Volcano eruptions put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of our cars combined. They may cause cooling in some fashion but if we are to believe the GW advocates then the CO2 output alone would negate that cooling.
On average, volcanos emit 0.3 gigatons of CO2 a year, which is about 1% of the human emissions. They cause cooling because they create surface aresols which reflect incoming radiation. Large erruptions have the ability to have a profound cooling effect that can span many decades.
Sources: V. Hards, "Volcanic Contributions the the Global Carbon Cycle", British Geological Survey, 2005
G. A. Zielinski, Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 417 (2000)
And maybe I should have stated it better. Global warming scientists do not suggest that the recent warming could be just like all of the other warming the Earth has endured.
That's because it is different because there's an unprecedented amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the rate that the concentration has changed is much faster than anything that is seen over the historical record. See the historical record here:
en.wikipedia.org (yes, it is wikipedia, but the sources are at the bottom of the page.)
You do realize that all they have are theories, right? They have no idea for the recent warming, it's all hypothesis. Yet they claim it as fact.
The best you can come up with in science is a theory. This is similar to when creationists say "evolution is just a theory". In a sense, they are correct, but making such a statement as a pejorative shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.
AGW is not stated as fact. It's only stated as something that is very likely. In the IPCC's own words (from the fourth assessment report): "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."
You people who think that we can save the planet from whatever it may ailing from do amaze me. What absolute arrogance you have.
I've maybe posted on here 8 times so far, so maybe you shouldn't presume to know about my political beliefs. Personally, I think the current attemps to do something about GW are futile for two reasons:
1. There is too much doubt surrounding the issue in the mind of the general public (as you can see from reading these boards, for example), for there to be any real political impetus to make a significant change.
2. The currently proposed schemes, even if implemented fully, won't make a significant enough change to sufficiently curb emissions.
I don't know if there is any satisfactory solution to the problem, but that has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is real.
And never mind the fact that every pro GW study that has been done has been rebutted and shown to have flaws.
You're saying each of the THOUSANDS of pro-GW peer-reviewed scientific studies have been rebutted? By who? In what forum did this happen? Do you have any conception of the sheer bulk of literature that you're claiming has been debunked?
Of course the ones who shun these studies are ridiculed, fired, and made out to be lunatics. If you don't buy into man made GW you are an outcast.
I don't accept that this is true. Maybe some examples of this would be helpful. Keep in mind that there's a difference between being unfairly shunned, and simply being wrong.
