Fox News is in on the Global Warming conspiracy!

AverageJoe

AverageJoe

Full Audioholic
mtrycrafts said:
Probably not, or they would not be dissenting.
There are many issues where some scientists dissent. So what. Does that make them right?
Not at all. Exactly my point. That's just the nature of theories - they get disproved (or proved) all the time. It's when theories become "issues" that science can take a back seat to politics.
But, before you go on the attack, I personally don't back either side of this "issue". Everyone has their pet issues, and this isn't one that I follow very much. But I do know a couple scientists that cringe every time they hear a blanket statement that lumps the entire scientific community onto one side of an argument.

The popular position isn't always right either - no matter how many great minds said it was so, the world didn't end up being flat.;)
 
V

Vynilforlife

Audioholic Intern
mtrycrafts said:
You seem to be pretty sure of your supposition? Based in fact or what?

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

This tells me otherwise.

The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities.


Maybe you should do a bit of research?

Try a google for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Might learn a few things. I just love that google.:D
I said eruption. The data you have is from standard daily venting of geo sources. It does not take into account the frequent (every 10 years or so) large eruptions of Volcanos. A large eruption will put out orders of magnitude more gas. When these eruptions are averaged out, They far exceed what we produce.
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
Vynilforlife said:
I said eruption. The data you have is from standard daily venting of geo sources. It does not take into account the frequent (every 10 years or so) large eruptions of Volcanos. A large eruption will put out orders of magnitude more gas. When these eruptions are averaged out, They far exceed what we produce.

Do you have data for the amount of CO2 released in eruptions you could share with us?




http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
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, 1992). 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 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/2001/01-119.htm
December 10, 2001 - Release No. 01-119

LARGE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS HELP PLANTS ABSORB MORE CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE

New NASA-funded research shows that when the atmosphere gets hazy, like it did after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991, plants photosynthesize more efficiently, thereby absorbing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

When Mount Pinatubo erupted, scientists noticed the rate at which carbon dioxide (CO2) filled the atmosphere slowed down for the next two years. Also during 1992 and 1993, ash and other particles from the volcano created a haze around the planet and slightly reduced the sunlight reaching Earth's surface and made the sun's radiation less direct and more diffuse.

Many scientists previously thought the reduction in sunlight lowered the Earth's temperature and slowed plant and soil respiration, a process where plants and soil emit CO2. But this new research shows that when faced with diffuse sunlight, plants actually become more efficient, drawing more carbon dioxide out of the air.

"There is evidence indicating that the drop in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate was probably too big to be explained by a reduction in respiration alone," said the study's lead author, Lianhong Gu, a researcher at the University of California Berkeley's Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management.

Gu added that the respiration rates of plants and soil are sensitive to temperature changes. But "in order to explain the drop in atmospheric growth rate of CO2, we would need an average drop in global temperatures of about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2ƒ C), but the temperatures only dropped by about one degree (0.9) Fahrenheit (0.5ƒC) globally."

Plants take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis in the day, and release it during respiration at night. But they don't necessarily photosynthesize and respire at the same rates. Since decreased plant and soil respiration could not explain the drop in carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere in 1992 and 1993, Gu and his colleagues deduced that enhanced photosynthesis by plants must be involved.

After Mount Pinatubo erupted, while overall solar radiation was reduced by less than five percent, data showed a reduction of direct radiation by as much as 30 percent. So, instead of direct light, the sun's rays were reaching leaves after colliding with particles in the air.

"Diffuse radiation has advantages for plants," Gu said. That's because when plants receive too much direct light, they become saturated by radiation and their ability to photosynthesize levels off. In the layers of leaves from top to bottom, called the plant canopy, only a small percentage of the leaves at the top actually get hit by direct light. In the presence of diffuse light, plants photosynthesize more efficiently and can draw more than twice as much carbon from the air than when radiated by direct light.

Gu and his colleagues tested the CO2 uptake in various plant ecosystems around the world-including Aspen forests, mixed deciduous forests, Scots pine forests, tallgrass prairies, and a winter wheat field-based on the amount of solar radiation striking the leaves. From these analyses, they generated parameters necessary for evaluating impacts of the Pinatubo eruption. On clear days following the eruption, they found that in all of the ecosystems, photosynthesis increased under the diffuse light.

While large volcanic eruptions are rare, this research has big implications for more regular phenomena such as the effects of aerosols and clouds on an ecosystem's ability to pull carbon from the atmosphere. Aerosols, or microscopic particles like soot or black carbon in the air, occur naturally but have also been increasing due to human activities since the industrial revolution. Gu's research indicates that the maximum uptake of carbon dioxide by plant ecosystems occurs when cloud cover is about 50 percent.

The research will be presented at a poster session of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Calif. on December 14, 2001. A paper will be published soon in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Aside from NASA, the study was also funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy, and other organizations, through the FLUXNET program.

For more information about FLUXNET, see:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Fluxnet/

For more information on this story, see:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011210co2absorb.html

Editor's Note: AGU Title, Time and Location
"Roles of volcanic eruptions, aerosols and clouds in global carbon cycle"
Friday, December 14, 2001, 8:30 AM, Moscone Center Hall D
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
AverageJoe said:
The popular position isn't always right either - no matter how many great minds said it was so, the world didn't end up being flat.;)

I doubt you will find a time in recorded history where you would have found the great majority of scientists saying that it was flat. Again, the Church had a great influence, and even their own scientists knew the truth.
 
FLZapped

FLZapped

Audioholic
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, 1992). 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 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)
Interesting that the volcanic numbers are either calculated or estimated, yet they say no such thing in regards to humans - and I would think those are estimations as well.....

This is a place where politics can alter the mathmatic model......

-Bruce
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
AverageJoe said:
I guess YOU are (an expert).
I'm curious though. When did you interview every scientist in the world?

There are more than a few with dissenting viewpoints, so some of them really don't know what they're talking about.;)

I admit, there are some scientists who have doubts, disagree, whatever. But I'm not the one claiming to be an expert and going against what the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world think. I know I am not an expert, so I defer to their knowledge. I don't claim to know better than them.
 
C

cyberbri

Banned
As posted by Buckeye_Nut on a different thread...


http://www.ap.org/response/response_062806a.html

Senate Committee Majority Press Release Mis-states Facts About AP Story

A statement from the Republican majority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has raised questions of bias and methodology in regards to a June 27 story by The Associated Press detailing scientists’ opinion of whether “The Inconvenient Truth,” former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, is scientifically sound.

The press release contends “AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science” in the documentary.

The AP’s methodology was simple, straightforward and clean: We contacted more than 100 of the nation’s top climate researchers, including those who have been vocal skeptics of climate change theory. But we quoted only climate scientists who had actually viewed the documentary or read the book upon which it was based. As we learned in the course of our reporting – and as our story noted – most scientists have not seen the movie or read the book. And those who had seen it or read it were generally positive toward Gore’s scientific presentation.

The Senate Committee Majority’s press release was headlined “AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE.” That headline is wrong: The story was completely accurate and met AP’s high standards in every way.

The AP story reported facts. It did not take a position in a debate, whether political or scientific, about global warming.

Linda Wagner, AP's Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs

Note that AP is just repeating itself, because this was in the originally story and spun (ignored) to meet political viewpoints:

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
 
B

Buckeye_Nut

Audioholic Field Marshall
cyberbri said:
That's an AP article:rolleyes:

Do you see at the top under the date where it says "Associated Press"??? LOL

AP articles end up everywhere on the web, & yes..... even on the fox website. You'll find that exact same AP article linked to a multitude of news sources. (Yahoo news pages, CNN.com, MSNBC website, etc..etc..etc.......)

Pay attention to detail!! Look on the bright side, at least you learned something today:)
 
Last edited:
C

cyberbri

Banned
Buckeye_Nut said:
That's an AP article:rolleyes:

Do you see at the top under the date where it says "Associated Press"??? LOL

AP articles end up everywhere on the web, & yes..... even on the fox website. You'll find that exact same AP article linked to a multitude of news sources. (Yahoo news pages, CNN.com, MSNBC website, etc..etc..etc.......)

Pay attention to detail!! Look on the bright side, at least you learned something today:)

I knew exactly what it was and where it came from, and I am well aware that AP stories are published in many newspapers and on many different websites. That's why I put "now that I have your attention." I first saw the story on the Fox News site, and posted that link BECAUSE it was on the Fox website.

Look on the bright side, at least YOU learned something about climate change today by reading the articles and information on this thread. :D
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top