Climate Change

[ajax18]

Canpakes makes an excellent point. From the most extreme right-wing Evangelical perspective, climate change is real. It's a function of the sins of the world. Interestingly, this was taught constantly in Mormonism up until, I'd like to say, about the 90's?

Even my parents taught us that the earth has a spirit, and it groans because of the iniquities of the inhabitants. Church teachings were always that in the latter-days there would be great pollutions and natural upheavals before Jesus returns.

My Senior seminary teacher spoke plainly that the D&C teaches the earth will never run out of oil. It was a very odd moment for me since I was into last days prophecy. If the earth never runs out of oil and if it's all good times and prosperity, the 2nd coming would never happen.

It seems you've helped make sure it's not good times and prosperity.

[Physics Guy]

A few minutes with Google turns up an informative article about volcanoes on a pretty reliable site. We can measure how much CO2 volcanoes put out. Quite a few geophysicists have been doing that for years, around the world. Not every volcano is monitored 24/7 but we have a substantial enough body of measurements to know the ballpark range of volcano emissions very well. We also do know how many volcanoes there are in the world. People keep track of them.

There's even a whole whack of other geological sources of CO2 emissions besides active volcanoes. Volcanoes that don't actually seem to be erupting nonetheless give off lots of CO2, invisibly to the eye but not to instruments. And there are volcanic lakes and ocean vents and stuff, too. We've got a decent handle on all of them from actual measurements.

Bottom line is that the Earth does indeed naturally emit a whole lot of CO2 every year. Somewhere around 650 million tonnes a year. That is really a lot.

How much CO2 do human activities produce in a year, for comparison? Well, that's actually something we can estimate pretty well, too. People keep track of fuel consumption. It's economically important. The chemistry is well known. So the amount? Nearly 30 billion tonnes of CO2 a year. About 45 times the contribution from geological activity, including volcanoes. Even adding in the bursts from rare really large volcanic eruptions barely nudges the needle in comparison to the production from human industry.

[Moksha]

Were the replies urging increased pollution crafted in Venezuala at the direction of Hugo Chavez to blow smoke up our collective butts?

[Chap]

How much CO2 do human activities produce in a year, for comparison? ... 30 billion tonnes of CO2 a year. About 45 times the contribution from geological activity, including volcanoes. Even adding in the bursts from rare really large volcanic eruptions barely nudges the needle in comparison to the production from human industry.

Yup. The difference is so indisputably huge - and obvious to anybody who cares to look seriously at the data - that one wonders why the volcano point keeps on being brought up by the 'not our fault' people. Oh, wait ...

The fact is that people who are desperate to pretend that the world is not getting dangerously hotter will grab at anything they see on the internet and repeat it to anyone who will listen. Do you remember a few years back the guy who suggested that rising sea levels were not caused by melting of polar icecaps, but could just as well be due to 'rocks falling off cliffs into the sea'? That one was a real doozy.

On a slightly different topic, there were the creationists who pointed out that the evolution of life from non-living matter would involve the creation of many systems (plants and animals) with a much higher degree of order than their surroundings, and hence lower entropy. They pointed out that, according to the laws of thermodynamics, the creation of such systems would have required a really large and sustained energy input. They then made the killer point:

If there was a huge energy source somewhere near the earth, big enough to have supplied that large and sustained energy input, we would have surely noticed it by now.

Indeed we would ...

[Physics Guy]

we would have surely noticed it by now.[/b]

That is awesome enough to deserve a song.

[Gunnar]

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
Nearly all (if not all) scientific organizations on earth agree that mankind causes climate change is real and problematic. One exception used to be the American Society of Petroleum Geologists (not surprising, is it?), but even they have grudgingly come around to accepting that consensus.

Two questions for you climate denialists: Why would the vast majority of the world's scientists (especially climate specialists) claim that if it were not overwhelmingly supported by evidence? They earn their money by studying how the world works. Their research efforts would not be any less valuable or less remunerative to them if they found that mankind had little effect on the world's climate and weather.

On the other hand, who would benefit from lying about mankind's activities adversely affecting our climate and environment if it were not true? The answer is glaringly obvious, isn't it? The fossil fuel industry has an enormous vested interest in selling as much as they can of fossil fuels as they can, and suppressing any bad news about what our reliance on fossil fuels is doing to us and costing us. They simply don't care what happens to future generations as long as they can keep their gravy train going for what remains of their lives.

Even Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.

This untold chapter in Exxon’s history, when one of the world’s largest energy companies worked to understand the damage caused by fossil fuels, stems from an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News. ICN’s reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon’s innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[Gunnar]

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
Nearly all (if not all) scientific organizations on earth agree that mankind causes climate change is real and problematic. One exception used to be the American Society of Petroleum Geologists (not surprising, is it?), but even they have grudgingly come around to accepting that consensus.

Two questions for you climate denialists: Why would the vast majority of the world's scientists (especially climate specialists) claim that if it were not overwhelmingly supported by evidence? They earn their money by studying how the world works. Their research efforts would not be any less valuable or less remunerative to them if they found that mankind had little effect on the world's climate and weather.

On the other hand, who would benefit from lying about mankind's activities adversely affecting our climate and environment if it were not true? The answer is glaringly obvious, isn't it? The fossil fuel industry has an enormous vested interest in selling as much as they can of fossil fuels, and suppressing any bad news about what our reliance on fossil fuels is doing to us and costing us. They simply don't care what happens to future generations as long as they can keep their gravy train going for what remains of their lives.

Even Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.

This untold chapter in Exxon’s history, when one of the world’s largest energy companies worked to understand the damage caused by fossil fuels, stems from an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News. ICN’s reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon’s innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Emphasis added

Anyone who denies the reality of mankind caused climate change and its potentially disastrous consequences is part of the problem.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[doubtingthomas]

As a good conservative, I'm burning as much debris, limbs and cut down trees as possible. I love watching the smoke go up into the atmosphere. I'm mean, the trees need to eat just like we do and I'm tired of them starving. Best thing we could do as environmentalist is help get the carbon dioxide levels around 600 ppm by burning as much wood debris as possible. The trees will love you forever, promise.

What happens when you eat too much?

[Atlanticmike]

As a good conservative, I'm burning as much debris, limbs and cut down trees as possible. I love watching the smoke go up into the atmosphere. I'm mean, the trees need to eat just like we do and I'm tired of them starving. Best thing we could do as environmentalist is help get the carbon dioxide levels around 600 ppm by burning as much wood debris as possible. The trees will love you forever, promise.

What happens when you eat too much?

Well, according to Sally Struthers, when I eat too much some poor little African kid starves to death.