Iceland proves humanity cannot cause global warming

[Zatzat]

I’m all for energy saving simply because the government has made it so expensive…

Energy is very cheap…I wish they’d raise the price considerably, that way people would be sure to use less.

 

[pnewton]

I think Dale has a valid point. In an effort to fight junk science, junkier science can not be used. Take the thread title. Anyone with even a passing understanding of logic knows that a negative can not be proven. The article provides evidence (and precious little) but no proof of anything.

 

[Soutane]

I think Dale has a valid point. In an effort to fight junk science, junkier science can not be used. Take the thread title. Anyone with even a passing understanding of logic knows that a negative can not be proven. The article provides evidence (and precious little) but no proof of anything.

It IS an awkward title but I just copied and pasted.Just because the title is wonky(my fault) doesn’t mean that an attack on it proves the article itself is junk science.That’s just silly.I could use the same arguement on all the proven to be bogus studies on the “truth” of global warming and how these "experiments "were skewed,misreported or lied about.You’ll have to come up with something MUCH better than that little dismissal.

 

[pnewton]

You’ll have to come up with something MUCH better than that little dismissal.

I do not. I can dismiss anything I see as frivilous. Besides, there is precious little to dismiss. The logic is faulty. There is nothing in the entire article about human impact on the environment. The author took historical data from Wikipedia and blogged about the effect of volcanism on the environment. My five year old already knows that the volcanism can cause extreme temperature change. That obvious fact has no bearing on the question of what effect people can have, or what effect asteroids and comets can have, or what effect orbital shifts can have, etc. It is nothing but a misdirection.

Now if this information would have been used to focus on the futility of thinking when can stop any fluctuation, that would have been a valid arguement. But just because there is one way to screw up the Earth does not mean there are not multiple ways.

 

[Soutane]

Smart five year old.

 

[Robert_Bay]

NOTICE

Please avoid posting ad hominem

 

[seekerz]

I don’t think this is a very good argument. It may be that humanity can neither prevent nor cause any climate change. But whether it can or can’t doesn’t seem to me dependent on whether there are volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Applying the same faulty logic on a smaller scale, one could say that because lightning sometimes strikes homes and burns them down, it proves that humans cannot burn down homes.

Glad I’m not the only one wondering how the events in Iceland prove that humanity cannot cause global warming! Was getting pretty worried there for a while about my faculties of reason…

 

[Calliso]

Another faulty argument it made is the one about water vapor. She makes this statement,

**In terms of global climate change, it isn’t CO2 that is the potential problem here. First, where did this eruption occur? Right over a glacier, comprised mainly of ice (i.e. frozen water). It is important to note that the most dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor (per Dr. Tim Ball, historical climatologist). The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) notes that under most circumstances, eruptive emissions will be about 60 percent water vapor. Eyjafjallajokull will produce a higher percentage of water vapor due to the presence of the glacier. The white clouds of steam seen in many of the pictures taken of Eyjafjallajokull in recent days are indicative of the tremendous amount of water vapor associated with this eruption. **

Yes water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas but it is important to note you can;t just add more water vapor to the atmosphere without a sustained temperature increase. The extra water vapor is just going to leave the atmosphere. A more clear explanation is here. yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

But yeah as others have said saying oh look at the changes volcanoes can cause does not equal therefore man can not. The logic fails big time on this one.

 

[rlg94086]

Another faulty argument it made is the one about water vapor. She makes this statement,

**In terms of global climate change, it isn’t CO2 that is the potential problem here. First, where did this eruption occur? Right over a glacier, comprised mainly of ice (i.e. frozen water). It is important to note that the most dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor (per Dr. Tim Ball, historical climatologist). The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) notes that under most circumstances, eruptive emissions will be about 60 percent water vapor. Eyjafjallajokull will produce a higher percentage of water vapor due to the presence of the glacier. The white clouds of steam seen in many of the pictures taken of Eyjafjallajokull in recent days are indicative of the tremendous amount of water vapor associated with this eruption. **

Yes water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas but it is important to note you can;t just add more water vapor to the atmosphere without a sustained temperature increase. The extra water vapor is just going to leave the atmosphere. A more clear explanation is here. yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

But yeah as others have said saying oh look at the changes volcanoes can cause does not equal therefore man can not. The logic fails big time on this one.

What are your credentials again?