Are Natural Systems Smart

  • Thread starter Thread starter Subsea
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None
I agree that climate change due to man’s impact is a theory at best. Earth’s early athmosphere was influenced by volcanoes which still effect the weather today.

Might want to read up on this. Volcanism has almost zero contribution to the global climate at present . Extremely large eruptions can have some effect via sulfur aerosols, but those cause a net cooling by blocking incoming short-wave radiation.
 
Might want to read up on this. Volcanism has almost zero contribution to the global climate at present . Extremely large eruptions can have some effect via sulfur aerosols, but those cause a net cooling by blocking incoming short-wave radiation.

This is the first link when I goggled volcanoes and weather.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-volcanoes-affect-w/

Karen Harpp, an assistant professor of geology at Colgate University, provides this explanation:
000D4121-91C5-1CD1-B4A8809EC588EEDF_arch1.jpg

Image: PHOTODISC
VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS inject ash and aerosol clouds into the atmosphere and produce more than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

In 1784, Benjamin Franklin made what may have been the first connection between volcanoes and global climate while stationed in Paris as the first diplomatic representative of the United States of America. He observed that during the summer of 1783, the climate was abnormally cold, both in Europe and back in the U.S. The ground froze early, the first snow stayed on the ground without melting, the winter was more severe than usual, and there seemed to be "a constant fog over all Europe, and [a] great part of North America."

What Benjamin Franklin observed was indeed the result of volcanic activity. An enormous eruption of the Laki fissure system (a chain of volcanoes in which the lava erupts through a crack in the ground instead of from a single point) in Iceland caused the disruptions. The Laki eruptions produced about 14 cubic kilometers of basalt (thin, black, fluid lava) during more than eight months of activity. More importantly in terms of global climate, however, the Laki event also produced an ash cloud that may have reached up into the stratosphere. This cloud caused a dense haze across Europe that dimmed the sun, perhaps as far west as Siberia. In addition to ash, the eruptive cloud consisted primarily of vast quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride gases (HF). The gases combined with water in the atmosphere to produce acid rain, destroying crops and killing livestock. The effects, of course, were most severe in Iceland; ultimately, more than 75 percent of Icelands livestock and 25 percent of its human population died from famine or the toxic impact of the Laki eruption clouds. Consequences were also felt far beyond Iceland. Temperature data from the U.S. indicate that record lows occurred during the winter of 1783-1784. In fact, the temperature decreased about one degree Celsius in the Northern Hemisphere overall. That may not sound like much, but it had enormous effects in terms of food supplies and the survival of people across the Northern Hemisphere. For comparison, the global temperature of the most recent Ice Age was only about five degrees C below the current average.

There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.
 
This is the first link when I goggled volcanoes and weather.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-volcanoes-affect-w/

Karen Harpp, an assistant professor of geology at Colgate University, provides this explanation:
000D4121-91C5-1CD1-B4A8809EC588EEDF_arch1.jpg

Image: PHOTODISC
VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS inject ash and aerosol clouds into the atmosphere and produce more than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

In 1784, Benjamin Franklin made what may have been the first connection between volcanoes and global climate while stationed in Paris as the first diplomatic representative of the United States of America. He observed that during the summer of 1783, the climate was abnormally cold, both in Europe and back in the U.S. The ground froze early, the first snow stayed on the ground without melting, the winter was more severe than usual, and there seemed to be "a constant fog over all Europe, and [a] great part of North America."

What Benjamin Franklin observed was indeed the result of volcanic activity. An enormous eruption of the Laki fissure system (a chain of volcanoes in which the lava erupts through a crack in the ground instead of from a single point) in Iceland caused the disruptions. The Laki eruptions produced about 14 cubic kilometers of basalt (thin, black, fluid lava) during more than eight months of activity. More importantly in terms of global climate, however, the Laki event also produced an ash cloud that may have reached up into the stratosphere. This cloud caused a dense haze across Europe that dimmed the sun, perhaps as far west as Siberia. In addition to ash, the eruptive cloud consisted primarily of vast quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride gases (HF). The gases combined with water in the atmosphere to produce acid rain, destroying crops and killing livestock. The effects, of course, were most severe in Iceland; ultimately, more than 75 percent of Icelands livestock and 25 percent of its human population died from famine or the toxic impact of the Laki eruption clouds. Consequences were also felt far beyond Iceland. Temperature data from the U.S. indicate that record lows occurred during the winter of 1783-1784. In fact, the temperature decreased about one degree Celsius in the Northern Hemisphere overall. That may not sound like much, but it had enormous effects in terms of food supplies and the survival of people across the Northern Hemisphere. For comparison, the global temperature of the most recent Ice Age was only about five degrees C below the current average.

There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.
just the carbon cycle. volcanic eruption - co2 into atmosphere - back into the ocean - carbonic acid- bicarbonate/carbonate/calcium carbonate formation (calcification) drops to the ocean floor, into the mantle - carbon - CO2 & out the volcano again
 
VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS inject ash and aerosol clouds into the atmosphere and produce more than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

For reference, human activities emit roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Which is why volcanism is generally considered to have a negligible impact on global climate at present. Sure, there have been some extremely large volcanic eruptions in the past which have temporarily altered the climate in a meaningful sense, but present volcanism contributes almost nothing (as the last sentence in that article you just posted states).
 
For reference, human activities emit roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Which is why volcanism is generally considered to have a negligible impact on global climate at present. Sure, there have been some extremely large volcanic eruptions in the past which have temporarily altered the climate in a meaningful sense, but present volcanism contributes almost nothing (as the last sentence in that article you just posted states).
Yes, Subsy' article also stated that humans contribution is 10,000 times volcanoes, so he doesn't need a lecture from you! :D
 
Yes, Subsy' article also stated that humans contribution is 10,000 times volcanoes, so he doesn't need a lecture from you! :D

Just trying to cut through some of the conspiracy theory nonsense that seems to be making its way into this thread. Sorry to offend!
 
Just trying to cut through some of the conspiracy theory nonsense that seems to be making its way into this thread. Sorry to offend!
I haven't seen any conspiracies put forward in this thread, but then I've only really read the last page or so.
 
For reference, human activities emit roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Which is why volcanism is generally considered to have a negligible impact on global climate at present. Sure, there have been some extremely large volcanic eruptions in the past which have temporarily altered the climate in a meaningful sense, but present volcanism contributes almost nothing (as the last sentence in that article you just posted states).

Yes, I saw the co2 emission comparison. My bad.

The connection between co2 emission and doomsday global warming is IMO a theory. Perhaps it is a ploy to make Al Gore rich using carbon coupons. Is that conspiracy theory?
 
Yes, I saw the co2 emission comparison. My bad.

The connection between co2 emission and doomsday global warming is IMO a theory. Perhaps it is a ploy to make Al Gore rich using carbon coupons.
Too late Subs, he's already gotten very rich from the climate crisis industry.
 
Yes, I saw the co2 emission comparison. My bad.

The connection between co2 emission and doomsday global warming is IMO a theory. Perhaps it is a ploy to make Al Gore rich using carbon coupons.

Not really sure about doomsday projections or Al Gore. I don't really pay much attention to either. But the science behind carbon emissions contributing to a majority of observed warming in recent decades is incredibly robust. If you have a significant body of peer-reviewed research that says otherwise I'd be happy to read it, otherwise it just doesn't really seem worth debating...
 
I think we are getting off topic again lol.

Climate science is well documented. If you reject the science that's fine. We can move on.
 
But the science behind carbon emissions contributing to a majority of observed warming in recent decades is incredibly robust. If you have a significant body of peer-reviewed research that says otherwise I'd be happy to read it, otherwise it just doesn't really seem worth debating...
In regards to warming in recent times, there is no scientific measurement that can distinguish between natural vairability & CO2 forcing. Any statement infering that "most of the warming is due to man" is a political statement derived from a political concensus, & expert opinion, not a scientific statement.

The experienced mild warming that has occured does not need a forcing to explain it, let alone an external forcing. Natural variability can account for all of it.

The mainstream science says that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a maximum increase in global average temperatiuure of only 1C.
And every doubling of CO2 adds twice the volume of CO2 as the previous doubling for only an equal effect, 1C.

Enjoy the interglacial :cool:
 
In regards to warming in recent times, there is no scientific measurement that can distinguish between natural vairability & CO2 forcing. Any statement infering that "most of the warming is due to man" is a political statement derived from a political concensus, & expert opinion, not a scientific statement.

The experienced mild warming that has occured does not need a forcing to explain it, let alone an external forcing. Natural variability can account for all of it.

The mainstream science says that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a maximum increase in global average temperatiuure of only 1C.
And every doubling of CO2 adds twice the volume of CO2 as the previous doubling for only an equal effect, 1C.

Enjoy the interglacial :cool:

I've been through this with you before. After many pages of back-and-forth, the conclusion we reached was that you were unable to provide any peer-reviewed research that directly called into question the evidence that anthropogenic emissions are driving the majority of the present warming and, additionally, were unwilling to read any of the peer-reviewed papers I posted responding to specific claims you were making. I left with a bitter taste in my mouth and am not going to waste another second of my time on it.
 
I guess I need to simplify the terms for you in language you understand. There is no evidence today or in the past of a cross between a pigeon and a dog. A cross between a bird and snake. Or a cat turning into a turtle. There is no evidence to support such claims period. No Frog tadpoles have developed into Beavers and started to build a lodge. Fact, not assumption or speculation...fact. The incompatibility of the Genome prevents such from being possible. Even a Mule (a cross between a horse and donkey) is sterile and has never been able to procreate. This is an incontrovertible fact and even though centuries of crosses have occurred not one Mule has been born of a Mule. A Mule has never been able to throw an offspring period. Now in the case of two animals being similar like a horse and donkey what does that say about natural selection outside of the relative close proximity of the Genome responsible for horses and donkeys. Think man don't let other so called authorities think for you. There is plenty of recent evidence to debunk a single cell becoming one day a fish and the next several generations becoming a T-Rex. It may be possible in the future through gene splicing but that is another horror show all together. That is not natural selection but manipulation by outside forces.

I also noticed you mentioned two species that are closely related so much so that science only recently made two classifications. They are not separate Genera but species. Try crossing a baboon with a person...oh yeah that was already attempted and it failed in a heart transplant due to incompatibility and tissue rejection (Baby Faye). No one has dared to try it again due to the legal, moral, ethical challenges, and science involved. This one case is one scientific proof that a cross between Genera is not possible today with all our medical science not to mention the absence of such in the past. Some hurdles nature cannot accomplish and this is just one example from recent history.

So no matter where you look you will never find one case of an animal crossing the Genome boundary in natural selection. That is a fact no matter how many bones are mixed together to make a fossil.

Wow.. I honestly don’t see the point to responding to this as the points you are trying to make are so far removed from anything I was discussing.

Back to the thread subject. For me personally I think that natural systems are fascinating but not smart. Genius, but not ‘intelligent’.

4 billion years is a LONG time after all and lots of small incremental steps over that time period we should not be surprised to see how life has become so complex.
 
Last edited:
I've been through this with you before. After many pages of back-and-forth, the conclusion we reached was that you were unable to provide any peer-reviewed research that directly called into question the evidence that anthropogenic emissions are driving the majority of the present warming and, additionally, were unwilling to read any of the peer-reviewed papers I posted responding to specific claims you were making. I left with a bitter taste in my mouth and am not going to waste another second of my time on it.
I'll be polite, even though I'll have to repeat myself yet again -

"there is no scientific measurement that can distinguish between natural vairability & CO2 forcing. Any statement infering that "most of the warming is due to man" is a political statement derived from a political concensus, & expert opinion, not a scientific statement."

&

The experienced mild warming that has occured does not need a forcing to explain it, let alone an external forcing. Natural variability can account for all of it.

:)
 
For reference, human activities emit roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Which is why volcanism is generally considered to have a negligible impact on global climate at present. Sure, there have been some extremely large volcanic eruptions in the past which have temporarily altered the climate in a meaningful sense, but present volcanism contributes almost nothing (as the last sentence in that article you just posted states).

So what is the impact of all the large fires in America, Spain, Africa, and Australia this year alone. Any guess as to the metric tons of CO2 produced by wildfires alone?
 
Does anyone honestly believe that we are NOT causing imbalance to the planets ecosystems?

Climate change or not, burning of fuel is harmful to our health and a major pollutant (chemical emissions and oil spills as examples) so we need a long term clean and renewable solution to our power requirements.

Also we are stuck on this planet for a while yet so rather than run the dumbest experiment ever and continue to pump billions of tons of chemicals into our atmosphere every year and think we will get away with it we need to act before it’s potentially too late.

Would you rather be correct that the earth is not warming and have cleaner, cheaper, more reliable and renewable power or.. the alternative: be wrong and screwed because we were too busy debating climate change rather than acting?

It seems we embrace redundancy for our aquariums but don’t bother for our planet!
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top