gatodelfuego's latest comments at FunnyJunk

gatodelfuego

Rank #9227 on Comments

Offline

Send mail to gatodelfuego Block gatodelfuego Invite gatodelfuego to be your friend

Last status update:	-

Date Signed Up:	9/07/2011
Stats
Comment Ranking:	#9227
Highest Content Rank:	#1674
Highest Comment Rank:	#149
Content Thumbs:	1557 total, 1915 , 358
Comment Thumbs:	18488 total, 21125 , 2637
Content Level Progress:	56.99% (57/100) Level 113 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress:	26.2% (262/1000) Level 318 Comments: Wizard → Level 319 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:	1
Content Views:	117853
Times Content Favorited:	124 times
Total Comments Made:	4082
FJ Points:	19825
Favorite Tags:	a (2) \| GIF (2) \| when (2)

What people say about gatodelfuego

latest user's comments

#274 - Eyjafjallajokull under those estimations vents 150 million ton… 04/25/2017 on Climate changes. 0

#273 - 240 million tons of C02= not larger than all of human activity [+] (2 replies) 04/25/2017 on Climate changes. 0

#275 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

Thats one of 1600 active volcanoes venting hundreds of tons of GHG, on average, daily.

If you look at eruption and other volcanic events, the total GHG release in a single day goes up from hundreds of thousands of tons, to hundreds of megatons (each megaton is 2 billion pounds).

#277 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

Yes, but not every one of those 1600 volcanoes is venting on the scale as eyjafjallajokull.

And yes, Pinatubo was a huge eruption. But that's the kind of eruption that happens once in a century. And it emitted 42 million tons, not 240 million tons. In 1991 humans released 2300 million tons of c02, dwarfing Pinatubo. ( www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50 )

#240 - "1 volcano released more GHG than all of human existence&… [+] (31 replies) 04/25/2017 on Climate changes. 0

#260 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

And yes, I know, none of the ones I listed were bigger than human GHG production, but those are just the most recent, and comparatively small eruptions to the geological record.

The important things to note are-
It is not just an eruption that vents sulfides into the atmosphere. Active volcanoes are regularly venting gases, hundreds of thousands of tons at a time. Every day.

The GHG emission of volcanoes is not just in the gas cloud itself. Lava and ash plumes continue to put of considerable GHG as they cool.

Volcanic eruptions don't just dissipate and waft up to the atmosphere like human emissions. They forcefully inject 100s of megatons of GHG into the upper atmosphere, where they have a considerably greater impact on our ozone and climate.
Hence why scientists focusing on climate get excited about volcanic activity, because the post eruption effects of volcanic GHG on the climate is much more dramatic and measurable.

#276 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

If you're reffering to "the biggest eruptions ever", then yeah, it dwarfs human input. Millions of years ago volcanoes were pumping massive amounts of GHG into the atmosphere, every day, for thousands of years, and the climate warmed, and it was a mass extinction. Of course eruptions of that magnitude are larger than the industrial revolution.

Nobody is denying that it has been warmer in the past, and that it has been colder in the past, and that we are part of a warming cycle now. But it is not denyable that human carbon outputs ARE changing the natural cycle. 2 trillion tons estimated since the industrial revolution == in about 200 years. That's not natural for the earth in that short time span.

#278 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

I am referring to VEI8-7 eruptions, commonrly referred to as a super volcano or mega-eruption.

The most recent of which was Mt Tambora in 1815 that ejected so much vapor and material into the atmosphere it caused a global "nuclear winter" for all of 1816, also known as "the year without a summer"

Yellowstone was even larger, and also happened well with the timeline of human existence.

Neither of which caused "mass extinction". Both of which produced more sulfides and other GHG than the human species ever has.

#279 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

Even Pinatubo caused a small global cooling effect. No denying that.

But tambora did not release more GHG than all of human existence figures range from "10 to 120 million tons" of SO2. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/0309133303...

#280 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

You are using anti-skeptic articles as published schientific journal.

You are also dramatically underestimated total volumes.

You are also only accounting for Carbon Dioxide and not the other climate altering gases that eruptions put out. Like Sulfer Dioxide, Chlorine, and Flourine for example.

Its easy to diminish volcanos when you calculate to disregard all but the smallest possible number.

#281 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

Please, find me a source that debunks the above paper.

In fact, find any source that compares both human and volcanic GHG emmisions with proof that volcanoes emit more than people do. It's easy to say "volcanoes output more" but you have no sources that say they do.

#284 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

2014 report from the EPA on total GHG production for the entire decade of the 90s.

Note that over a 10 year period humans contributed less than 3% of the planets total GHG production.

The 90s were before the chicken little panic to "go green" at all costs, and unless our GHG production has gone up by 34000.00% in the just 17 years, mother nature steal has us beat.

Edit: deleted last comment for better image file.

#287 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

You're comparing the sources of GHG production across the entire planet. Yes, natural c02 production by evaporation of the ocean is the major contributor. The ocean is the major source of c02, not volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions are still releasing much less GHG than humans. But, you did the math right--human output is 3% of total c02 production. Look at the amount of c02 absorption though.

The natural world produced 776,000 mil tons of co2, and the natural world absorbed 781,000 mil tons. That means that the 23,000 million tons of c02 produced by humans directly raised the level of c02, AFTER it was absorbed by the world. Without that human input, the global co2 levels would be dropping due to absorption. Sorry but....that's what people say when they say that humans are responsible for the rise in co2.

You say mother nature has us beat in terms of production, and that's true. But mother nature self-regulates the amount of co2, and the amount that humans are adding (even though it's only 3%!) is enough to alter the natural process, changing the planet from staying at the same net level of co2 and changing it to an increase in global co2 levels every year.

#288 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

So wait, when I was listing volcanos contributing hundreds of millions of tons of Co2 annually (again thats not even counting other GHG they produce) then you treated those numbers as though they were a drop in the bucket. But that "wee" extra 20mil tons humans added over 10 years (little over 2.3 mil per year) and suddenly thats a hefty number?

#290 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

The human emmision over 10 years is 23,000 million, or 23 billion. That is a hefty number. Not as hefty as _the entire earth_, but just as I said, the entire earth is absorbing 780 billion tons of c02 every year. Humanity is pushing it past the point where the earth can naturally "heal" the natural sources of co2. 23 billion is significant when it pushes the co2 levels over the boundary of what the earth can absorb.

Again, find a source that says volcanic activity is contributing more GHG than human activity.

It's 2.3 billion per year, not 2.3 million. You're off by a factor of 1000 in your own image you gave here.

#292 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

Ok. 2.3 billion.
Thats 1.3 megatons.
A single VEI6-7 can release hundreds of megatons of Co2 alone.

So by your math, thats 1 additional eruption every few hundred years.

So if volcanic activity increases by a fraction of a percent over the next few centuries then earth has added more to its Co2 balance than we have.
If volcanic activity DECREASES by a fraction of a percent over the next few hundred years than any added balance has been compensated for.

Which brings me back to my original point.

We have only about 150 years of accurate to semi-accurate data on global climate.
Everything else is estimates over increasingly longer periods of time as we go back thru earth's natural record.

Our data sample is too small, and our total variation too narrow to make any definitive claims about climate change.

Its not even a theory. Its a hypothesis. For it to become a theory we would have to test it. Which we don't have enough data to do, and the models we attempt to create all fail thier predicted outcomes.

All we know for fact is that GHG levels are ONE of several variables in our planet's climate.
And we know we produce GHG.

How our additional GHG is effecting that (if at all) is just hypothesis at this point.

#293 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

A megaton is a million tons.

2.3 billion tons of co2 = 2300 megatons.

You keep parroting this thing about VEI 6 or 7 eruptions releasing that much co2. What is your source on it? VEI 7 eruptions are on the order of every 500-1000 years. If human activity is "by my math adding 1 eruption every 300 years" then that is about doubling the rate of VEI 7 eruptions. Which is a massive acceleration over the natural cause.

We have far more than 150 years of climate data based on ice core samples. We can go back thousands of years. There is direct correlation between co2 levels and temperature. And we know that humankind is increasing the levels of co2 beyond the levels of what the earth can naturally absorb.

But you still have not provided any source saying that volcanic eruptions outpace human greenhouse gas after all these comments.

#295 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

And you have only advanced my original that advocates for rapid man-made climate change are drastically exaggerating the actual science.

Because no one likes to say "we aren't sure".

Regardless of how many internet facts we throw at each other, my original point STILL stands.
We have at most 150 years of accurate GLOBAL data. Ice cores from antarctica give us a general range of information. Not specifics. The same way layers of rock and earth do.

No model yet created from this incredibly narrow segment of incomplete dara has made an accurate prediction.

Generally when a hypothesis fails a test, you go back and get a new hypothesis. Not retesting over and over while telling the world its a proven fact.

#297 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

Ice cores are not rock layers. They are incredibly precise measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations. They are not qualitative things to look at. www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cor...

#299 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

yes, I know how ice cores work.

You are correct, frozen water does capture relatively precise information.

However

Unlike rock layers, water is much more dynamic. And although the information isn't as qualitative, its exact chronology is.

Which is why a LOT of ice cores get taken from all over to try and develop a chronology.

Also, we can only drill so deep. Which means there is a hard cap on how far back we can look through antarctica's ice record.

#300 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

A lot of ice cores get taken from all over, and the data in those points to a dramatic increase in warming. There is a cap but it's tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.

#296 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

The only known facts, again, are-
We know GHG levels in our atmosphere are one of several factors in determining earths climate.

We know we are adding SLIGHTLY to the earths post-absorbtion balance.

Thats all.

Thats all we know for sure.

This man is directly causing global warming claim in an overstatement of epic proportions.

Because we DON'T know how we are effecting the climate, if at all.

And the thing pro-cglobal warming people hate to admit is it is entirely possible our warming trend IS a natural occurance.
Just like its possible we are causing it.

We. Dont. Know.

#298 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

We are adding significantly to the natural balance. 11.7 billion tons is not a slight increase. That's equivalent to 30 pinatubos, a once-in-a 100 year eruption.

We ARE in a warming trend right now. But the warming is occurring at higher rates than ever seen before. We are also increasing co2 at higher rates than ever seen before. Correlation is not causation, except that co2 is proven to increase temperature (i.e. the greenhouse effect is not a guess)

#301 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

3% over 10 years is not significant. I guess we define significant differently.

Warming rates are occurring at the highest rate documented, but the myth that climate change only occurs gradually is a myth. We know there have been dramatic spikes before in either direction.

Although our warming trend continues, it is not continuing in any way that correlates to the exponential rate of human population and GHG production. We know its getting warmer. We know earth is becoming more heavily populated. But the rate at which the two are occurring has no correlation found so far.

Which is, again, why all predictive models have failed.

#302 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

3% is not the change in co2 levels of the planet. Your 3% is how much human emissions compare to natural emissions, before earth's absorption. The net gain of co2 every year IS significant. It has resulted in a 100% increase in co2 concentration in the atmosphere www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/ind... from around 200 ppm to 400 ppm. Is that statistically significant enough for you?

#291 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

Sorry, 780 billion tons over 10 years is absorbed, not every year.

#303 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

I guess we hit the forum cap. I cannot reply to your last response so I am calling our debate here.

I am clearly not convincing you that Global Warming is not proven fact.

You have failed to convince me to disregard scientific method and consider it any more than a hypothesis.

Good luck to you.

#304 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

You must be joking.

I came to you to provide proof of your claim that volcanoes outmatch human GHG production. You did not. Human co2 production is 90 times higher than volcanoes

You can't jerk yourself off over the scientific method. The facts are real. The earth is getting hotter. Yeah it's been hotter than it is currently in the past but that does not change the fact that it is getting hotter, faster, NOW after human intervention than ever before. You have no facts or sources of any kind that disprove the human contribution of GHG (the change of 180-300 ppm to over 400 ppm in less than 20 years). You have nothing that says this is all "part of natural history"

Please don't try to convince anybody that the earth is not warming just because muh hypothesis muh theory

#289 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

You do realize that at a total added balance of 2.3Mil tons of Co2 per year, if we have a single VEI8 eruption in the next say...1000 years, then our total added GHG means nothing.

#285 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

Fucking typos. Thats what I get for debating from a smart phone.

#283 - ShadeElement has deleted their comment.

#259 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

Mt St Helens- 200 Million tons of C02 in a single event.

Mt Pinatubo- 240 Megatons of C02 in a single event.

El- Chichon- 200 Megatons of Sulfer Dioxide in a single event.

Eyjafjallajökull- 150,000-300,000 tons of Co2 per day. Every day. Still doing it right now. Thats not even counting the eruptions (not just the 2010 one).

You want me to go through the other 1600 active volcanoes currently venting Sulfides into the atmosphere?

#274 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

Eyjafjallajokull under those estimations vents 150 million tons of c02 per year. But not every volcano is venting that much. Global estimates by the US geologic survey say volcanic activity accounts for at most 450 million tons of c02.

Meanwhile, human activity is pumping 40 billion tons of c02 every year; that's almost 100 times more

#273 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

240 million tons of C02= not larger than all of human activity

#275 - ShadeElement (04/25/2017) [-]

#277 - gatodelfuego (04/25/2017) [-]

#67 - Because you can be a good person in an RPG and people will app… 04/18/2017 on RPG +1

#86 - It's not like United cares about people, but what airline DOES… 04/12/2017 on United Airlines 0

#74 - My point is that it's fine for the people sitting next to the … [+] (1 reply) 04/12/2017 on United Airlines +2

#84 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

More or less. Overbooking is just a gamble that the airlines take. The doctor ought to be able to sue them for any necessary extra expenses involved in getting a new doctor to those patients, assuming that he absolutely HAD to be there to do something like a major surgery. If it's just checkups then oh well.

#69 - But the plane wasn't "overbooked". It was full, then… [+] (2 replies) 04/12/2017 on United Airlines +3

#85 - efdinthea (04/12/2017) [-]

thanks for putting this in perspective for everyone. i dont understand 60 red thumbs justifying the doctors behavior but i think your the only one on FJ who gets life. Thanks

#86 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

It's not like United cares about people, but what airline DOES? United isn't out of the norm with this. It could have been any airline that fell victim to the situation.

The dude was a fuckin dummy. If the cops tell you to do something, you follow it or they will make you follow it. The guy was calling his lawyer to get his lawyer to confirm that he had a right to sit in that seat and could not be removed (of which you have no rights. If the captain tells you something, then you follow it or you're in big trouble). I don't see a difference between the guy complaining that he has a right to the seat and the "free inhabitant" woman that thought people couldn't tell her what to do.

#66 - And who decides who's more "valuable" to be picked? … [+] (10 replies) 04/12/2017 on United Airlines +1

#70 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

Are you honestly asking me to explain to you why a doctor would rake priority over most other people? Besides that, they really shouldn't have forced someone off like that anyway. They ought to have auctioned off leaving the plane. If $800 wasn't enough then they should offer $900. Someone is bound to volunteer eventually, and if that doesn't work without the numbers getting rediculous, then the airport police that actually dragged the guy off should have just asked people why they were there before having to use force. It's worth noting that UA didn't pull the guy out. That was done by the airport police, so any fault for his physical condition lies with them.

#74 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

My point is that it's fine for the people sitting next to the man to cry about how important it is that a doctor not be removed from the plane, then why don't any of THEM volunteer to take his spot? Not a lot of volunteers to stay on the sinking ship when there's a limited number of lifeboats kind of scenario. It's hypocritical for all the people on the plane to whine about how the doctor doesn't deserve to be removed because he is too valuable, but not offer themselves up to take his place.

And true. They could have kept going higher. $1300 was their ceiling, why they didn't offer is unknown. But as you said, airport police were the people that roughed him up. If you don't listen to cops, then you can't blame the cops for manhandling you. Isn't that the accepted ideal here? Listen to what the cops say?

#84 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

#71 - rediculous (04/12/2017) [-]

*ridiculous

#72 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

I'm on a phone. Life isn't easy.

#73 - rediculous (04/12/2017) [-]

Don't take it personally. It's just what I do

#67 - agilewhisk (04/12/2017) [-]

Then it all boils down to United overbooking their plane in the first place.

#69 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

But the plane wasn't "overbooked". It was full, then they realized they needed to move their employees around. That's on them, sure, but if you were waiting for your crew to fly in and your flight is cancelled and the reason you get is because "we would have had your flight ready, but nobody volunteered to give up a seat so all 300 of you have your flight cancelled. Sorry for the inconvenience," would you be happy?

This isn't a rare practice. Airlines overbook flights/move employees around all the time. Once you're on an airplane, you can get removed at any time. If you are removed, you are entitled to a refund, but if the airline says you're not flying, then you're not flying. If you refuse to leave, and security asks you repeatedly to leave and you refuse, then you've made your choice.

#85 - efdinthea (04/12/2017) [-]

thanks for putting this in perspective for everyone. i dont understand 60 red thumbs justifying the doctors behavior but i think your the only one on FJ who gets life. Thanks

#86 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

#63 - Think about it this way: those 4 employees needed to get somew… [+] (12 replies) 04/12/2017 on United Airlines +1

#65 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

They should have picked someone else to grab.

#66 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

And who decides who's more "valuable" to be picked? I'm a student, I have tests to take the next morning. Somebody else is an engineer, they'll be fired if they don't make it to work the next day. Everybody thinks they can't be the one picked. So if people think that him being a doctor makes him special, then why didn't they volunteer so that the man could see his patients?

#70 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

#74 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

#84 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

#71 - rediculous (04/12/2017) [-]

*ridiculous

#72 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

I'm on a phone. Life isn't easy.

#73 - rediculous (04/12/2017) [-]

Don't take it personally. It's just what I do

#67 - agilewhisk (04/12/2017) [-]

Then it all boils down to United overbooking their plane in the first place.

#69 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

#85 - efdinthea (04/12/2017) [-]

thanks for putting this in perspective for everyone. i dont understand 60 red thumbs justifying the doctors behavior but i think your the only one on FJ who gets life. Thanks

#86 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

#58 - Yeah, but him being a doctor doesn't mean he gets priority whe… [+] (14 replies) 04/12/2017 on United Airlines +1

#59 - agilewhisk (04/12/2017) [-]

It's not about people volunteering in his place, it's about the act of kicking off the 4 people in the first place. the flight was full and they decided 4 of their employees needed to use this flight to get to somewhere. Also like I said before, if none of these people took 800 dollars and a free hotel night then they wouldn't volunteer in his place. They were needlessly violent and could've asked someone else who was more compliant and didn't have medically ill/injured people to attend to.

#63 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

Think about it this way: those 4 employees needed to get somewhere. It wasn't a flight for fun, they were a crew for a flight somewhere. If those 4 employees didn't get to their destination, then a flight there isn't going to take off. Is kicking off 1 passenger worth letting 2-300 people have their flight not be cancelled?

#65 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

They should have picked someone else to grab.

#66 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

#70 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

#74 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

#84 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

#71 - rediculous (04/12/2017) [-]

*ridiculous

#72 - wraithguard (04/12/2017) [-]

I'm on a phone. Life isn't easy.

#73 - rediculous (04/12/2017) [-]

Don't take it personally. It's just what I do

#67 - agilewhisk (04/12/2017) [-]

Then it all boils down to United overbooking their plane in the first place.

#69 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

#85 - efdinthea (04/12/2017) [-]

thanks for putting this in perspective for everyone. i dont understand 60 red thumbs justifying the doctors behavior but i think your the only one on FJ who gets life. Thanks

#86 - gatodelfuego (04/12/2017) [-]

Prev First 3 4 5 6 150 305 Last Next

[ 4077 Total ]

Show Comments (1)