Volcanoes Confuse Global Warming Scientists

Volcanoes Confuse Global Warming Scientists

At a time when global warming is purported to be a “settled” science, it seems particularly odd that volcanoes are now presumed to be the cause of “the pause.” A recent study, published by climatescience.com, seems to indicate that global warming scientists are confused about what Volcanoes pump into the atmosphere. Evidently, the same CO2, water vapors and sulfides known as “greenhouse gases” when they are generated by man, are responsible for cooling the atmosphere, when generated by a volcano.

Consequently, the almost 19 year “pause” in measurable global warming can now safely be attributed to, oddly enough, volcanic activity. According to these poor confused global warming scientists, at any rate. Volcanoes seem to be an unlikely scapegoat, given the kinds of gases they put out, but beggars cannot be choosers. The complete lack of measurable rise in global temperatures, despite the past two decades being record breakers for human use of hydrocarbons for fuel, have sent global warming scientists down some of the most fascinating rabbit trails.

The world’s oceans, for instance, were said to have been “absorbing all of the excess heat.” Charts and graphs and detailed scientific journals were written, specifically in support of that “fact.” However, now that volcanoes are responsible for temperatures not rising whatsoever, are people supposed to completely disbelieve the “oceans” theory? Obviously, both sets of global warming scientists cannot be right at the same time: Either the oceans were absorbing excess heat, or there was no excess heat for them to absorb. How volcanoes can confuse global warming scientists, may itself remain a mystery for decades to come.

Typically, the greatest percentage by volume of gas released by volcanic activity is water vapor (H2O). Which, as has been reported earlier in the Guardian Liberty Voice and elsewhere, is the single most important greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Followed of course by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) by volume. Volcanoes also spit out hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and helium, respectively.

Volcanoes Confuse Global Warming Scientists

The fact that volcanoes, when they explode, do tend to cool the surface temperatures of the earth, is not in dispute. Volcanic ash acts in much the same way regular clouds do, blocking the light which produces the heat. The fact to bear in mind however – which seems to completely escape the global warming community – is that erupting volcanoes introduce more CO2 [correction: greenhouse gasses] into the atmosphere in a day, than mankind can produce in a decade. Not to mention the copious amounts of water vapor, which is an actual greenhouse gas.

The climatescience.com article goes on to mention how volcanic gases negatively impact people with asthma or other respiratory problems, as well as the ozone layer. The mere fact that the ozone layer is brought up, indicates that the climate scientists are confused about that issue, as well. The “ozone layer” is a misnomer attached to a zone where an effect can be observed. Ozone itself has little or nothing to do with blocking harmful UV rays from the sun. Ozone is merely a byproduct which occurs when oxygen blocks UV rays.

Ultraviolet (UV) rays traveling from the sun vibrate at an extremely high frequency. It is that very vibration rate which makes them dangerous. Oxygen (O2) has a lighter specific gravity than all the other gases in the atmosphere, causing it to want to rise above the nitrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2). At certain altitudes, incoming UV rays will be absorbed by the O2 molecules, slowing their vibration and busting the two ions apart. Those free ions will immediately bond with other O2 molecules creating O3, or “ozone” as it is more commonly referred to. The oxygen is what is protecting the earth from those harmful UV rays, the ozone is simply a byproduct of that process.

The much ballyhooed “holes” in the ozone, only happen over the poles during their respective winters. When no sunlight is striking the atmosphere above the poles, no ozone is being created. The holes are normal, natural, cyclical and completely predictable. The “ozone layer” has never been in any danger, nor has it ever had any impact on global warming.

Volcanoes Confuse Global Warming Scientists
No sunlight striking the winter poles, no ozone being created.

Volcanoes impact temperatures, as they have throughout the whole history of the planet. Nothing mankind can do will ever impact global warming, or global cooling, the way volcanoes do. Mankind using “fossil fuels” and other cheap, readily available, virtually infinite hydrocarbon-based energy sources, cannot impact climate to any degree worth mentioning. The mere fact that global warming scientists are confused by volcanoes, brings the entire field of study into question.

Commentary by Ben Gaul

Sources:

reportingclimatescience.com     Reuters     Guardian Liberty Voice1

USGS     Guardian Liberty Voice2

26 Responses to "Volcanoes Confuse Global Warming Scientists"

  1. Ray Del Colle   June 1, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    “Ask the majority of climate scientists: Carbon pollution from dirty energy is the main cause of global warming.” http://clmtr.lt/c/HZg0cd0cMJ

    Reply
  2. David Anfinrud   March 11, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    I do not believe in Global warming. Call me a denier if you wish. I saw and article in the 90’s that talked about the temperature of Mars increased by about 1C due to sun energy reaching Mars. At the same time the Hockey stick was being made to show Man is the cause of Global warming. I also remember a study that showed all the Heating and Cooling in the past was minimized. Time of Moses was 1 – 2C warmer than today. Or the Little Ice Age in the 1700’s were ignored. As describe averaged out of existence. the only thing that existed was CO2 warming the Planet. So the science that is supposed to be unquestionable as very questionable standards used to make their point. The other thing a few million years ago CO2 levels were over 2000 PPM. Man was not on the planet at that time. So the real affects of CO2 may not be understood. Lots of questions from lots of Scientists showing that we have a lot more to understand before we can claim CO2 is the root cause of any global warming.

    Reply
  3. Melissa   February 25, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    This seems like a very limited view. Lets face it.. You’re not a climatologist and the only person baffled by extensive research seems to be you.

    Reply
  4. Robert   February 25, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Here’s a correction to one of your half-truths. UV comes in three flavors: c, b, and a in decreasing order of harm. Pure oxygen blocks radiation below around 200nm, using it to create ozone, but has no effect on UV radiation above around 200nm. The upper half of UV-c (deadly UV, between 100 and 280nm) is blocked by ozone alone, but that’s enough to keep it from reaching the surface in most places. UV-b (cell destroying UV, 315-290nm) is only blocked by ozone. UV-a (sun tanning/burning UV, 400-315nm) isn’t blocked much by either of them and mostly comes through unscathed.

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   February 25, 2014 at 4:47 pm

      Allow me to give you the full discourse on the subject, Robert. You might also want to explain how ionic bonding differs from O2 to O3 causing one to react differently than the other to UV, because this is the first I’ve ever heard of such a thing.

      From an article I published quite some years ago:

      The radiation from the sun has wavelengths visible to humans from violet (400 nanometers, nm) to red (700 nm), plus invisible infrared (> 700 nm) and ultraviolet (< 400 nm) wavelengths. The energy of the radiation increases as the wavelengths shorten, and the absorption of highly energetic ultraviolet (UV) radiation usually causes the decomposition of simple atmospheric molecules. O2 is slightly lighter than the other elements that make up the air (nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and so on), so a certain proportion of the O2 molecules drift upwards to the outer fringes of the Atmosphere into the Troposphere, which is just inside the Stratosphere. A certain amount of that incoming light is absorbed or deflected by various elements: Atoms, molecules and particles of other matter. The bulk of this light from the Sun continues its downward journey toward us, until it encounters the O2 molecules rising up from the surface. All multi-atom compounds are capable of absorbing UV radiation if the wavelength is short enough, and almost all will decompose after absorbing that radiation. At the point where the Sun’s radiation reaches a sufficient concentration of O2 molecules, a reaction takes place. The ultraviolet spectrum strikes the rising O2 molecules and imparts its energy to the element. This has two effects: First, it greatly reduces the amount of ultraviolet light which would otherwise reach the Earth's surface, because the ray of ultraviolet light loses energy and becomes light in the lower, visible spectrums. Second, it splits the O2 into ions, which quickly bond to other O2 molecules to become ozone molecules (O3).

      Reply
  5. Ben Gaul   February 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    Good looking out, people. Thanks for the correction — even if bile dripped from every word. Like most internet reporters, I pulled the image off the Google images page. I can assure you it had no trademarks or other identifying characteristics as downloaded.

    Apologies to the artist, who obviously does great work. Does this new image meet your collective approval?

    Reply
  6. Scott   February 25, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Wow, way to rip off artwork… completely undermines everything you have to say and your integrity.

    Reply
  7. bblais23   February 25, 2014 at 10:48 am

    When are you going to give credit to the artist who’s image you used as a heading for your article? The creator of this work does not ask for much and has a very liberal copyright agreement compared to other artists. Below I have provided the link for the copyright agreement, I suggest you abide by it and put the watermark back in the image.

    http://digitalblasphemy.com/copyright.shtml

    Reply
  8. Jesus   February 25, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Idiot, don’t steal other people’s work.

    Reply
  9. Myself Me   February 25, 2014 at 9:10 am

    Didn’t read article, but it’s totally for sure accurate, given the ‘photo’ is actually an artistic computer render, designed to be a desktop background. #FailFish

    Reply
  10. Bill Nuttercraft   February 25, 2014 at 7:38 am

    How dare you steal the work of Ryan Bliss to push your liberal science bull crap!

    Reply
    • Kes   February 25, 2014 at 11:57 am

      This is climage-change denial at its most sarcastic and idiotic, not “liberal science bull crap.” I actually managed to read a couple paragraphs of the article before throwing up my hands in frustration at the fatuousness.

      Reply
      • stefanthedenier   February 25, 2014 at 7:31 pm

        Kes, you are suffering from ”Truth Phobia”

        Reply
  11. Brian   February 25, 2014 at 7:27 am

    Please give proper credit/royalties to Ryan Bliss, original artist of your header image. See http://digitalblasphemy.com/preview.shtml?i=dodenfell3

    Reply
  12. Ryan Bliss (@dblasphemy)   February 25, 2014 at 6:07 am

    Um, that’s my artwork you are using for your illustration…
    http://digitalblasphemy.com/preview.shtml?i=dodenfell3

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   February 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm

      My apologies. The image had no watermarks or other identifying tokens as downloaded. We do too much business, and there are far too many available images, to use someone’s property like that. I have removed the image from the site and replaced it with a generic image. Which also shows as available for reuse on Google.

      It was a gorgeous picture, BTW. Excellent work.

      Reply
      • lucy   February 26, 2014 at 1:43 am

        1. search by image…..
        http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/images/searchbyimage.html

        find original image source
        quote image.

        2. your article seems outrageously one sided, and because you haven’t linked any of the original article that you attack…. it is much harder for people to read that and thus have any chance to decide if what you are saying and what you claim, they say is accurate.

        in summary…… REFERENCING!
        referencing images, references the article you quote repeatedly….
        we learn about referencing in primary school.
        and no, the links you provide don’t count as the climatescience.com link goes to a generic page. and the other links appear to be articles that you wrote yourself….. bias?

        Reply
        • Ben Gaul   February 26, 2014 at 2:32 pm

          Thank you for the comment, Lucy. And for the link to the video. You’re right of course, one of the links is to an article I wrote, the other is to an earlier article written by someone utterly smitten with AGW.

          The link to the Climate Reporter site, if you read it, clearly points to the original story I was sourcing. Happily, I do not write for Reuters or the USGS.

          As for my article being one-sided, and decidedly anti-global warming “science,” so what? Occasionally, I get tired of writing white papers and boilerplate – I also get tired of fear mongering and supposition being foisted on the American public as fact, in a blatant attempt at fostering global socialism – so I write commentaries poking holes in the entire “climate change” block of Swiss cheese.

          Are you not yet tired yourself, of seeing every dire prognostication fail to come about, spectacularly?

          Reply
  13. Lilly   February 24, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Thanks for shedding some light on the subject of global warming. If the scientific community is so involved in being politically correct, how can we accept any of their “findings and or theories” as the gospel truth. They are so involved in obtaining government grants to continue with their research that they forgot what they are supposed to be researching for……….Lilly

    Reply
  14. Gary Gardner   February 24, 2014 at 12:16 am

    Why do the called “climate change scientists” always seem to miss the blinding obvious?
    I have supported this idea for years and being only a humble chemist, my voice has never been taken seriously! I feel vindicated! . I also believe that ruminantsry animals make a significant contribution to climate change through the continuous production of methane , which has a much higher impact on climate change than CO2 .

    Reply
  15. Dave   February 23, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    Thank you Ben Gaul for writing this. The evidence has always been there. The Earth goes thru nature cycles of heating and cooling because of a hyper-reaction the Earth has to solar cycles and variations due to volcanic activity. The Earth has been cooling since the Ice Age, the Pleistocene. People did not cause this. I believe in the Green Movement, but there is too much bad science out there making this all anthropogenic.

    Reply
  16. Ronald Baak   February 23, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    It’s simple, no volcanic activity means no shade for the earth. We heat up until volcanic activity returns, if it doesn’t then we end up like planet Mars.

    Reply
  17. selfane   February 23, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    “The fact to bear in mind however – which seems to completely escape the global warming community – is that erupting volcanoes introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere in a day, than mankind can produce in a decade.”. First off bear in mind this article is claiming that scientists are not sure exactly what concentrations of what are being produced by volcanoes. To state this as a “fact” is highly questionable.

    That being said I’m seeing places estimating 200 million tonnes of CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere from underwater and on land volcanoes annually (example: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html, also found here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm)

    It also says that in 2003 the emissions from human fossile fuel usage was 26.8 billion tonnes a year. Now I think we can grant that the measurements may be off by some degree I doubt you can conclude that they are off by a factor of this magnatude.

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   February 23, 2014 at 8:53 pm

      Thanks for the correction. I wrote “CO2” when I was thinking “greenhouse gases.” In that CO2 has proven to be a ridiculously insignificant greenhouse gas, serving primarily to reflect heat away from the Earth’s atmosphere as opposed to holding it in, I’ll concede you the win.

      However, might I impose upon you to weigh in on any of the previous global warming arguments as to “where the heat has been hiding?” The global warming scientific community seemed hell-bent on explaining away the “warming” lack, and now they’re saying there was none, to begin with.

      if anything and everything can be predicted by a theory, from droughts to record snowfalls, how can anyone say that theory holds water?

      Reply
  18. Hot Body   February 23, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Volanoes spew huge amounts of ash into the atmosphere. This ash has an immediate cooling effect as it blocks sunlight from warming the surface of the planet. The greenhouse gasses from the volcanoes and human activity work to trap the sunlight. However if there is no sunlight getting through because of the ash there is a ‘pause’ (read slowing effect) at the planet surface. Day to day general temperature trends can’t be measured accurately.

    Meanwhile, the ash high in the atmosphere is absorbing the heat from the sunlight and trapping that heat, but this heat doesn’t show up on the surface yet. It is again difficult to measure the heat absorbed by the ash and the effects of the heated ash on general temperature trends here at the surface.

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   February 23, 2014 at 8:58 pm

      Sadly, Mr. hot body, “warming” in the mid and upper atmospheres, has gone completely unrecorded in the real world. Surface temperatures, recorded primarily in the blazing heat sinks of major cities, are the only partial real-world evidence global warming science has been able to produce.

      Everything else to date, has been strictly anecdotal wishful thinking and heavily manipulated computer models.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.