[jamest (OP)]

Ranjith's question for next week's show!

[Zer0]

I got no clue...
But i wanna know this too.

[Origin]

I got no clue...
But i wanna know this too.

Here is the answer according to NOAA.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
From the site:
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity's annual emissions.

[alancalverd]

All of which makes one wonder where the prehistoric CO2 came from. A lot of Believers say that climate change was due to volcanic CO2 emissions but the ice core ash record doesn't correlate with temperature or CO2.

[Origin]

A lot of Believers say

The Deniers camp is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on...  how long will you hold out I wonder.

[alancalverd]

I haven't denied anything, to my knowledge. It would be absurd to do so as the earth's climate is inherently unstable and the historic record gives us every reason to agree that current trends are predictable and consistent with its previous behavior.   

Where I disagree with most Believers is whether human activity can do anything to alter the laws of physics. The problem is that for several reasons (including climate change) the planet cannot support the present human population at an acceptable standard of living and things are going to get worse. So instead of blaming the rich for the inevitable (a modern twist on religion, which used to blame the poor) and paying climate "scientists" to preach the Wages of Sin, we should be taking steps to mitigate the discomfort of future generations.

It doesn't matter much whether we abandon fossil fuels now or wait for them to run out in 100 years' time, but if we don't limit the population to what can be sustained, our grandchildren are doomed to war and starvation - the Middle Ages, but ruled by a more evil superstition than Christianity.

[Origin]

I haven't denied anything, to my knowledge.

The experts in climate science say that global warming is due to our introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it seems that you disagree with the experts, that seems like you are denying what the experts are saying.  Maybe you don't disagree with them and I just missed some something.

It doesn't matter much whether we abandon fossil fuels now or wait for them to run out in 100 years' time

The climate experts disagree with your assessment.

Where I disagree with most Believers is whether human activity can do anything to alter the laws of physics. So instead of blaming the rich for the inevitable (a modern twist on religion, which used to blame the poor)

I'm not interested in what the fringe people are saying I am more concerned about what the experts are saying about climate change.  I trust the experts, if there is a big global conspiracy, well I guess they duped me.

[Bored chemist]

"Do volcanoes produce more co2 than humans?"
Who cares?
Volcanoes have "always" been around, and "always" will be .
They have not suddenly changed the amount of CO2 they produce and therefore can not be responsible for the change in CO2 concentration which we have observed.

It's a complete red herring to wonder if they make lots of CO2 or a little. The question is "have they changed the amount of CO2 they make?" and, as far as I can tell, the answer is  "no".

[alancalverd]

that seems like you are denying what the experts are saying. 

There are no experts, only observers,  many of whom subscribe to what IPCC admits is a simplistic consensus. To be an expert you need to test your hypothesis of causation, not just fit curves to an observed correlation.

"Denying what others are saying" is meaningless. Suggesting that unidirectional correlation is not proof of causation is not denying anything (any fool can see the recent correlation) but asserting a basic tenet of science and law, driven by  the observation that both temperature and CO2 levels  have behaved similarly in the past but the currently fashionable hypothesis doesn't explain why they both increased as rapidly as at present, reached a consistent maximum, and decreased slowly thereafter.

I published a note 20 years ago setting out a simple 5 year experiment that would test the hypothesis and simultaneously improve global nutrition and sustainability. It has been incorporated into United Nations, World Bank and UK Treasury policy but no government, let alone any COP agreement, has implemented it.

 Not that any of that matters. According to your chosen "experts", we are going to fry if we carry on as we are doing. According to me, we are going to fry anyway. So far, anthropogenic CO2 emissions have risen every year apart from the COVID pandemic (and that reduction had no noticeable effect on climate: temperatures exceeded 40C in Cambridge)  despite 28 COP conferences agreeing with the consensus.

 If anthropogenic CO2 is causing unacceptable climate change we could try reducing emissions but there is no other means of supporting a Western lifestyle for those who currently enjoy it, and absolutely no hope of doing so for those who aspire to it. So we agree that life as we know it is doomed. When everyone agrees that the ship is either going to hit the rocks or sink in mid-ocean, it makes sense to launch the lifeboat.

Final point: don't confuse a convenient and profitable consensus (flat earth, Christianity, miasma, phlogiston, geocentricity...) with a conspiracy. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.

[Zer0]

I got no clue...
But i wanna know this too.

the more i know, the more i realize,
i know nothing.
(Soc)

Thanks for the question Ranjith.
: )
Good work @jam!