From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:04:20 GMT

harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:


>Here is what the original posting that I responded to SAID, (and are
>these not originally your words, then...?)  :
>quote: However, these scientists also said that this effect [Pinatubo's]
>will be short-lived (after all the ashe does eventually wash out) and 
>it will [be] back to business as usual with temperatures going back on
>an upward trend which they have been on for over 100 years. 
>unquote.
>
>Now, that is *what* I saw.  I saw *no* qualifier---at least in the 
>posting I read---that attempted to explain/ quantify this effect as 
>being limited, e.g., "until the next major eruption", for instance. 
>It was plainly left open-ended as though the assertion was no more
>volcanic eruptions.  Now within the context of the posting *I read*,
>that is plainly, clearly, and unequivocably *what was stated/asserted*.
>If there was supposed to be more--that is, if there was in that tract
>more than what was really meant to meet the eye, then it should have
>been plainly so included at that point.  One cannot make overt, blanket
>statements like this and expect someone to read in so an otherwise
>important clarifying point that is not verbally included there. 

You are still trying to read something into the quote which simply isn't
there. The quote is not open ended where anyone can make all kinds of
wild observations. And anyone with half a brain can tell exactly what
I meant. It seems that you can't so let me spell it out a little clearer.

The average global temperature has been observed on an upward trend for
over the past 100 years. Anytime you get a volcanic eruption as strong
as Mt. Pinatubo's was, you will see a marked downward trend in temperatures
over most of the world for up to one or two years. The length of time
depends on how much ashe the volcano expelled and how fast it is washed
out of the atmosphere. And this trend will return back to an upward trend
as soon as the effects of Mt. Pinatubo's ashe is washed out of the atmosphere,
since this minor trend does will not have any lasting effect on what is
causing the average global temperatures to rise. It is likely that there
will be more volcanic eruptions in the future based on how many have erupted
in the past and the current state of certain specific volcanoes. It is also
entirely possible that one or more of these eruptions will have a similar
temporary effect on average global temperatures.

>> Now, if you have an INTELLIGENT comment to make on this debate, please make
>> it. Otherwise, SHUT UP!
>> 
>Sir....calm down and get ahold of yourself.  You are making the noise of
>a cornered animal.  Let's keep this "absof***inglutely" on a civil level,
>shall we?  You are the one who is losing it.  Sheesh, I hope you don't
>own a firearm..

I am sorry I blew up, but I couldn't help myself. If you want to discuss
the global warming issue, fine, I be glad to debate it with you. However,
when all you do is take a perfectly innocent comment I made and proceed to
take it out of context (yes, you did) and try to ridicule it up one side
and down the other.

>> >Attach meaning mode on:
>> >Mt. Pinatubo is only one of a *number* of active volcanoes on the Earth
>> >today.  Did you *know* that?  What, Pinatubo is supposed herald some 
>> >sort of swan song on the geologic front?
>> 
>> Did you know that this is the first time this century that Mt. Pinatubo
>> erupted? Do you know that Mt. Pinatubo's eruption was larger than any
>> other eruption in the past century? You need to start thinking in terms
>> of geologic time frames.
>> 
>Well, now you seem to be calming down a bit and resuming your erstwhile
>more rational debate mode, at least (from what I've seen from your 
>previous postings).  Anyway, I know that there have been other volcanoes
>erupting in this century.  There was somewhat of a bang from Mt. St. 
>Helens in 1980....and another, wasn't it down in Mexico, a couple years
>later?  And going back to your more that 100 years, didn't a Mt. Krakatoa
>get a bit upset in the latter part of the 19th century?  Geologic time
>frames?  Seeming that is within the scope of some 3-4 billion years, I'd
>say only about 100 doesn't quite qualify....yet you curiosly use that
>amount to assert unbridled, long-term global warming without end.  Why? 

First of all, I was not used the figure of 100 years to assert that "unbridled
long-term global warming without end" is happening. I was merely trying to
point out that no single volcanic eruption could have a permanent or long
lasting effect on the Earth's climate. At least, man has never witnessed
one. And that the level, content and effect of volcanic eruptions varies
from volcano to volcano.

>> >  And what about the volcano(es)
>> >after that, and the one(s) after that, etc, etc.???  How has it been
>> >demonstrated that the Greenhouse Effect *will* ultimately prevail?  
>> 
>> The two do not go together.
>> 
>Really?  Funny how they share the same space-time continuum planetary  
>locality...

The greenhouse effect is not a "thing" which can occupy the space-time
continum. Also, we have had some strong eruptions in the past 100 years
during the observed upward trend of average global temperatures and their
effect wasn't very long lived. And I have not heard not a single atmospheric
scientist claim that any volcano or string of eruptions would have a long
lasting effect either.

>> >This is climate and atmoshpherics balancing each other, not a doggone
>> >celestial arm-wrestling tournament with a clear-cut predictable champ.  
>> 
>> Oh? You have some divine information we are not privy to? It is utter
>> arrogance to imply that man could never have some effect on climate or
>> the atmosphere.
>> 
>No....it is utter arrogance to think that man is greater than the sum
>of the rest of Nature so as to be able to overwhelm it.  Isn't that 
>your big fear? 

Man having some effect on climate or atmosphere != overwhelming Nature

Man HAS has been responsible for several observed effects in Nature.

>> >> >Yup, no more volcanoes to worry about--ever--now that the 'Cause-We-Say-So
>> >> >Environmentalist Movement is exerting its secret power over the biosphere.
>> 
>> You really are a jerk, you know that?
>
>Here we have it, folks....a *perfect example* of what Mr. Limbaugh is
>talking about when someone runs out of substance.  Witness, then, who
>throws the wild punch of utter desperation here...

No, didn't run out of substance, just that trash comments only deserve trash
rebuttals.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh