Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Just How Large Is Your Footprint! I love this... Hey! don't we in BC have a carbon...

rolf Loc: Kenora Ont.Canada

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Just How Large Is Your Footprint!

I love this... Hey! don't we in BC have a carbon tax???? so much for government honesty.

Say what?

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born

12 February 1946 (age 68)

Residence

Australia

Nationality

Australian

Fields

Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering

Institutions

University of New England, University of Newcastle, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide

Alma mater

University of New South Wales, Macquarie University

Thesis

The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)

Notable Awards

Eureka Prize (1995,2002), Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it!!!!

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isnt it interesting how they dont mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why? Its because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It wont stop any volcanoes from erupting, thats for sure.

But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

rolf wrote:

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Ju... (show quote)

Just to balance this extraordinary individuals insight, Otago MP Jacqui Dean, New Zealand, tried to pass a measure that would ban dihydrogen monoxide.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10463579

--Bob

Phreedom Loc: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

rolf wrote:

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Ju... (show quote)

Please read and view:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

The important part is

rolf wrote:

Ian Rutherford Plimer ..... the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.

He has a vested interest in keeping mining and coal production profitable. (He claims that scientists are lying about climate change to get a few thousands in research money, while insisting the millions he makes from the fuel industry doesn't effect him at all....)

Which leaves us with the question, "If he's not affected by the money, then Why is he lying?" (He is lying,that's a given...)

Quote:

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

This may be true, but completely misleading. He's not comparing volcano CO2 to man-made CO2, but to our attempts to reduce to. This is because we are doing pretty much nothing to reduce CO2.

It's kind of like saying.. "You know that doughnut you just eat? It completely negated the effect of that one Jumping Jack you did for exercise."

- Does that mean you won't get fat? -- No.
- Do it mean that there's nothing you can do to prevent becoming fat? - No
- Do it mean that it's OK to eat the doughnut? - not realy.
- Do it mean you really should be doing a serious exercise workout? Yes.

So, he statement really proves that we need to do MORE to reduce CO2 emissions.

Quote:

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

More misdirections --- the CO2 is good argument. By this logic, no one has ever drowned, because water is needed for life.

Quote:

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

I'd really like to see some numbers justifying that statement. Presently all active volcanoes in the world produce about 200 million tons of CO2 a year. Humans produce 26.8 billion tons or about 134X as much.

Quote:

the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

There is no "800-year cycle". There are 10,000 year; 25,000 year; and 100,000 year cycles, but we aren't on the "hot" wave of any of them.

Quote:

Hey, isnt it interesting how they dont mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why? Its because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

Complete lie. 2013 was the hottest year on record, until it was passed by 2014, and 2015 has already passed that, and we still have a month to go.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Phreedom wrote:

Please read and view:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

I read the article and watched the entire video. While I don't believe in the Global Warming phenomenon to begin with, I had never heard about the levels of volcanic CO2 being such a factor before, so I was skeptical. The article written about the debate on video painted Ian Plimer in a very bad light and made him out to be some sort of scientific charlatan based on the debate with George Monbiot. When I watched the actual debate however, I found the opposite to be true. Plimer is actually quite informed and articulate, and Monbiot was not very knowledgeable and was extremely rude on top of this, and kept insulting Plimer with no justification. Every time they asked Plimer a question, he gave somewhat justifiably long and informed scientific answers, and invariably Monbiot would interrupt and claim that he was not answering the question when in fact he was. Monbiot was trying to get snap answers to very deep questions and was unwilling to wait for the instructive answers.

NeilL Loc: British-born Canadian

rmalarz wrote:

Just to balance this extraordinary individuals insight, Otago MP Jacqui Dean, New Zealand, tried to pass a measure that would ban dihydrogen monoxide.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10463579

--Bob

He's all wet.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

JamesCurran wrote:

More misdirections --- the CO2 is good argument. By this logic, no one has ever drowned, because water is needed for life.

I don't understand this argument. CO2 is vital to every plant on the planet. We are currently experiencing the lowest levels of CO2 in the history of Earth as far as we know. Look at the chart on this web site showing Carbon Dioxide levels going back 500 million years. This is a site actually promoting the Global Warming Theory. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

JamesCurran wrote:

There is no "800-year cycle". There are 10,000 year; 25,000 year; and 100,000 year cycles, but we aren't on the "hot" wave of any of them.

The 800 year cycle of temperature and CO2 levels is one of the most well known cycles in climate history. There was a big graph of this on stage with Al Gore in his documentary "Inconvenient Truth" when he was explaining the cycle. Here again from a pro-Global Warming web site showing a graph of this cycle and explaining how CO2 and temperature dance together in a 600 - 1,000 year cycle. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

NeilL wrote:

He's all wet.

:thumbup:
--Bob

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Steven Seward wrote:

I don't understand this argument. CO2 is vital to every plant on the planet. We are currently experiencing the lowest levels of CO2 in the history of Earth as far as we know. Look at the chart on this web site showing Carbon Dioxide levels going back 500 million years. This is a site actually promoting the Global Warming Theory. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

Did you read the article or just look at the graph?

As I said about drowning, just because something is vital, doesn't mean too much isn't a bad thing.

And keep in mind, that on that graph, humans barely register --- they enter the somewhere by the tail of the "g" in "Ng" on the right. While the earth has experienced higher CO2 level, humans have not, and it's the survival of humans that we care about.

Further, that the two most recent spikes in the CO2 level, the transition from the Triassic ("Tr" on the chart) to Jurassic ("J" ) eras 200 million years ago, and the transition from the Cretaceous ("K" ) to Paleogene ("Pg" ) eras 66 million years ago, were both accompanied by mass extinctions.

Finally, the graphs show rises in CO2 levels happening over a million years of the same size as we've experienced over the last 50 years. The earth and (most of) it's life can adapt the changes like that, but not that fast...

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

JamesCurran wrote:

Complete lie. 2013 was the hottest year on record, until it was passed by 2014, and 2015 has already passed that, and we still have a month to go.

There actually hasn't been any statistically significant increase in temperatures since 1998. I know that all the Global Warming supporters have been shouting from the treetops about how hot it has been getting, always with superlative descriptors like "hottest" and "scorching" and "runaway temperatures" to make it sound threatening. The truth is that NASA is claiming that since 1998, the temperature has risen 6/1,000th of one degree celsius, an amount that is not even measurable with or current technology. I had it recently, but I had trouble finding the NASA chart of actual temperature increase since 1998 (not those imprecise graphs that make you guess at actual figures). I did find this admission from NASA however in 2009 that there has been slight cooling since 1998. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
Most people don't know that NASA, not trusting their ground-based measurements, sent up satellites in 1979 to more accurately measure the temperature coming off of the Earth's atmosphere. These measurements actually show a decrease in temperature since 1998 but NASA chooses to ignore it and use the ground-based measurements instead to promote the idea of Global Warming. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Steven Seward wrote:

Here again from a pro-Global Warming web site showing a graph of this cycle and explaining how CO2 and temperature dance together in a 600 - 1,000 year cycle. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

You really don't read those article....

Nowhere on that page does it discuss a 1000-year *CYCLE*.
The first chart of that page shows four full cycles over 400,000 years. The second shows a quarter of a cycle over 25,000 years. Hence both show a cycle with a period of 100,000 years --- which is what I said.

The article does discuss a LAG of 600-1000 years. In other words, two cycles, each 100,000 year, which are 1000 year out of sync with each other.

The 800-year cycle is completely imaginary. The deniers take the established "Little Ice age" of 400 years ago, mixed in the Milankovitch Cycles (which are the 20-100,000 year cycles I and Al Gore talked about), and (Poof!) came up with this wonderful talking point....

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

JamesCurran wrote:

And keep in mind, that on that graph, humans barely register --- they enter the somewhere by the tail of the "g" in "Ng" on the right. While the earth has experienced higher CO2 level, humans have not, and it's the survival of humans that we care about.

Presumably humans react to CO2 the same way most animals have over millions of years.

JamesCurran wrote:

Further, that the two most recent spikes in the CO2 level, the transition from the Triassic ("Tr" on the chart) to Jurassic ("J" ) eras 200 million years ago, and the transition from the Cretaceous ("K" ) to Paleogene ("Pg" ) eras 66 million years ago, were both accompanied by mass extinctions.

Yes, but you are talking levels of CO2 five times what we have now.

JamesCurran wrote:

Finally, the graphs show rises in CO2 levels happening over a million years of the same size as we've experienced over the last 50 years. The earth and (most of) it's life can adapt the changes like that, but not that fast...

They are not the same size. They are five times higher. The graph is pretty clear.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Steven Seward wrote:

The truth is that NASA is claiming that since 1998, the temperature has risen 6/1,000th of one degree celsius, an amount that is not even measurable with or current technology.

NASA never claimed this. (And how do you suppose they measured something which you say could not be measured??)

And, this is explained --- in the very Guardian article cites in the first message here --- which you claim to have read.

It's just a trick of averaging. If you do the same calculation starting from 1999 or 1997 or pretty much any other year, the rising trend in clear.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

JamesCurran wrote:

You really don't read those article....

Nowhere on that page does it discuss a 1000-year *CYCLE*.
The first chart of that page shows four full cycles over 400,000 years. The second shows a quarter of a cycle over 25,000 years. Hence both show a cycle with a period of 100,000 years --- which is what I said.

The article does discuss a LAG of 600-1000 years. In other words, two cycles, each 100,000 year, which are 1000 year out of sync with each other.

What do you call a repeating lag of 600 - 100 years, a cycle.