[alancalverd]

However, when Mt. Pinatubo went off climate modelers sprung into action and did make predictions about the impact it would have on climate.

What I find interesting about these curves is that both the predicted and actual effects of s single eruption (admittedly quite a big one) of a load of particulates were larger than the underlying annual trend, whatever the cause of that.   

[agyejy]

However, when Mt. Pinatubo went off climate modelers sprung into action and did make predictions about the impact it would have on climate.

What I find interesting about these curves is that both the predicted and actual effects of s single eruption (admittedly quite a big one) of a load of particulates were larger than the underlying annual trend, whatever the cause of that.   

Even "quite a big one" isn't really an accurate description of Pinatubo. It was a 6 on the VEI scale placing it just two below the largest eruptions known and it ejected an estimated 20,000,000 tonnes of SO2. Worse much of it was basically shot straight into the stratosphere unlike human emissions which take some time to reach those heights (and it isn't a guarantee they ever will). The biggest issues with powerful eruptions is that they send a good deal of material much higher than human activity into a region of the atmosphere where the impacts and chemistry are different.

[Jolly]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q

[Bored chemist]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q

Thanks for that.
I presume you were unable to actually address the issue I raised.


What you are saying, in effect, is that because we can not tell exactly what the weather will be like tomorrow, we shouldn't have a weather forecast.
Not only that but we shouldn't have a backup plan in case the weather isn't what  we hoped.

How do you get on in life if that's how you actually live?

[alancalverd]

it ejected an estimated 20,000,000 tonnes of SO2.

That's less than one sixth of the annual anthropogenic emission of SO2, which has been going on for hundreds of years, mostly from the combustion of coal.

What really distinguishes volcanic eruptions from anthropogenic gases is the stratospheric distribution of ash particles rather than gases. It's the gross reflection of the subsequent clouds (cloud cover being increased by dust nucleation of supercooled water) that controls surface temperature.

[Jolly]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q

Thanks for that.
I presume you were unable to actually address the issue I raised.

Well the issue was if "life" needs plans or is based on predictions. Mice make plans, Amebas also clearly, So I think Eddies little skit was a nice reponse.

 

 

[agyejy]

That's less than one sixth of the annual anthropogenic emission of SO2, which has been going on for hundreds of years, mostly from the combustion of coal.

You should know better than that. Absolute amounts are way less important than rates. It may have been 1/6 the annual amount but it also happened in less than 1/30 the time which means conservatively the rate was roughly 5 times higher. In particular SO2 (and sulfur compounds in general) have a residence time of about a day and at the most 2 days (at least in the lower troposphere where most of the human SO2 ends up but more on this later). This means the only comparison that has a chance of mattering is the amount humans put into the air in one day vs the amount the eruption put into the air in one day. Human emissions amount to about 330 tonnes a day while on average over the approximately 12 days of eruption Pinatubo managed closer to 1,700 tonnes per day. However this still isn't quite fair because the human emissions don't end up in the same place as the eruption emissions.

What really distinguishes volcanic eruptions from anthropogenic gases is the stratospheric distribution of ash particles rather than gases. It's the gross reflection of the subsequent clouds (cloud cover being increased by dust nucleation of supercooled water) that controls surface temperature.

It is actually well understood the SO2 is very important because it rapidly forms particulates when in the atmosphere which is part of the reason SO2 doesn't stay in the troposphere for much longer than a day. The SO2 from the eruption did what SO2 does and formed a haze of sulfuric acid droplets in the stratosphere. These droplets were easily the biggest factor in the decrease in solar radiation reaching the ground. The fact that the droplets formed in the stratosphere rather than the troposphere means they stuck around for much longer because they couldn't be washed out by rainstorms.

So while you were right to identify the region of the atmosphere as being important and scattering from clouds you were wrong that SO2 wasn't the most important cooling agent. It has actually been known for awhile from observation that the amount of sulfur containing gasses emitted during a volcanic eruption is a better indicator of the amount of cooling to expect than the amount of ash and dust emitted. Instead of water condensed around dust particles what is actually important is sulfuric acid clouds from the SO2.

In short, your comparison is meaningless because the rates were very different (and rates are more important than amounts in this case) and the two types of emissions end up in very different parts of the atmosphere which have very different residence times. (That is not to say some human emitted SO2 doesn't make it into the stratosphere just that most of it doesn't and certainly not as large a percentage as from an eruption.)

[alancalverd]

In particular SO2 (and sulfur compounds in general) have a residence time of about a day and at the most 2 days

If we allow a halflife of 2 days, 10 days after the eruption there will be less than 1/1000 of the initial concentration, and less than one billionth after a month. You wouldn't expect to see an effect over 5 years, surely? 

[agyejy]

If we allow a halflife of 2 days, 10 days after the eruption there will be less than 1/1000 of the initial concentration, and less than one billionth after a month. You wouldn't expect to see an effect over 5 years, surely? 

Please take the time to read my posts carefully and in their entirety. For example:

However this still isn't quite fair because the human emissions don't end up in the same place as the eruption emissions.

and

It is actually well understood the SO2 is very important because it rapidly forms particulates when in the atmosphere which is part of the reason SO2 doesn't stay in the troposphere for much longer than a day. The SO2 from the eruption did what SO2 does and formed a haze of sulfuric acid droplets in the stratosphere. These droplets were easily the biggest factor in the decrease in solar radiation reaching the ground. The fact that the droplets formed in the stratosphere rather than the troposphere means they stuck around for much longer because they couldn't be washed out by rainstorms.

the two types of emissions end up in very different parts of the atmosphere which have very different residence times. (That is not to say some human emitted SO2 doesn't make it into the stratosphere just that most of it doesn't and certainly not as large a percentage as from an eruption.)

Honestly I estimate about a third of the post you pulled that quote from was dedicated directly to preemptively addressing that very concern because I knew it would come up. I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer about it.

[Craig W. Thomson]

CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.

Explain how this is not unparliametary:

Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/04/2016 19:54:52 "You are a twit, aren't you?"

Shove your temporary ban up your ass, flat earth moron. I'M banning this site permanently after this post. You people have zero integrity. I'm going somewhere that doesn't allow braindead halfwits to be moderators, but have fun with your little gang of scientifically ignorant, politically biased corporate shills while spreading misinformation.

I've got news for you, blockhead. The laws of physics work the way they work no matter what words I choose. I shouldn't be kicked out of a science forum for unparliamentary language. You should all be kicked out for unscientific language and skeptical nonsense.

Combustion produces heat, and it produces carbon dioxide that helps the atmosphere trap that heat.

Those are the facts, alan. Now, go fu ck yourself, parliamentarily or otherwise. I'm way too smart for you and your cronies. Banning me is the ONLY power you will EVER have over me, so enjoy it.

[Bored chemist]

CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.

Explain how this is not unparliametary:

Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/04/2016 19:54:52 "You are a twit, aren't you?"

Shove your temporary ban up your ass, flat earth moron. I'M banning this site permanently after this post. You people have zero integrity. I'm going somewhere that doesn't allow braindead halfwits to be moderators, but have fun with your little gang of scientifically ignorant, politically biased corporate shills while spreading misinformation.

I've got news for you, blockhead. The laws of physics work the way they work no matter what words I choose. I shouldn't be kicked out of a science forum for unparliamentary language. You should all be kicked out for unscientific language and skeptical nonsense.

Combustion produces heat, and it produces carbon dioxide that helps the atmosphere trap that heat.

Those are the facts, alan. Now, go fu ck yourself, parliamentarily or otherwise. I'm way too smart for you and your cronies. Banning me is the ONLY power you will EVER have over me, so enjoy it.

You were not thrown off the site for bad language, or even for being rude.
You were thrown off after making threats of physical violence.

I don't think you will find many sites where that's acceptable.

[Tim the Plumber]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?

[Bored chemist]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?

I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

[Tim the Plumber]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?

I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Another none answer.

YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?

That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.

[Bored chemist]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?

I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Another none answer.

YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?

That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.

If I ask you what the population of America is, I don't expect you to count them, I expect you to find an answer that someone else has counted.
So, if you said " about 320 million" and I asked how you knew that you would say you checked Google.
By your reckoning that's not answering the question.

There's even a web site dedicated to people who ask dumb questions where the answer is better obtained elsewhere

http://bfy.tw/5Xkt

So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.


However, you seem to have grasped that and decided to ask a marginally more sensible question
"YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?"

Well, because that's what the people who know about it say and also

[Tim the Plumber]

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?

I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Another none answer.

YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?

That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.

If I ask you what the population of America is, I don't expect you to count them, I expect you to find an answer that someone else has counted.
So, if you said " about 320 million" and I asked how you knew that you would say you checked Google.
By your reckoning that's not answering the question.

There's even a web site dedicated to people who ask dumb questions where the answer is better obtained elsewhere

http://bfy.tw/5Xkt

So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.


However, you seem to have grasped that and decided to ask a marginally more sensible question
"YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?"

Well, because that's what the people who know about it say and also

Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.

[Bored chemist]

Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.

"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.

[Craig W. Thomson]

You were not thrown off the site for bad language, or even for being rude.
You were thrown off after making threats of physical violence.

I don't think you will find many sites where that's acceptable.

I don't care. You spent weeks trolling me, insulting me and posting bad science. I would enjoy slapping your face clean off your head. It's unfortunate that I can never actually pose that threat because, unlike me, you are too cowardly and deceitful to use your real identity when you're flaming people.

According to alancalverd, I was kicked out for "unparliamentary behavior." That's a joke.

Hmm, is that parliamentary? NO. Even our do-nothing US Congress isn't that out of control. People specifically don't watch C-SPAN because it's boring. A few years ago, congressman Joe Wilson shouted the single word "liar" out of turn, and he was skewered by the press and members of both parties because that was unprecedented. But if that's the criterion you want to use, you, jeffreyH, Tim the Plumber and alancalverd should all be kicked out too. None of you agree with each other, but you all think you're right. The cacophony is deafening. Sounds a lot like Parliament to me, LOL

[Bored chemist]

"According to alancalverd, I was kicked out for "unparliamentary behavior." That's a joke.
"
Yes, that was a joke. I suspect that you were kicked out for making threats. Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat ( you said "I would enjoy slapping your face clean off your head. It's unfortunate that I can never actually pose that threat because") I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.

I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.

You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.

What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.

And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.