Global Warming Is Interplanetary?

[ubaru]

Yes climate change is happening, but no it's not caused by humans. IT'S.....drum roll...... INTERPLANETARY!!

Cap & Trade, Carbon Tax, Geo-Engineering, Eugenics and Population Control will NOT stop global warming, because warming happens throughout the solar system. Yes, some very wealthy old bloodline family by the name of the Rothschilds has had a lot of green to gain from their "education" of us as to the benefits of going Green. Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth now looks like a rather Convenient Lie. The tip off for me then was the FEAR in the movie trailer. Big red flag. When our indoctrinated public school children were getting religious about going green, I knew something was off. Sorry Rothschilds, we are waking up. Folks, it's time to show your children this video and have a little talk about fear and greed and propaganda.

Interplanetary global warming was a big, lovely, "A Hah" for me two years ago, and I recently came across this video of David Wilcock sharing this scientific data again, so will share with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4hR...layer_embedded

And here's some data in the same vein as that in the video, about increased under sea volcanic activity causing ocean warming and acidification. https://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm


I think I'll go outside right now and compost my guilt for being a human being on the planet. Whew!!

Liz

p.s. Permaculture inspires me and my car gets 35/55 mpg, just in case you were wondering where I'm coming from. Conservation is good. Conservation used to strip us of our property rights, our civil liberties, and our cash is bad.

[zenekar]

Yes climate change is happening, but no it's not caused by humans. IT'S.....drum roll...... INTERPLANETARY!!

Cap & Trade, Carbon Tax, Geo-Engineering, Eugenics and Population Control will NOT stop global warming, because warming happens throughout the solar system. Yes, some very wealthy old bloodline family by the name of the Rothschilds has had a lot of green to gain from their "education" of us as to the benefits of going Green. Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth now looks like a rather Convenient Lie. The tip off for me then was the FEAR in the movie trailer. Big red flag. When our indoctrinated public school children were getting religious about going green, I knew something was off. Sorry Rothschilds, we are waking up. Folks, it's time to show your children this video and have a little talk about fear and greed and propaganda.

Interplanetary global warming was a big, lovely, "A Hah" for me two years ago, and I recently came across this video of David Wilcock sharing this scientific data again, so will share with you.



And here's some data in the same vein as that in the video, about increased under sea volcanic activity causing ocean warming and acidification. https://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm


I think I'll go outside right now and compost my guilt for being a human being on the planet. Whew!!

Liz

p.s. Permaculture inspires me and my car gets 35/55 mpg, just in case you were wondering where I'm coming from.

Are you serious?! Wilcock is a great self promoter and promoter of fascinating fiction. He claims to be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. He's a charlatan. May I suggest some reality based sources for information and news, https://democracynow.org, https://truthout.org, https://alternet.org ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjS...ayer_embedded#

[Hotspring 44]

Yes climate change is happening, but no it's not caused by humans. IT'S.....drum roll...... INTERPLANETARY!!

Cap & Trade, Carbon Tax, Geo-Engineering, Eugenics and Population Control will NOT stop global warming, because warming happens throughout the solar system.

Even if that's so, wouldn't it be prudent to minimize the negative effects by utilizing a more closed loop energy system like, for instance;
Why Alcohol Fuel? The Two-Minute Summary then being so inefficient as the Tar Sands scenario (?).

[ubaru]

Absolutely!

Liz

[burro]

Yes climate change is happening, but no it's not caused by humans. IT'S.....drum roll...... INTERPLANETARY!!

Cap & Trade, Carbon Tax, Geo-Engineering, Eugenics and Population Control will NOT stop global warming, because warming happens throughout the solar system. Yes, some very wealthy old bloodline family by the name of the Rothschilds has had a lot of green to gain from their "education" of us as to the benefits of going Green. Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth now looks like a rather Convenient Lie. The tip off for me then was the FEAR in the movie trailer. Big red flag. When our indoctrinated public school children were getting religious about going green, I knew something was off. Sorry Rothschilds, we are waking up. Folks, it's time to show your children this video and have a little talk about fear and greed and propaganda.

Interplanetary global warming was a big, lovely, "A Hah" for me two years ago, and I recently came across this video of David Wilcock sharing this scientific data again, so will share with you.



And here's some data in the same vein as that in the video, about increased under sea volcanic activity causing ocean warming and acidification. https://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

Speaking as an actual scientist, my response to this post is, "Bwa hahahahaha!!!"

SOMEBODY has been taken in by the Oil-Funded Right-Wing disinformation manufacturing machine...

Sci-Fi is not real science.

[ubaru]

Speaking as an actual scientist, my response to this post is, "Bwa hahahahaha!!!"

SOMEBODY has been taken in by the Oil-Funded Right-Wing disinformation manufacturing machine...

Sci-Fi is not real science.

Ok let's have some fun!



Chicken Little is very worried!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWnM...layer_embedded

The 12 Days of Global Warming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPS...layer_embedded

Eerie CO2 Ad: Bedtime Stories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=SDthR9RH0gw

A parody of the CO2 Ad commercial scaring children into believing that they are killing the planet. Sign the petition to stop Cap and Trade. It's For the Children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BptZ...layer_embedded

Seriously, burro, from the point of view of the ruling elite, the propaganda formula that works is problem, reaction, solution. So if you want to be a global power control freak, as they are, manufacture a global problem. Put in your paid team of "scientists" to say it's true. Manufacture the reaction with Al Gore's A Convenient Lie. Indoctrinate your children with the neurotic idea that they are bad for the planet. Present a global "solution" that puts a lot of money in your pocket, and make it seem politically incorrect unless you goose step to the green beat. Ta Da!! Globalism well on it's way!

It's really time to wake up.

So who has been taken in by disinformation? Everybody who accepts the loss of land rights and personal freedoms in the name of conservation. Conservation without loss of personal land rights and liberties is great. But this is nefarious. Just one example is Smart Meters that ration your power in the name of going green. Check out Rosa Koire's new book Behind the Green Mask.

https://www.democratsagainstunagenda...reen-mask.html

Most people have yet to find out about UN Agenda 21, but I recommend getting educated about it. It's a non-partisan issue. They've got it totally infiltrated at the local level in every town and county in the United States. It's more insidious than one would ever think. I'll do another post on it soon.

Liz

[zenekar]

"Post Sustainability Institute"? How creative. Is that for when earth can't sustain the damage caused by human ignorance? I see that there are real experts on the Board of this loony asylum: a real estate appraiser, a general contractor, a used car salesman, a David Icke fan anti communitarian (to hell with community - every man for himself), and a couple of other "Assistant Directors" without credentials.

I should be educated by this silly bunch? Am I supposed to be surprised that they call themselves "Democrats Against UN Agenda 21" ? As Burro wrote: SOMEBODY has been taken in by the Oil-Funded Right-Wing disinformation manufacturing machine... Liz? Don't get sidetracked.

[burro]

Ok let's have some fun!

... ... ...

Most people have yet to find out about UN Agenda 21, but I recommend getting educated about it. It's a non-partisan issue. They've got it totally infiltrated at the local level in every town and county in the United States. It's more insidious than one would ever think. I'll do another post on it soon.

Liz

Psychotic satire isn't science, either.

[ubaru]

Hmmm....I see some folks like their green propaganda just fine the way it is.

Scary how completely indoctrinated many are. But the ruling elite globalists are very skilled at social engineering for their own gain. Always have been. Let's hope it's not "always will be."

burro, that wasn't science, that was politically incorrect humor.

zenekar, don't be so fast to rule out that Rosa Koire has anything to teach you. If you keep your mind open you will see that UN Agenda 21 is not your friend. Far from it. It uses terms that sound good, like "sustainable development" and "SmartGrowth" but are chilling when you find out that they mean complete control of every aspect of your life. I'm not liking that term "Smart." Smart meter, Smart phone, SmartGrowth....they all know too much about you. My favorite part: single family homes are a threat to this agenda.

BTW, Rosa is by her own description, a lesbian, feminist, pro-choice, anti-war, long standing Democrat who will no longer vote for anyone, Democrat or Republican, unless they are willing to talk about UN Agenda 21. I like that about her. The issue is so important and negatively affects every aspect of our lives. It's not partisan.

I hope that you can eventually see that both parties are really one party, for the ruling elite, not the people, and that understanding how they control the people through UN Agenda 21 is crucial education if one is to restore their free personhood in a free land vs. succumb to their grand globalist plan for our slavery.

Here's a basic introduction:
https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html

What's ICLEI? The International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives which is the local tentacles of the Global UN Agenda 21. Sounds so harmless. Think again. This is about the destruction of locally initiated democracy.
https://www.democratsagainstunagenda...yer.update.pdf


burro and zenekar, check out this 2008 post for a fine list of examples of interplanetary climate change:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...Global-Warming

Liz

[burro]

Hmmm....I see some folks like their green propaganda just fine the way it is.

Scary how completely indoctrinated many are. But the ruling elite globalists are very skilled at social engineering for their own gain. Always have been. Let's hope it's not "always will be."

Here's the deal.

It is quite true that it can be difficult to tell the real conspiracies (9/11, 7/7, media control, government control, global take-over, codex alimentarius) from the imagined ones (man-made global climate change catastrophe).

But, for those of us who have been paying attention for long enough, the difference is obvious in the patterns of evolution and presentation. What is different about anthropogenic global climate change is evident in its evolution and presentation. Unlike those legitimate conspiracies, in which information is controlled in a top-down, edict-like fashion, the topic of man-made GCC has always been driven by scientists, and has always been RESISTED by big government and the elites that run it, shut down by the media, hushed up by military, and denied by oil-company-funded "debunkers" with all sorts of crack-pot theories (like interplanetary warming).

Also, the science is there connecting the Earth's climate change patterns to atmospheric greenhouse gases, and connecting today's atmospheric greenhouse gases to human activity.

Even just 5 years ago, there were still a lot of holes that "deniers" could attack. But the fact is that every time we learn more about an apparent inconsistency (e.g. in the geological / climate paleontological record), it confirms the conclusion that atmospheric greenhouse gases drive global climate change. We already know that man-made greenhouse gas increases are responsible for our era's increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

As for solar cycles, they've been completely discredited as a source of planetary surface heat increases.

Now then, ARE governments, e.g. in Europe, using GCC as a pretext for invasions of personal privacy and erosion of civil liberties? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that GCC is a fraud. All it means is that the elites are using EVERYTHING as a pretext for tightening controls over the masses these days (probably in preparation for the upheavals they anticipate due to the converging catastrophes that will be coming down this century: overpopulation, resource shortages, peak oil, peak water, peak fish, peak farmland, global climate change, and the wars that will result from each of these).

People who want to be effective have to be really good at discerning which pieces are valid and which pieces are hogwash.

[ubaru]

Unlike those legitimate conspiracies, in which information is controlled in a top-down, edict-like fashion, the topic of man-made GCC has always been driven by scientists, and has always been RESISTED by big government and the elites that run it, shut down by the media, hushed up by military, and denied by oil-company-funded "debunkers" with all sorts of crack-pot theories (like interplanetary warming).

What you're describing has another distinction. If you take a look behind the scenes at the gangster shadow governments where the deeper stories lie, you'll see that we have two rivaling factions. The Rothschilds have been promoting the Democratic green agenda and the Rockefellers have been promoting the Republican big oil agenda. And their rivalry is in the final throws of destroying each other right now.

[Both of them vigorously promote energy scarcity. Big oil keeps secret the fact that they've found an oil field in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska which is bigger than all of Saudia Arabia's oil fields. Both of them have made sure anyone who has invented free energy devices is slandered, bought off, and/or killed. Nikola Tesla's device in Colorado had the capacity to power the whole Earth].

Fortunately in Asia we've got the various colors of Dragon secret societies whose mission is to bring these two down and prevent them from carrying out their nefarious plans. A secret society for the people!

Rothschild family offers White Dragon Society $25 trillion to “go away.”

You'll never see headlines like these in the lamestream media. www.benjaminfulford.net Fulford is a Canadian and a former correspondent for the Japanese edition of Forbes magazine. He was asked by the Dragon societies to be their anglo representative. By the way, if you've ever wondered why Ron Paul hasn't been assassinated to date, I saw a letter, maybe 18 months ago, from one of the Dragon societies to him at this site. Perhaps he has their protection. (The reasons I take Paul seriously go beyond the more superficial story most are fed about political parties and their issues, and include the gangster governmental perspective).

I respect that you've been following global warming more closely, and perhaps longer than I, but I am not convinced the scientists who believe it aren't paid off to toe the party line, and over 31,000 scientist have signed this petition stating that they disagree that climate change is caused by humans.

96% of scientists DON'T believe in global warming and the 4% who do get paid to study it; a conflict of interest.



and this one's lies and motivation$ are easy for me to sniff out on a gut level on the fear, greed, and sleaze factors alone

Liz

[burro]

What you're describing has another distinction. If you take a look behind the scenes at the gangster shadow governments where the deeper stories lie, you'll see that we have two rivaling factions. The Rothschilds have been promoting the Democratic green agenda and the Rockefellers have been promoting the Republican big oil agenda. And their rivalry is in the final throws of destroying each other right now. Fortunately in Asia we've got the various colors of Dragon secret societies whose mission is to bring these two down and prevent them from carrying out their nefarious plans. A secret society for the people!

Rothschilds vs. Rockefellers? A powerful secret Chinese society fighting for the people (haha), and publicly offered money to go away? Fulford is who and got this information where? And makes it available only to paying subscribers? Suuuuree....

This is the stuff of psy-op disinformation campaigns, like holographic planes on 9-11, satanic Illuminati rituals, and aliens who will save us at the last minute, WWE-style campy disinformation storylines used to fragment opposition.

No 96% of scientists DON'T doubt anthropogenic global warming -- that's oil-funded debunker nonsense. Fantastical rubbish -- truly. I am a scientist and I know lots of other scientists, and you'd be hard pressed to find many real scientists with any real doubts, unless they work for oil companies or never bothered to learn the state of the science. If you searched for the truth about that "petition" you might get somewhere.

Oh -- and this one is rich -- you only want to trust people who DON'T have the credential to study paleoclimatology?

Do you suppose it is possible...? That Ron Paul hasn't been assassinated because he is a "team player," the same kind of "his own man" as Ross Perot, GW Bush, and Barack Obama? That he's just there to create the ostensible diversity to shield the underlying uniformity?

[geomancer]

Ahem, speaking in my exalted capacity as the Science Buzz Cafe "Geology Dude" (that's a joke son), global climate change (mostly heating) is real, accelerating, and largely driven by the waste products of human civilization. I've been studying and practicing geology since 1958, and have been paying attention to the climate change issue the whole time as it developed, watching the evidence roll in. I have the long view and it is not pretty.

At this point, the scientific evidence is so clear that anyone who denies the reality of the mess the planet is in is a fool, dupe, contrarian crank, liar, willfully ignorant, or the paid henchman of sociopathic corporate powers. Take your pick - wherever the shoe fits, be my guest. The "scientists" paid to shill for these corporate planetary parasites are of the same type who argued for decades that cigarettes did not cause cancer. They have the blood of whole ecosystems on their hands.

There is a tendency in the Earth Science community right now to downplay what we really think, because the situation is so dire that we fear we would be discounted as alarmist, or plunge people into despair and inertia. That time is over for me. The sorry truth is, that without a miracle, in the latter half of this century it will be game over for the low latitudes, a very rough time in the north, with huge migrations of climate refugees from the south and low lying coastal regions, and a cascading planetary-scale extinction event. The oceans will be heavily acidified and most of the large river deltas will be under water. There is so much inertia in the global economy that there is no stopping the CO2 buildup at this point unless there is really big die off of the human race. How do you like that for an optimistic scenario? Oy.

As for me, Sonoma County is one of the best places I know of to ride this thing out as best we can. At least it is a slow motion catastrophe on the human scale, and there will be time to duck and weave as it develops. One thing we can collectively do is try to save as many organisms and as much human knowledge as we can from extinction and destruction. Hopefully, we will not approach the completeness of the cultural losses that took place at the end of Classical civilization.

Praying for a miracle ,

Richard

[Cin]

Greetings,

I think I posted this in the past... I'm posting information on another Atmospheric scientist, Michael Schlesinger PhD - for the sake of science. I think he's brilliant, but then I'm related. I would only like to imput that I hope you are not basing your new found discoveries, or ideas on this one person you've outlined in your post, seemingly a new understanding of what global warming is. It sounds as if you're set, short of busy copy. Perhaps you could make a project via conducting surveys, interviews with those who might have credibility. Phone up a couple dozen of these brilliant men/women in the lettered Atmoshperic world and perform a study to assist you in understanding the big picture.

The following is about Michael Schlesinger, PhD. I have not included his CV which reads 40 some odd pages. However, it is available at the link below.

https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/people/schlesinger.html

I received my B.S. and M.S. degrees in Engineering, and my Ph.D. degree in Meteorology, all from the University of California, Los Angeles. I direct the UIUC Climate Research Group within the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. I have expertise in the modeling, simulation and analysis of climate and climate change, and have interests in simulating and understanding past, present and possible future climates, climate impacts and climate policy. I have directed NATO and other conferences in Italy, England and the United States; have edited four books, most recently Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment.

My Climate Research Group (CRG) has tropospheric, tropospheric/lower-stratospheric, tropospheric/stratospheric and tropospheric/stratospheric/mesospheric GCMs - which can be run with and without the CRG's atmospheric photochemistry/species-transport model, either with sea surface temperature and sea ice thickness prescribed or simulated by either the CRG mixed-layer ocean model or the CRG oceanic GCM. The CRG has a coupled atmosphere/ocean general circulation model that has been used to simulate the slowdown and shutdown of the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The CRG also has a coupled atmospheric general circulation/mixed-layer ocean-ice-sheet/asthenosphere model and a variety of simple climate models, including the model I developed in 1984 and later used to make projections of global temperature change to the year 2100 for the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other reports.

My research currently focuses on: (1) simulating and understanding the effects on climate of a human-induced melting of the Greenland ice sheet; (2) simulating and understanding the coupled climate-chemistry system, including the influences of the sun - both irradiance and energetic electron precipitation - and volcanoes.; (3) understanding and reducing the uncertainty in the estimation of climate sensitivity and climate feedbacks; and (4) performing integrative assessment of climate change, including further development of the robust adaptive decision strategy for mitigating and adapting to human-induced climate change.

https://www.alaskageographic.org/sta...chlesinger-phd
Michael E. Schlesinger, PhD is Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he directs the Climate Research Group within the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He is one of the many contributors to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which, together with Vice President Al Gore, was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

He is an expert in the modeling, simulation and analysis of climate and climate change, with interests in simulating and understanding past, present and possible future climates, climate impacts and climate policy. He carried out the first detailed comparison of climate and climate changes simulated by different atmospheric general circulation models. Dr. Schlesinger has directed NATO and other conferences in Italy, England and the United States; and has edited four books, most recently Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment.

Dr. Schlesinger has contributed to many assessments of climate change, including those of the IPCC and the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum. Professor Schlesinger is a member of Illinois Governor Blagojevich’s Climate Change Advisory Group. He received his B.S. and M.S. in Engineering, and his Ph.D. in Meteorology, all from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Presentation Overview: If the Earth’s atmosphere did not contain water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone, which make up less than 0.25% of its composition, the average surface temperature would be 0°F – so cold there would be no liquid water and, thus, no life. The fact that the temperature is a life-supporting 60°F is due to these seemingly minor greenhouse gases (GHG’s). On Venus the atmosphere is all CO2, the surface pressure is 90 times that on Earth, and the greenhouse warming is 900°F, about twice as hot as your home oven can get! The natural greenhouse effect is indisputable. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in mid-18th century, humanity has added CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and by deforestation. This added CO2 caused the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere to warm. This is the human-caused greenhouse effect. From the beginning of the industrial revolution until now the United States and Europe added most of the CO2 to the atmosphere. Soon this role will pass to the developing countries, especially China and India. These 2 countries have the potential to emit 10 times the emission of greenhouse gases by the entire world now. Clearly, reducing the emission of GHG’s is a geopolitical problem of unprecedented scope. Analyses of the observed record of average surface-air temperature from the mid-19th century to the end of the 20th century show that the human-caused greenhouse effect was the predominant cause of the observed warming. Today there are many worrisome signs in greenhouse Earth, especially the loss of ice in the Arctic and subarctic, including Alaska, and the Antarctic. Projections of climate change through this century show an expected global warming of 4°C and sea-level rise of 1.6 feet, both relative to year 2000. Even more disquieting, both temperature and sea level continue to increase into the 22nd century. Furthermore there are likely tipping points in the future climate change such as the loss of the Greenland ice sheet and a shutdown of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. We must hedge against crossing such tipping points by making the transition this century, as quickly as we can, from the Greenhouse-Gas-Emission Age to the Post-Greenhouse-Gas-Emission Age. To not do so would be to play Russian roulette with the Earth's climate.

Yes climate change is happening, but no it's not caused by humans. IT'S.....drum roll...... INTERPLANETARY!!

Cap & Trade, Carbon Tax, Geo-Engineering, Eugenics and Population Control will NOT stop global warming, because warming happens throughout the solar system. Yes, some very wealthy old bloodline family by the name of the Rothschilds has had a lot of green to gain from their "education" of us as to the benefits of going Green. Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth now looks like a rather Convenient Lie. The tip off for me then was the FEAR in the movie trailer. Big red flag. When our indoctrinated public school children were getting religious about going green, I knew something was off. Sorry Rothschilds, we are waking up. Folks, it's time to show your children this video and have a little talk about fear and greed and propaganda.

Interplanetary global warming was a big, lovely, "A Hah" for me two years ago, and I recently came across this video of David Wilcock sharing this scientific data again, so will share with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4hR...layer_embedded

And here's some data in the same vein as that in the video, about increased under sea volcanic activity causing ocean warming and acidification. https://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm


I think I'll go outside right now and compost my guilt for being a human being on the planet. Whew!!

Liz

p.s. Permaculture inspires me and my car gets 35/55 mpg, just in case you were wondering where I'm coming from. Conservation is good. Conservation used to strip us of our property rights, our civil liberties, and our cash is bad.

[rossmen]

yes and what about global dimming? i learned about this climate theory 5 years ago watching nova and it brought me deep depression. the stratospheric particulates human industrial activities distribute reflect solar radiation and explain why global warming has been less than initial predictions. these particulates fall off in days, weeks, at most months once the flights and smokestacks stop, we are running with a gun to our heads and once we stop, bake time!!!(

i hope it is not so bad, and my monkey mind sharpened by millions of years of climate uncertainty on the east coast of africa ect needed a plan, which i have been putting into place since. the next step is another well pump, a slow pump which runs directly off a solar panel, to fill a storage tank. so when the grid goes down i have water. in the meantime my drip watered vegies can be "carbon neutral": )

predicting the future is worthwhile, and uncertain. i hope it is not too bad. it is encouraging to see and practice consensus in tent encampments, nonviolent negotiation with established authority, these experiences and skill will be useful, whatever happens and how it turns out...

Ahem, speaking in my exalted capacity as the Science Buzz Cafe "Geology Dude" (that's a joke son), global climate change (mostly heating) is real, accelerating, and largely driven by the waste products of human civilization. I've been studying and practicing geology since 1958, and have been paying attention to the climate change issue the whole time as it developed, watching the evidence roll in. I have the long view and it is not pretty.

At this point, the scientific evidence is so clear that anyone who denies the reality of the mess the planet is in is a fool, dupe, contrarian crank, liar, willfully ignorant, or the paid henchman of sociopathic corporate powers. Take your pick - wherever the shoe fits, be my guest. The "scientists" paid to shill for these corporate planetary parasites are of the same type who argued for decades that cigarettes did not cause cancer. They have the blood of whole ecosystems on their hands.

There is a tendency in the Earth Science community right now to downplay what we really think, because the situation is so dire that we fear we would be discounted as alarmist, or plunge people into despair and inertia. That time is over for me. The sorry truth is, that without a miracle, in the latter half of this century it will be game over for the low latitudes, a very rough time in the north, with huge migrations of climate refugees from the south and low lying coastal regions, and a cascading planetary-scale extinction event. The oceans will be heavily acidified and most of the large river deltas will be under water. There is so much inertia in the global economy that there is no stopping the CO2 buildup at this point unless there is really big die off of the human race. How do you like that for an optimistic scenario? Oy.

As for me, Sonoma County is one of the best places I know of to ride this thing out as best we can. At least it is a slow motion catastrophe on the human scale, and there will be time to duck and weave as it develops. One thing we can collectively do is try to save as many organisms and as much human knowledge as we can from extinction and destruction. Hopefully, we will not approach the completeness of the cultural losses that took place at the end of Classical civilization.

Praying for a miracle ,

Richard

[geomancer]

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide More Limited Than Extreme Projections, Research Shows

A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies -- and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2011) — A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies -- and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

Authors of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation's Paleoclimate Program and published online this week in the journal Science, say that global warming is real and that increases in atmospheric CO2 will have multiple serious impacts.

However, the most Draconian projections of temperature increases from the doubling of CO2 are unlikely.

"Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," said Andreas Schmittner, an Oregon State University researcher and lead author on the Science article. "When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago -- which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum -- and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.

"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought," Schmittner added.

Scientists have struggled for years trying to quantify "climate sensitivity" -- which is how Earth will respond to projected increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The 2007 IPCC report estimated that the air near the surface of Earth would warm on average by 2 to 4.5 degrees (Celsius) with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial standards. The mean, or "expected value" increase in the IPCC estimates was 3.0 degrees; most climate model studies use the doubling of CO2 as a basic index.

Some previous studies have claimed the impacts could be much more severe -- as much as 10 degrees or higher with a doubling of CO2 -- although these projections come with an acknowledged low probability. Studies based on data going back only to 1850 are affected by large uncertainties in the effects of dust and other small particles in the air that reflect sunlight and can influence clouds, known as "aerosol forcing," or by the absorption of heat by the oceans, the researchers say.

To lower the degree of uncertainty, Schmittner and his colleagues used a climate model with more data and found that there are constraints that preclude very high levels of climate sensitivity.

The researchers compiled land and ocean surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum and created a global map of those temperatures. During this time, atmospheric CO2 was about a third less than before the Industrial Revolution, and levels of methane and nitrous oxide were much lower. Because much of the northern latitudes were covered in ice and snow, sea levels were lower, the climate was drier (less precipitation), and there was more dust in the air.

All these factor, which contributed to cooling Earth's surface, were included in their climate model simulations.

The new data changed the assessment of climate models in many ways, said Schmittner, an associate professor in OSU's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. The researchers' reconstruction of temperatures has greater spatial coverage and showed less cooling during the Ice Age than most previous studies.

High sensitivity climate models -- more than 6 degrees -- suggest that the low levels of atmospheric CO2 during the Last Glacial Maximum would result in a "runaway effect" that would have left Earth completely ice-covered.

"Clearly, that didn't happen," Schmittner said. "Though the Earth then was covered by much more ice and snow than it is today, the ice sheets didn't extend beyond latitudes of about 40 degrees, and the tropics and subtropics were largely ice-free -- except at high altitudes. These high-sensitivity models overestimate cooling."

On the other hand, models with low climate sensitivity -- less than 1.3 degrees -- underestimate the cooling almost everywhere at the Last Glacial Maximum, the researchers say. The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees.

However, uncertainty levels may be underestimated because the model simulations did not take into account uncertainties arising from how cloud changes reflect sunlight, Schmittner said.

Reconstructing sea and land surface temperatures from 21,000 years ago is a complex task involving the examination of ices cores, bore holes, fossils of marine and terrestrial organisms, seafloor sediments and other factors. Sediment cores, for example, contain different biological assemblages found in different temperature regimes and can be used to infer past temperatures based on analogs in modern ocean conditions.

"When we first looked at the paleoclimatic data, I was struck by the small cooling of the ocean," Schmittner said. "On average, the ocean was only about two degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is today, yet the planet was completely different -- huge ice sheets over North America and northern Europe, more sea ice and snow, different vegetation, lower sea levels and more dust in the air.

"It shows that even very small changes in the ocean's surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes," he added.

Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.

"Hence, drastic changes over land can be expected," he said. "However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon."

Other authors on the study include Peter Clark and Alan Mix of OSU; Nathan Urban, Princeton University; Jeremy Shakun, Harvard University; Natalie Mahowald, Cornell University; Patrick Bartlein, University of Oregon; and Antoni Rosell-Mele, University of Barcelona.

Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Oregon State University.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:
Andreas Schmittner, Nathan M. Urban, Jeremy D. Shakun, Natalie M. Mahowald, Peter U. Clark, Patrick J. Bartlein, Alan C. Mix, and Antoni Rosell-Mel. Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum. Science, 24 November 2011 DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513

Oregon State University (2011, November 24). Climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide more limited than extreme projections, research shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from https://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2011/11/111124150827.htm

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

[burro]

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide More Limited Than Extreme Projections, Research Shows

A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies -- and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

The prominence given this article (more so than the study underlying it, too) by the mainstream media, might be taken as an example of the mainstream media's tendency to belittle the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

There are many variations out there in terms of modeling assumptions about the impact of climate change, some (many!!) far more dire than IPCC projections.

Yet out of all of those, and out of all the scenarios for dramatic acceleration of GCC, e.g. due to methane releases from thawing tundra and from the deep ocean, it seems to me that this article has been given far more prominence in the mainstream media.

So what should we believe? What should we prepare for?

What should we believe?

In terms of what to believe we might simply observe that, now that the impacts of GCC are becoming tangible and visible in the present day, the changes being observed around the world are FAR MORE SEVERE/RAPID than those projected by the IPCC.

So a modeling assumption that claims to imply GCC less severe than that projected by the IPCC is probably off base somewhere.

What should we prepare for?

What to prepare for depends on the goal -- how important is survival to us; how important is it to us to avoid the most severe, widespread suffering in the history of our species?

If those things are important to us, we should prepare for the most severe outcomes within the realm of reasonable probabilities. Right now, unfortunately, those possibilities include things like half of Europe being underwater by the end of the century, mass worldwide migrations due to resource scarcity, all the fish larger than krill dying off due to ocean acidification melting the shells of shellfish (Over 1/5 of people on Earth have fish as their main dietary source), farmland collapse due to overfarming, energy supply collapse, fresh water scarcity, and other problems.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Right now, world governments are not adequately preparing for the most optimistic projections of GCC, let alone seeking to prevent the worst.

We might also try to prevent dire outcomes in more meaningful ways -- specifically, by addressing overpopulation with economic incentives for small families instead of large, social programs and safety nets for care of the elderly and indigent, global PR campaigns, etc.

I predict, with certainty, that failing to take powerful measures today to create voluntary change that rapidly reduces global population shall ENSURE measures none of us want: like economic incentives for euthanasia, legal family-size limits, and perhaps legal frameworks for mandatory euthanasia.

We are taking up two Earths worth of resource production today. We are heading for a cliff, and the party bus is still accelerating.

[Glia]

this study MAY be right -- although that is doubtful -- but why risk it?

With respect to the (potential) interplanetary warming issue, all that means is that a poorly understood and previously unknown natural phenomena is compounding and exacerbating the anthropogenic CO2 emissions effects. It's not nice to fool mother nature. again, why take the risk?

The prominence given this article (more so than the study underlying it, too) by the mainstream media, might be taken as an example of the mainstream media's tendency to belittle the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.
...
We are taking up two Earths worth of resource production today. We are heading for a cliff, and the party bus is still accelerating.

[CSummer]

burro wrote: "In terms of what to believe we might simply observe that, now that the impacts of GCC are becoming tangible and visible in the present day, the changes being observed around the world are FAR MORE SEVERE/RAPID than those projected by the IPCC."

This is certainly a very important factor - what's happening already. Can you provide any reference(s) for this?

Thanks!

The prominence given this article (more so than the study underlying it, too) by the mainstream media, might be taken as an example of the mainstream media's tendency to belittle the impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

There are many variations out there in terms of modeling assumptions about the impact of climate change, some (many!!) far more dire than IPCC projections.

Yet out of all of those, and out of all the scenarios for dramatic acceleration of GCC, e.g. due to methane releases from thawing tundra and from the deep ocean, it seems to me that this article has been given far more prominence in the mainstream media.

So what should we believe? What should we prepare for?

What should we believe?

In terms of what to believe we might simply observe that, now that the impacts of GCC are becoming tangible and visible in the present day, the changes being observed around the world are FAR MORE SEVERE/RAPID than those projected by the IPCC.

So a modeling assumption that claims to imply GCC less severe than that projected by the IPCC is probably off base somewhere.

What should we prepare for?

What to prepare for depends on the goal -- how important is survival to us; how important is it to us to avoid the most severe, widespread suffering in the history of our species?

If those things are important to us, we should prepare for the most severe outcomes within the realm of reasonable probabilities. Right now, unfortunately, those possibilities include things like half of Europe being underwater by the end of the century, mass worldwide migrations due to resource scarcity, all the fish larger than krill dying off due to ocean acidification melting the shells of shellfish (Over 1/5 of people on Earth have fish as their main dietary source), farmland collapse due to overfarming, energy supply collapse, fresh water scarcity, and other problems.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Right now, world governments are not adequately preparing for the most optimistic projections of GCC, let alone seeking to prevent the worst.

We might also try to prevent dire outcomes in more meaningful ways -- specifically, by addressing overpopulation with economic incentives for small families instead of large, social programs and safety nets for care of the elderly and indigent, global PR campaigns, etc.

I predict, with certainty, that failing to take powerful measures today to create voluntary change that rapidly reduces global population shall ENSURE measures none of us want: like economic incentives for euthanasia, legal family-size limits, and perhaps legal frameworks for mandatory euthanasia.

We are taking up two Earths worth of resource production today. We are heading for a cliff, and the party bus is still accelerating.

[burro]

burro wrote: "In terms of what to believe we might simply observe that, now that the impacts of GCC are becoming tangible and visible in the present day, the changes being observed around the world are FAR MORE SEVERE/RAPID than those projected by the IPCC."

This is certainly a very important factor - what's happening already. Can you provide any reference(s) for this?

Thanks!

Oh, gosh -- there are TONS...

Here's just one easy starting point:

global climate change faster than expected - Google Search -
https://www.google.com/search?q=glob...+than+expected

At that quick search, the top hits are
(and if you keep searching, you'll get into more and more primary studies showing the same things):

1. Arctic climate changing faster than expected | Reuters
   
   www.reuters.com/.../us-climate-canada-idUSTRE6145KP20100206
   Feb 5, 2010 – "(Climate change) is happening much faster than our most pessimistic models expected," said David Barber, a professor at the University of ...
2. ENVIRONMENT: Climate Change Faster Than Expected, UN Says ...
   
   ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48580
   Climate Change Faster Than Expected, UN Says By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Sep 24, 2009 (IPS) - Less than three months before a key global negotiation on ...
3. Climate Changing Faster Than Expected : Discovery News
   
   news.discovery.com › Earth News
   Nov 24, 2009 – Climate Changing Faster Than Expected. As climate ... Reports show that global warming could knock 19% off GDP of many nations by 2030. ...
4. Effects of climate change in Arctic more extensive than expected ...
   
   www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504084032.htm
   May 4, 2011 – And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously ... back to warmer climates when the International Polar Year wrapped last ...
5. Climate change driving species out of habitats much faster than ...
   
   www.guardian.co.uk/environment/.../climate-change-species-habitats
   Aug 18, 2011 – Climate change driving species out of habitats much faster than expected ... These changes, in response to global warming, have happened two to three times faster than was previously expected, according to a new study ...
6. Climate change causing species to change habitat faster than ...
   
   arstechnica.com/.../climate-change-causing-species-to-chan...
   

   by John Timmer - In 673 Google+ circles Aug 18, 2011 – Climate change causing species to change habitat faster than expected ... That would be expected to cause species to shift in response, and a variety of ... region, making it hard to put together a clear picture of global trends. ...

7. Arctic Climate Changing Faster Than Expected - Polar Bears ...
   
   www.polarbearsinternational.org › News
   Nov 11, 2011 – Arctic Climate Changing Faster Than Expected. Climate change is transforming the Arctic faster than expected and accelerating the loss of sea ...
8. Climate change is causing marine life changes quicker than expected
   
   www.earthtimes.org › CLIMATE
   Nov 8, 2011 – It was originally thought that climate change would see a much ... She says, "Analyses of global temperature found that the rate at which marine life needs to relocate is as fast, or in some places faster, than for land species. ...
9. Climate Change Faster Than Expected | Climate Change HEALTH
   
   climatechangehealth.com/climate-change.../climate-change-faster-tha...
   Aug 21, 2009 – Climate Change Faster Than Expected ... that global warming is happening right now, and that it is quicker than predicted just 2 years ago. ...
10. Experts: Much bigger sea level rise likely - US news - Environment ...
    
    www.msnbc.msn.com/.../sea-levels-could-rise---feet-more-arctic-exp...
    May 3, 2011 – The Arctic is melting faster than expected and could contribute 2-3 feet more ... U.N. talks on a global pact to combat climate change are making ...

1. Climate change: Methane escaping from Arctic faster than expected ...
   
   www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Climate-change-Methane-escaping-Arctic-fa...
   Mar 5, 2010 – The potent greenhouse gas methane, is bubbling out of the frozen Arctic much faster than expected and could stoke global warming.
2. Arctic Ice Thinning 4 Times Faster Than Predicted by IPCC Models ...
   
   thinkprogress.org/.../arctic-ice-thinning-4-times-faster-than-predicted...
   Aug 11, 2011 – According to new research from MIT, the most recent global climate report .... “faster than expected” when it comes to climate change effects? ...
3. Animals Responding 3x Faster To Climate Change Than Expected ...
   
   www.treehugger.com/.../animals-responding-3x-faster-to-climate-cha...
   Aug 19, 2011 – Animals Responding 3x Faster To Climate Change Than Expected ... More on Global Climate ChangeGlobal Warming Could Cause Evolution ...
4. Arctic ice is melting faster than expected, report says - Boston.com
   
   articles.boston.com/...05.../29509596_1_arctic-ice-sea-ice-arctic-ocea...
   May 4, 2011 – STOCKHOLM — Arctic ice is melting faster than expected and could raise the ... The international study says that Arctic temperatures in the past six years ... is one of the most comprehensive updates on climate change in the ...
5. Climate Change Occuring Faster Than Expected | Care2 Causes
   
   www.care2.com/.../climate-change-occuring-faster-than-expected.ht...
   Sep 25, 2009 – Climate change is moving faster than previously expected, ... It's time to shout down these global climate change deniers and put a dunce ...
6. Climate Change Faster Than Expected - Global Warming
   
   hernadi-key.blogspot.com/.../climate-change-faster-than-expected.ht...
   Sep 13, 2009 – hernadi-key.blogspot.com is a site to discusses about global warming and alot of information about global warming.
7. Stern Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
   The report discusses the effect of global warming on the world economy. ... and 550 ppm CO2e to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change. ...
8. Climate Change: Faster Than Expected | Rising Tide North America
   
   www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/.../climate-change-faster-than-expect...
   Climate Change: Faster Than Expected. [ in RT Newswire ] ... ice extent, but Dr Serreze said the main culprit was man-made global warming. ...
9. Sink or Swim: Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Expected : Wildlife ...
   
   blog.nwf.org/.../sink-or-swim-sea-levels-rising-faster-than-expected/
   May 4, 2011 – Sink or Swim: Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Expected ... Climate change and Greenland's melting ice are highlighted as contributing factors ... In the future, global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9–1.6 m by 2100 and Arctic ...
10. [PPT] Global Warming and Climate Change - WHO South-East Asia Region
    
    www.searo.who.int/.../Food_and_chemical_Safety_Global_Warming...
    File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - Quick View
    Projected warming, to 2100: for six future global greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Intergovernmental ... Climate Change: Faster than expected in 1990s ...

Global Agenda Council on Climate Change 2011 | World Economic ... www.weforum.org/.../global-agenda-council-climate-change-2011 Studies indicate that climate change is occurring faster than expected. ... and global dialogue is needed to advance the international climate change agenda. ... Environmental Issues - Environment, Nature, Climate Change ... www.environmentabout.com/ Articles on environment, nature, climate change, global warming, pollution, energy ... fronts, climate change and its impacts are occurring faster than expected. ... Arctic climate change impact more extensive than expected | R&D Mag rdmag.com › News May 4, 2011 – The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. ... powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming. ... Climate change may be faster than expected - UPI.com www.upi.com/.../Climate-change...faster-than-expected/UPI-... Oct 13, 2009 – Climate change may be faster than expected ... "We've shown that if all of the global modeling groups were to include some kind of nutrient ... Global warming faster than expected, WWF says | EurActiv www.euractiv.com/climate-change/global...faster-expected.../... - Belgium Oct 20, 2008 – The report, published by the WWF, uses the first new scientific data on climate change since the publication of the Nobel Prize-winning ... IPCC: Climate Changing Faster Than Projected - The Heat Is Online www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id... Faster Climate Shift Portends Global Calamity This Century ... SHANGHAI - The earth's atmosphere is warming faster than expected, evidence is mounting that ... Scientists: Climate Change is Happening Faster than You Think earthfirst.com/scientists-climate-change-is-happening-faster-than-you... Because greenhouse gas emissions have increased faster than expected and ... in global ecosystems, the pace of climate change is likely to be much faster ... Climate Change and the Exodus of Species - NYTimes.com www.nytimes.com/.../climate-change-and-the-exodus-of-species.html Sep 26, 2011 – Some species are changing their migration patterns faster than expected to adapt to the warming climate, but others, left behind, are becoming ... [PDF] Heatwaves & Global climate change www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Regional-Impacts-Midwest.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View by KL Ebi - Cited by 16 - Related articles Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change ... predicted, but the observed changes are happening earlier and faster than expected—again, ... Climate change driving species to new habitat faster than expected ... eideard.wordpress.com/.../climate-change-driving-species-to-new-ha... Aug 21, 2011 – Climate change driving species to new habitat faster than expected ... to global warming, have happened two to three times faster than was ... Etc., etc., etc.

[burro]

burro wrote: "In terms of what to believe we might simply observe that, now that the impacts of GCC are becoming tangible and visible in the present day, the changes being observed around the world are FAR MORE SEVERE/RAPID than those projected by the IPCC."

This is certainly a very important factor - what's happening already. Can you provide any reference(s) for this?

Thanks!

Also, this is worth seeing -- "HOME":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxE...&feature=share

[zenekar]

Also, this is worth seeing -- "HOME":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxE...&feature=share

Thank you for posting this beautiful, sad but enlightening film. Every denier of the effect humans have on this planet and the climate, should take the time to kick back and watch it.

[geomancer]

Yes climate change is happening, but no it's not caused by humans. IT'S.....drum roll...... INTERPLANETARY!!
And here's some data in the same vein as that in the video, about increased under sea volcanic activity causing ocean warming and acidification. https://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm


I think I'll go outside right now and compost my guilt for being a human being on the planet. Whew!!

Liz

p.s. Permaculture inspires me and my car gets 35/55 mpg, just in case you were wondering where I'm coming from. Conservation is good. Conservation used to strip us of our property rights, our civil liberties, and our cash is bad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This link is utter nonsense. Earth scientists have spent a great deal of effort to quantify the annual volumes of magma and gasses erupted from volcanoes. It's not even close to the mass of anthropogenic CO2 by a HUGE factor. The following article lays it out very nicely (the full article is behind a pay wall - if anyone wants it I'll email it to you)

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 24, P. 201, 2011
doi:10.1029/2011EO240001Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxideTerry GerlachCascades Volcano Observatory, U.S. Geological Survey, Vancouver, Wash, USA

Abstract

Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO₂): Earth's volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO₂ than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer,2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO₂, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.

Published 14 June 2011.Keywords: volcanic CO₂; anthropogenic CO₂.Index Terms: 1036 Geochemistry: Magma chamber processes (3618); 1032 Geochemistry: Mid-oceanic ridge processes (3614, 8416); 1031 Geochemistry: Subduction zone processes (3060, 3613, 8170, 8413); 1033 Geochemistry: Intra-plate processes (3615, 8415); 1030 Geochemistry: Geochemical cycles (0330).

---

Print VersionCitation: Gerlach, T. (2011), Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(24), doi:10.1029/2011EO240001.

clip:

Volcanic and Anthropogenic CO2 Emission Rates
Volcanic emissions include CO2 from erupting magma and from degassing of unerupted magma beneath volcanoes. Over time, they are a major source for restoring CO2 lost from the atmosphere and oceans by silicate weathering, carbonate deposition, and organic carbon burial [Ber- ner, 2004]. Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 giga- ton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates—published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates—are consistent with the global estimates. For more information, see the background, table, and references in the online supplement to this Eos issue (https://www.agu.org/eos_elec/).


Anthropogenic CO2 emissions—responsible for a projected 35 gigatons of CO2 in 2010 [Friedlingstein et al., 2010]— clearly dwarf all estimates of the annual present-day global volcanic CO2 emission rate. Indeed, volcanoes emit significantly less CO2 than land use changes (3.4 gigatons per year), light-duty vehicles (3.0 gigatons per year, mainly cars and pickup trucks), or cement production (1.4 gigatons per year). Instead, volcanic CO2 emissions are comparable in the human realm to the global CO2 emissions from flaring of waste gases (0.20 gigaton per year) or to the CO emissions of about 2 dozen full-capacity 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations (0.22 gigaton per year), the latter of which constitute about 2% of the world’s coal-fired electricity-generating capacity. More meaningful, perhaps, are the comparable annual CO2 emissions of nations such as Pakistan (0.18 gigaton), Kazakhstan (0.25 gigaton), Poland (0.31 gigaton), and South Africa (0.44 gigaton). (CO2 emissions data are for 2008 [International Energy Agency, 2009a, 2009b]; see also https://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/ emis/meth_reg.html, https://www.epa.gov/ cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal .html, and https://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/ lequere/co2/carbon_budget.htm.)