Global Warming

[Fulmar]

[Angus]

More on the Volcanoe babble:
Wiki:
"The greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is emitted from volcanoes, although volcanic emissions account for less than 1% of the annual global total.[3] Some volcanic gases including sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen fluoride react with other atmospheric particles to form aerosols"
This one comes from the Royal society. http://royalsociety.org/
Now on the other gases....and their effect:
(From this one again..http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html)
"Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles"
Global cooling (through reflection and dimming) are the main impact of volcanic eruptions. Hence there were great coolings due to big erupions, and on the N-Hemisphere in places, we're right in the middle of one now.
Good example of cooling in the N-Hemisphere is from Iceland in 1783+ as well as global dimming due to enormously quick eruptions in the Pacific/Indonesia some while back.
Anyway, none of this matters, for the next step of a proper climate change denialist would be to discard he effect of CO2

[Chalenge]

See Rule #14

[Angus]

6 degrees in 20.000 years. That is...slow.

[Angus]

Oh, BTW, I LIVE close to a highly active Volcanoe, which I have seen go off a few times. I use my head and eyes, and yet she is dwarved by any normal metropolis. And the eruption is maybe one month every 10 years or so.
Again, this has been measured, and Volcanoes seem to rank as 1 to a 100 against human activity.
That is now, and the combination of emission gases is as they are now. Volcanoes are different, and both their exhaust, ash and magma differ around the world and between today and the far past.
Good point though, lots of CO2 linked with 6 degrees of warming. 
Our warming is happening very much faster though.

[moot]

So why aren't you making big bucks with an undisputable case for AGW?  The gordian knot is just begging for someone so certain of what the problem and solution are, exactly.

[Angus]

Is there money in it?
And is there a solution?
Oh, I have it, but I'm afraid there's not a lot of money in it. See, we're going to add to earths co2 untill we run out of carbon. So, the PPm's are going to be at a wild number by then with some proper climate change. I'll be dead by then though, so not a lot of money...

[moot]

Yep, the same way Gore & co have made money out of it, all you have to do is show you're right. That alone would get people's money, to replace the resource waste and scamming on both sides, as the one true solution. But instead you just have rules of thumb, no actual science of what's going on in detail. Everyone has the former already. "Don't crap where you eat", etc. What would pay huge bucks is a proper proof of what Man's doing that affects climate change, and how. That would allow not just green living based on common sense zero-sum ecology (all ecological malus offset by equal bonus), but we could actualy discern a natural trend in climate from one that merely looks (even uncanily) like it's caused by us.

[Angus]

Volcanic gases and the work of those geologists are not rules of thumb. 1% off is not the same as 100 times more, but that seems to be a common practise when this is discussed on these boards.
That alone can also make money, much more likely in the oil business camp,after all they pay their "scientists".
Now what else do we see here....yes, discussion of the topic should be banned, and the scientists researching the matter should not be funded....
And a true solution? It's not there. Gaia is ill, but we do not know the cure and spend most of the time debating whether she's ill, and if we shouldn't ban medicine...

[moot]

Gaia? What happened to chemistry, physics.. ? 
Volcanic gases aren't the only part to the puzzle. You need to provide the whole picture, the whole context, otherwise you're just guessing at best, misleading at worst. 
Mentioning money was beside the point. The point is a working model, something that correctly assesses our influence, and allows us to accomodate industry. No industry, no civilization. Also beside the point is arguing over censorship.. that's a non-issue for this debate. Obviously science shouldn't be censored; otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing all this.... My main point was that you're arguing just one piece of the puzzle. You have no defendable argument for or against man's influence on climate change, nor whether climate change will go one way or another. You can't predict what you don't understand. Climate isn't just volcanoes or any other element. It's not even all of them minus one element. Everything must be accounted for. You can't scam people into carbon credit bullstump before you have such an understanding and predicting power.  Unless you really are in it for the scamming.

[Angus]

Volcanic gases + Fossil fuels are the ONLY parts where carbon is being added from the depths of the earth. The fossil fuel figure is pretty accurate.
The volcanoes ARE being measured and monitored and data is increasing.
So, it takes a long shot to have the number wrong by 100 times.
I chose to argue this piece because the ever-ongoing volcanoe troll showed up.
Regarding climate change there are endless other jigs...

[Chalenge]

See Rule #14

[Sabre]

Climate change so far in the last decades sais...warming. Ocean temp mostly the same. Shifting habitats of living creatures, be it fish or mosquitos goes for warming. Some areas warm very much, some cool, but this is the total.
From non atmospheric sources it should have been cooling quite a bit.
Let's wait and...see 

And for this decade, it appears to be stable or cooling, despite continued rise in CO2.  However, I agree whole-heartedly with your last statement, "Let's wait and...see", before entering any growth-restricting international treatise on CO2 regulation, or economy-crushing cap-n-trade systems.  Interesting that the temperature rise peaked just as the solar activity began to quiet down.

[Angus]

Chalenge:
"Angus: Your volcano is just lightly venting pressure. The eruptions cited are along the lines of Mount Saint Helens. The end-all effect of Yellowstones caldera eruption might be more destructive for man but the planet will survive even that."

I mentioned the one since it's only 50 km away. I just have to move some 200 km to get to the source of the greatest eruptions of earth for some thousands of years, - emissionvise. The effect was cooling on the Northern hemisphere, all the way down to Egypt, lasting years as a total. It altered the Sunset view in the USA and was mistakenly thought to be the one who is my neighbour:)
I was actually there up close during one eruption, - the only time I saw lava streams and such. Didn't give me a headache, but a day downtown in a big city will....
Anyway, the 1% must be an average of some years (didn't look), but its still just ONE PERCENT of HUMAN co2 emission, and guess where it's heading??? Wait and see....
Oh, and if Yellowstone caldera goes poppy it's big.
Sources for the other one, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakagigar
A quote:
"Consequences in North America

In North America, the winter of 1784 was the longest and one of the coldest on record. It was the longest period of below-zero temperatures in New England, the largest accumulation of snow in New Jersey, and the longest freezing over of Chesapeake Bay. There was ice skating in Charleston Harbor, a huge snowstorm hit the south, the Mississippi River froze at New Orleans, and there was ice in the Gulf of Mexico"

Some warming effect there

[Chalenge]

You must be thinking of carbon MONOxide.