have in Greenland the level of glacial melt is unprecedented. If not, mind explaining to us how exactly, if average temperatures have been higher in Greenland, then it hasn't experienced the melt it's going through right now? https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337
    - ommunist 11y ago
      Well, climate change this than: http://yer.io/img/globalwarm-this.png http://yer.io/img/globalwarm-this.png And global warm that: http://yer.io/img/gisp-last-10000-new.png http://yer.io/img/gisp-last-10000-new.png
    - ommunist 11y ago
      It is evident from the observations of Sohn et al. (2008) & Reves-Sohn et al. (2008) that the Northwest Passage was opened up by powerful volcanic activity under the Arctic Ice along the Gakkel Ridge, while West Antarctic melting (as opposed to thickening of ice throughout the rest of Antarctica) can be explained by recent volcanic activity beneath the ice (Corr & Vaughan, 2008). Moreover, there are simply too many volcanoes to deny that the atmospheric concentration of the most erupted gas next to water is predominantly controlled by the balance or lack thereof between volcanic activity and photosynthesis. Furthermore, there is simply no established volcanic CO2 fingerprint by which we may distinguish atmospheric proportions of anthropogenic and volcanogenic contributions. This leaves us with no empirical method by which we may attribute the 20th century rise in CO2 to human energy consumption.
XorNot 11y ago
> Humans are nothing in impact comparing to a single volcano. This is a myth which you can easily disprove yourself with a little research. If a single volcano vastly dwarfs human eCO2 output, then surely measurements of atmosphere eCO2 levels in years volcanos erupted will show significant spikes in atmosphere eCO2 concentration? Sources: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.... Globally, cars and trucks alone are responsible for about 15 times the CO2 emissions of all volcanos and that number is still growing. Consider the CO2 record of the past few years: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full From that, you would not pick that the largest volanic emissions of CO2 over that range occurred in 1980 and 1991 or shortly around those times.
- ommunist 11y ago
  I actually did some research, and delivered a course in Environmental Legislation for three semesters at Moscow Industrial University. There are huge margins in estimations of both consumption and production of CO2. We lack actual data from one side and we have too many stakeholders with vested interest in "raising awareness about climate change", and selling more "cleaner" cars to take this subject seriously. Ever asked yourself how much of the CO2 footprint the "green" car have? Its way larger than Ford T.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    But you'll note, again, that the data I referred to isn't about what cars do or do not emit specifically. It is about whether volcanic eruptions track with significant increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. Which they do not. Where as your sources are still absent.
    - ommunist 11y ago
      Look, data for individual eruptions: Year Volcano Mean Sulphurous Output Source Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption 1883AD Krakatoa 38 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 26.14 MtCpa 1815AD Tambora 70 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 48.16 MtCpa 1783AD Laki 130 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 89.44 MtCpa 1600AD Huaynaputina 48 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 33.02 MtCpa 1452AD Kuwae 150 MtH2SO4pa Witter & Self (2007) 67.40 MtCpa 934AD Eldja 110 MtSO2 Shinohara (2008) 75.68 MtCpa 1645BC Minoa 125 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 86.00 MtCpa circa 71,000BP Toba 1100 MtH2SO4pa Zielenski et al. (1996) 494.24 MtCpa Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Gerlach is Guesswork ;-)
yongjik 11y ago
Ahem, > The volcano released approximately 0.15 million tonnes of CO2 each day, but the massive reduction of air travel occurring over European skies caused by the ash cloud, saved an estimated 1.3 to 2.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere by 19 April 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_April_2010_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull_eruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_April_2010_Eyja... > The grounding of European flights avoided about 3.44×10^8 kg of CO2 emissions per day, while the volcano emitted about 1.5×10^8 kg of CO2 per day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%...
- ommunist 11y ago
  One small volcano vs all European flights. Now look at this: | Year | Volcano | Mean Sulphurous Output | Source | Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption | | +----------------+--------------+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--+ | 1883AD | Krakatoa | 38 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 26.14 MtCpa | | | 1815AD | Tambora | 70 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 48.16 MtCpa | | | 1783AD | Laki | 130 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 89.44 MtCpa | | | 1600AD | Huaynaputina | 48 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 33.02 MtCpa | | | 1452AD | Kuwae | 150 MtH2SO4pa | Witter & Self (2007) | 67.40 MtCpa | | | 934AD | Eldja | 110 MtSO2 | Shinohara (2008) | 75.68 MtCpa | | | 1645BC | Minoa | 125 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 86.00 MtCpa | | | circa 71,000BP | Toba | 1100 MtH2SO4pa | Zielenski et al. (1996) | 494.24 MtCpa | | +----------------+--------------+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--+ Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001)