Monday, April 19, 2010

Comment of the week

This is priceless. From commentator NZFP over at The Standard, who sarcastically, yet correctly, asks Marty G to explain a few statements made over the unpronounceable Iceland volcanic eruption:
Hey Marty,

You said “and actually has a cooling effect, slightly counteracting climate change.” I’m confused, isn’t the cooling effect a change in climate in itself? Or by “climate change” do you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)? If you mean AGW would you please say AGW because a cooling of the planet due to a downturn in solar activity is by definition “Climate Change” as well.

You said “Volcanic eruptions also emit carbon dioxide” can you tell me how much we should tax Iceland for all the CO2 and other pollutants their Volcano is pouring into the atmosphere? Bear in mind that Iceland just voted to kick out the banks as well as Gordon Brown for bankrupting them so they probably don’t have much money.

While we are working out how much to carbon tax the Icelanders, can you tell me who should pay the tax for all the undersea Volcano’s erupting in the Pacific ocean? Or how about the ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) article titled “Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean”

ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. Such violent eruptions of splintered, fragmented rock–known as pyroclastic deposits — were not thought possible at great ocean depths because of the intense weight and pressure of water and because of the composition of seafloor magma and rock.

The ScienceDaily article reports “that a tremendous blast of CO2 was released into the water column during the explosive eruption” – considering this, who should be paying all the carbon tax for all these CO2 events occuring from erupting undersea volcanos?

Actually can anybody tell me how many Volcanos are erupting under the sea? Does anybody know? If nobody know’s how many volcanic events are occuring around the world, how do we know how much CO2 is being released into the atmosphere and consequently how do we know what percentage of that CO2 is due to our labour? I thought the Science was Settled so surely the IPCC knows where every single volcano is on the planet and not only that the IPCC know’s how much CO2 is being released and the IPCC knows that all of the volcanic CO2 released by every volcano on the planet is inconsequential compared to our labour.

I guess the next time Ruapehu or White Island erupts all us Kiwi’s need to dig deep into our wallets and cough up for Nobel Peace laureate and all around good guy Al Gore, the UN and the IPCC.

12 comments:

Cactus Kate said...

Week? Try one of the best comments of the year.

lprent said...

nzfp clearly doesn't know much about earth sciences. My response was

The release of greenhouse gases from volcanoes annually on average is currently about 1/130 of the current annual release by humans from fossilized carbon.

There are some pretty good estimates of volcanic releases under water. You can read volcanic events with seismographs because they cause earthquakes. The gases from underwater volcanic events are adsorbed directly by the water unless they’re close to the surface, and are a lot less likely to cause issues in the atmosphere.

Quite simply volcanic events are not a major issue for gas induced climate change because their effects would normally get buffered. However they are likely to get more significant because humans have been shoving their emissions garbage into all of the buffers and are steadily clogging them up.

Perhaps you should learn some earth sciences if you’re concerned about these things? At present you look ignorant about the basics to me.


I guess that I should give the same advice to Gooner and Katie...

Anonymous said...

And out came the earth sciences gollum. wow Lprent really out you in your place gooner. i mean coming out and saying that there are really good estimates, and that volcanoes that we say have an impact, have an impact. but not the ones you talk about. and for someone who knows so much about earth sciences, what about the cooling effect of Krakatoa in the 19th century, or the more recently observed phenomenom of an actual increase in average temperature once the airlines were grounded after 9/11?

Anonymous said...

FYI: The reason that volcanos can reduce global temperatures is that they release sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere.

The sulfur dioxide converts to tiny persistent sulfuric acid (sulfate) particles. These sulfate particles reflect energy coming from the sun, thereby preventing the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

Anonymous said...

FYI: The reason that volcanos can reduce global temperatures is that they release sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere.

The sulfur dioxide converts to tiny persistent sulfuric acid (sulfate) particles. These sulfate particles reflect energy coming from the sun, thereby preventing the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

Anonymous said...

Ah what can you say about Iprent. His talents are endless.

IT geek supreme, earth sciences boffin and weekend commando.

Since he only has a bachelors degree in the subject when in science you'd need a PhD to be considered an expert I'd take his wisdom with a shaker of salt.

Evan said...

I'd refrain from trying to belittle people based on their qualifications.

A truer statement would be:
"In science you need a lot of experience to be an expert, this usually comes in the form of peer-reviewed journal publications"

Would you dare to call the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Sam Morgan non-experts in their fields? All the above never finished tertiary qualifications.

As a scientist without a PhD, I am a highly respected member in my field (biomechanical engineering)due to my innovations, publications and years of dedication.

Don't allow your box structured mind to be a hindrance.

Anonymous said...

"Would you dare to call the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Sam Morgan non-experts in their fields? All the above never finished tertiary qualifications."

The crucial flaw in your argument is that these guys have proved their expertise while Iprent hasn't and is offering an opinion in an area where you actually need a high degree of knowledge to be credible.

Your failure is one of extrapolation and it doesn't necessarily follow that just because Steve Jobs can sell computer then Iprent is therefore an expert in earth sciences.

Anonymous said...

On the contrary, I am not supporting Iprent in any way.

I am expressing my concern at your comment that "in science you'd need a PhD to be considered an expert".

No extrapolation is needed except for one that runs from your comment to a label in the sky exclaiming "I am a close minded dick head"

Anonymous said...

"I am expressing my concern at your comment that "in science you'd need a PhD to be considered an expert". "

Then to prove your point can you provide links to the massive numbers of tenured faculty members in our university science departments without a PhD.

Anonymous said...

PS it sounds like you're suffering from some kind of inferiority complex given your kneejerk reaction.

Whats up with that?

sagenz said...

Thats the problem I have with anon's. I fact checked lprent and he was right. point to him, get over it rather than playing the man instead. Evan - you must be somewhat of a newbie, there is no point responding to anonytrolls