4 ms·

Reading this struck me: What is the difference between primordial volcanoes and human pollution? During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were

Reading this struck me: What is the difference between primordial volcanoes and human pollution? During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were really extraordinary organisms. Further reading seems to go down a rabbit hole [1],etc. [0]http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/ice...

snowwrestler 10y ago
The difference is that during primordial times, we did not have all our infrastructure built out across the globe. Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine. It's been through worse. Global warming is scary because it's bad for human societies. We built our cities and farms and national boundaries in certain places based on the climate we have had. Significant shifts in sea level, precipitation, temps, etc. will cause massive costs and unrest.
- gd1 10y ago
  Why don't they say that then? I rate the claim that the 'planet is in danger' or 'life on earth is threatened' false. Four pinocchios.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine In the wise words of George Carlin: >The planet is fine. The people are fucked!
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  >Global warming is scary because it's bad for human societies. We built our cities and farms and national boundaries in certain places based on the climate we have had. Significant shifts in sea level, precipitation, temps, etc. will cause massive costs and unrest. Such a fresh perspective on this issue. Warrants thinking about but still I maintain, most humans don't have the discipline to worry about things that far in the future if the cost means they spend more on energy. Cheaper is the only way.
peteretep 10y ago
From a human perspective, there weren't 8 billion humans whose lives dependent on the status quo.
stinos 10y ago
I always thought there's way more human pollution than the amounts casued by a couple of volcano activity here and there? A quick search turns up multiple responses like this one: Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002) Granted this is just about CO2, but I wouldn't be suprised if the same principle applies to other pollution.
- davidmanescu 10y ago
  Ballpark numbers here; by similar reasoning, since the industrial revolution humans have put out no more than 26,000 years worth of all volcanoes' emissions (say 200 years worth of 130x emissions). Therefore (obviously hypothetically) if we were to cease emitting any CO2 at all, today, the effects of all the CO2 ever produced by humans would become largely irrelevant in just tens of millennia, which is a mere instant in geological timescales! I think in the scheme of things, no matter how bad things get the planet won't even notice us. However the question remains what life will be left to see it when it does finally return to normal.
masklinn 10y ago
> During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were really extraordinary organisms. 1. there were also no humans, we evolved during a relatively dry and cold period and for the most part that's what we (and our current globe-spanning civilisation) are adapted for. That's also very convenient as heat and humidity are parasite havens. 2. the second issue is rate of change, globe-spanning temperature changes generally happen on geological timescale not generational ones, and in the latter case they usually triggered massive extinctions. Neither of these is beneficial to us as a species.
- danvdragos 10y ago
  Interesting... We need more oxygen than reptiles because we are 4 to 6 times less efficient in turning food to energy [0] [0]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2005/09/breathing-easier-jurassic http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2005/09/breathing-easier-jura...
Thiez 10y ago
As the sun gets older, it becomes more and more luminous [0], so concentrations of CO2 that didn't cause a runaway greenhouse process in the past may do so in the future, because we're getting more sunlight. While this effect is not really noticeable when looking at recent history, once you start going back millions or billions of years it starts to become significant. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_evolution_%28English%29.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_evolution_%28Englis...

snowwrestler 10y ago

The difference is that during primordial times, we did not have all our infrastructure built out across the globe. Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine. It's been through worse. Global warming is scary because it's bad for human societies. We built our cities and farms and national boundaries in certain places based on the climate we have had. Significant shifts in sea level, precipitation, temps, etc. will cause massive costs and unrest.

gd1 10y ago
Why don't they say that then? I rate the claim that the 'planet is in danger' or 'life on earth is threatened' false. Four pinocchios.
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine In the wise words of George Carlin: >The planet is fine. The people are fucked!
_andromeda_ 10y ago
>Global warming is scary because it's bad for human societies. We built our cities and farms and national boundaries in certain places based on the climate we have had. Significant shifts in sea level, precipitation, temps, etc. will cause massive costs and unrest. Such a fresh perspective on this issue. Warrants thinking about but still I maintain, most humans don't have the discipline to worry about things that far in the future if the cost means they spend more on energy. Cheaper is the only way.

peteretep 10y ago

From a human perspective, there weren't 8 billion humans whose lives dependent on the status quo.

stinos 10y ago

I always thought there's way more human pollution than the amounts casued by a couple of volcano activity here and there? A quick search turns up multiple responses like this one: Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002) Granted this is just about CO2, but I wouldn't be suprised if the same principle applies to other pollution.

davidmanescu 10y ago
Ballpark numbers here; by similar reasoning, since the industrial revolution humans have put out no more than 26,000 years worth of all volcanoes' emissions (say 200 years worth of 130x emissions). Therefore (obviously hypothetically) if we were to cease emitting any CO2 at all, today, the effects of all the CO2 ever produced by humans would become largely irrelevant in just tens of millennia, which is a mere instant in geological timescales! I think in the scheme of things, no matter how bad things get the planet won't even notice us. However the question remains what life will be left to see it when it does finally return to normal.

masklinn 10y ago

> During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were really extraordinary organisms. 1. there were also no humans, we evolved during a relatively dry and cold period and for the most part that's what we (and our current globe-spanning civilisation) are adapted for. That's also very convenient as heat and humidity are parasite havens. 2. the second issue is rate of change, globe-spanning temperature changes generally happen on geological timescale not generational ones, and in the latter case they usually triggered massive extinctions. Neither of these is beneficial to us as a species.

danvdragos 10y ago
Interesting... We need more oxygen than reptiles because we are 4 to 6 times less efficient in turning food to energy [0] [0]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2005/09/breathing-easier-jurassic http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2005/09/breathing-easier-jura...

Thiez 10y ago

As the sun gets older, it becomes more and more luminous [0], so concentrations of CO2 that didn't cause a runaway greenhouse process in the past may do so in the future, because we're getting more sunlight. While this effect is not really noticeable when looking at recent history, once you start going back millions or billions of years it starts to become significant. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_evolution_%28English%29.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_evolution_%28Englis...