Co2 Acquittal

[InfiniteNow]

Good clarification on the melted ice and underwater volcanoes,(none) so on to more heresey...

 

RIA Novosti - Russia - Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming

 

 

Turtle - Are you even reading the counter points, or do you just continue cherry-picking data and sharing it here, despite the fact that everything you've shared turns out to have already been debunked?

 

 

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

 

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

 

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

 

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

 

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

 

 

He's of the same set of research as Nir Shariv, who we already saw was wrong above.

 

 

Big Cynic: For sale: scientists willing to debunk global warming

mathematician/physicist with a background in space science is more qualified to comment on climatology than, say, a climatologist is.

 

Now, an Israeli physicist, Nir Shariv, has jumped on the bandwagon, singing a familiar tune that includes such favorite lyrics as "junk science." He's even come up with his own whopper—that even doubling the amount of carbon dioxide emissions by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature."

 

Who cares if 99 percent of the scientific community accepts that global warming is really happening and that we're responsible? So what if all those high-fallutin' scientists were right about things like gravity and the atom? Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the oil industry pimps (actually, whores is a more accurate characterization) only need a couple of scientists on their payroll to justify their bluster denying global warming.

 

One of the so-called critiques parroted by the Fox zombies (like that idiot in Washington State) is that scientists who claim that global warming is real are only in it for grant money. In actuality, however, it's scientists like Messrs. Abdusamatov and Shariv who can count on a lot of grant money and other forms of favorable treatment from now on—from the AEI and other corporate PR firms disguised as think tanks.

 

It just goes to show that in America today, there's more money in denying the truth than in telling the truth—especially when ExxonMobil is ponying up the cash.

 

 

It has NOTHING to do with heresy... It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that their claims are all debunked! :shrug:

 

 

Please read post #33, and look up "denialist tactics."

[InfiniteNow]

No wonder people get confused with global climate change. There seem to be an awful lot of intellectually dishonest people about who troll forums and share debunked claims as if they were truth...

[Turtle]

More heresey:

 

‘Blame cosmic rays not CO2 for warming up the planet’ - Times Online

The impact of cosmic rays on the climate could be greater than scientists suspect after experiments showed they may have a pivotal role in cloud formation.

 

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist in Denmark, said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

 

Cosmic rays — radiation, or particles of energy, from stars, which bombard the Earth — can create electrically charged ions in the atmosphere that act as a magnet for water vapour, causing clouds to form.

 

Dr Svensmark suggests that the Sun, at a historically high level of activity, is deflecting many of the cosmic rays away from Earth and thus reducing the cloud cover....

[InfiniteNow]

That answers my question.

 

You are not reading what I've shared. You go ahead and maintain your intellectual dishonesty. Hopefully one of the staff members will recall that this is a science site and prevent you from sharing claims that have been debunked and other such falsehoods.

[Turtle]

Q:Why should temperatures rise as human population does?

A:Because the weather stations taking the readings get surrounded by urbania.

 

Meteorologists have this, and other major disagreements with the climatologists. No small part of which is that the best computer weather models simply can't go beyond 7-10 days with useable accuracy, and as climatology is the study of weather patterns this doesn't give a boost of confidence for climatological computer models.

 

...The CBS Evening News skipped, as Rush Limbuagh predicted the media would, a new study in which, as outlined in a press release, “the widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.” The posting on the university's site summarized the study published in a scientific journal: “Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.”

 

More skeptical views: >> OPB News · Forecast Cloudy

 

How many underwater volcanoes are there?

Underwater - Submarine Volcanoes

...Currently there are over five thousand active volcanoes underwater varying from ones larger than any on the surface to cones no larger than an automobile. The net reslut of this action is thermal heating of the oceans, at key positions, which in turn reaches the surfaceto be carried aloft into the atmosphere to become part of our surface weather pattern system. As the oceans are heated winds of a high velocity are created and driven over the land areas due to temperature differential.

 

In the Pacific Ocean there are ocean basins - volcanoes, of which there are estimated to be about 20,000 on the ocean bottoms of the world.

 

So not only don't we not know exactly how many underwater volcanoes, before or now, we don't know how much CO2, or any other gases, they emit or what their contribution is to the heating via the oceans. So in fact, the heating may be bottom up in addition or instead of top down.

 

We have a lot more scientific reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuels than CO2. :) :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

Meteorologists have this, and other major disagreements with the climatologists. No small part of which is that the best computer weather models simply can't go beyond 7-10 days with useable accuracy, and as climatology is the study of weather patterns this doesn't give a boost of confidence for climatological computer models.

 

It may not be obvious to you, but it's obvious to me. You're confusing two separate measures.

 

The basic claim you are making is, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead, yet we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future. Isn't this ridiculous?"

 

Let me give an example to show the two measures to which I refer.

 

 

You are at the beach, and the waves coming off the choppy waters hit a wall on the shore at that beach. None of us would be able to place a line on that wall that predicts the exact height or surface level of the next incoming wave at any specific point on the wall 30 seconds in advance. This is akin to predicting the weather of the coming week.

 

However, we could absolutely place a line on the wall that accurately predicts the mean surface level (+/- chop) four hours in advance as long as we knew know the state of the tide when we'd arrived. That is akin to predicting the future state of the climate, and it is based on measurable trends.

 

Here's another.

Just because I cannot tell you the exact outcome of a specific coin flip does not mean I cannot tell you what the average outcome of coin flips will be over 1,000 tosses (and that includes allowing for the possibility that the coin lands on it's edge).

 

 

 

They are two very different measurements, and I hope you realize why.

 

 

 

Also, I've already shown the relative forcing factors... volcanoes included. PLEASE read the previous posts and links if you are serious about this conversation. If you are not serious, then why participate?

[freeztar]

We have a lot more scientific reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuels than CO2. :) :shrug:

 

Likewise, there are scientific reasons to not acquit CO2, such as ocean acidification.

 

Although the natural absorption of CO2 by the world's oceans helps mitigate the climatic effects of anthropogenic emissions of CO2, it is believed that the resulting decrease in pH will have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms...

While the full ecological consequences of these changes in calcification are still uncertain, it appears likely that calcifying species will be adversely affected. There is also some evidence that the effect of acidification on coccolithophores (among the most abundant phytoplankton in the ocean) in particular may eventually exacerbate climate change, by decreasing the earth's albedo via their effects on oceanic cloud cover[10].

Ocean acidification

 

So many feedback loops...

;)

[Turtle]

More science thatn you can burn a stick with. :shrug:

 

Three million underwater volcanoes & Unrecognized Underwater Volcanic Activity - can.general | Google Groups

Hillier then extrapolated the data to estimate how

many volcanoes exist beyond the areas the research

vessels sounded out.

 

 

If you've read "Not by Fire but by Ice" then you

understand how important this is. When I

started writing this book, scientists thought

there were 10,000 underwater volcanoes in

the entire world.

 

 

Now they think there are three million!

 

 

As I've been saying all along, it's not global

warming, it's ocean warming ((heated by

underwater volcanoes), and it's leading us

into the next ice age.

 

Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data

Abstract

The distribution of submarine volcanoes, or seamounts, reflects melting within the Earth and how the magma generated ascends through the overlying lithosphere. Globally (±60° latitude), we use bathymetry data acquired along 39.5 × 106 km of ship tracks to find 201,055 probable seamounts, an order of magnitude more than previous counts across a wider height-range (0.1 < h < 6.7 km). In the North Pacific, seamounts' spatial distribution substantially reflects ridge-crest conditions, variable on timescales of 10 s of Ma and along-ridge distances of ∼1,000 km, rather than intra-plate hot-spot related volcanic activity. In the Atlantic, volcano numbers decrease, somewhat counter-intuitively, towards Iceland suggesting that abundant under-ridge melt may deter the formation of isolated volcanoes. Neither previously used empirical curve (exponential or power-law) describes the true size-frequency distribution of seamounts. Nevertheless, we predict 39 ± 1 × 103 large seamounts (h > 1 km), implying that ∼24,000 (60%) remain to be discovered.

 

Received 2 March 2007; accepted 31 May 2007; published 6 July 2007.

[Turtle]

Likewise, there are scientific reasons to not acquit CO2, such as ocean acidification.

 

 

Ocean acidification

 

So many feedback loops...

:)

 

Yes, very many. And since no one knows exactly how many volcanoes we have underwater and their pertinent measures, then there is no valid basis to say what part of the hole other contributors make to warming and cooling the Earth.

 

Fortunately, scientific study of underwater volcanism is proceeding, if perhaps only at a turttle's pace. :shrug:

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0400323101v1.pdf

Bipolar correlation of volcanism with millennial climate change

 

Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate

change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. If rapid climate change can induce volcanism, this result could be further evidence of a southern-lead North–South climate asynchrony. Alternatively, a volcanic-forcing viewpoint is of particular interest because of the high correlation and relative timing of the events, and it may involve a scenario in which volcanic ash and sulfate abruptly increase the soluble iron in large surface areas of the nutrientlimited Southern Ocean, stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which enhance volcanic effects on planetary albedo and the global carbon cycle, and trigger northern millennial cooling. Large global temperature swings could be limited by feedback within the volcano–climate system. ...

[freeztar]

Yes, very many. And since no one knows exactly how many volcanoes we have underwater and their pertinent measures, then there is no valid basis to say what part of the hole other contributors make to warming and cooling the Earth.

 

No valid basis?

As far as the thread title goes, we do have a valid basis to say that CO2 concentrations do affect climate and if we can lessen that single "part of the whole" then we can at least help slow/mitigate any additional heating caused by "other contributers".

 

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that humans have been emitting CO2 at increasing rates. We know that we are in a warming trend (for whatever reasons).

 

We can't influence solar activity or volcanoes (at least not with current tech). We can influence CO2 concentrations.

 

The problem I see with your CO2 acquittal argument, Turtle, is that it implies that because we don't know all contributions to the whole, it is silly to assume we have any effect and therefore it is silly to take any action (for climate's sake) until all the facts are in. How long will that take (if ever)?

 

Fortunately, scientific study of underwater volcanism is proceeding, if perhaps only at a turttle's pace.

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0400323101v1.pdf

 

I don't know much about underwater volcanoes and their differences from terrestrial volcanoes, but I'm going to assume they are similar in approach, if different in deployment.

 

Let's take a familiar example of a terrestrial volcano that is active, Mount St. Helens. I remember when you made the claim against GW causing glacial recession by noting that the glaciers are actually increasing in the middle of an active vent. :)

Perhaps we will find similar events happening on the frigid ocean bottom...

Perhaps not...

:)

[Turtle]

The problem I see with your CO2 acquittal argument, Turtle, is that it implies that because we don't know all contributions to the whole, it is silly to assume we have any effect and therefore it is silly to take any action (for climate's sake) until all the facts are in. How long will that take (if ever)?

 

No, what I imply and have explicitly stated elsewhere is that spending money to bury charcoal or any such carbon sequestration or reduction plan is money not spent toward any remedial action. By all accounts this is about the effect on people. We need to find energy sources other than fossil fuels because they're finite, they add particulates, carbon monoxide, sulphur compound, etcetera, bad stuff to who laid the chunk. How much less carbon in the air if Gore had them mail his trophy from Norway? Inconvenient truth indeed.

 

 

I don't know much about underwater volcanoes and their differences from terrestrial volcanoes, but I'm going to assume they are similar in approach, if different in deployment.

 

So your whole rebuttal is laying on an assumption based on facts not in evidence? :)

 

Let's take a familiar example of a terrestrial volcano that is active, Mount St. Helens. I remember when you made the claim against GW causing glacial recession by noting that the glaciers are actually increasing in the middle of an active vent. :eek:

Perhaps we will find similar events happening on the frigid ocean bottom...

Perhaps not...

:)

 

Speaking of heat on the frigid bottom, and volcanoes aside, how many hydrothermal vents are on the ocean floor and what is their contribution to heating & chemical compounds directly? What of their newly discovered ecosystems? How many tons of carbon in these cycles now & historically?

 

All of these rebuttals don't deny the Sun's role, volcanoes' roles, hydrothermal vent's roles, they just marginalize and minimize them with rhetoric. The models are only as good as the data going in, and incomplete data is as good as bad data. In mathematical terms, this is a 'complex system', as in 'complex system theory' previously know as 'chaos theory'. Claiming it's all about CO2 is like looking at the bulbous black outline of the Mandelbrot set and saying you know what it looks like.

 

Here's more heresy: :)>>

Ocean: Hydrothermal

The hydrothermal processes had been predicted. What was unpredicted and created quite the scientific stir was the existence of thriving communities of lifeforms at these sites.

...

Chemosynthesis

What is happening is that hydrogen sulfide is oxidized, so oxygen is necessary for this process, and the energy released from this oxidation of this hydrogen sulfide molecule is used to power, the fixation of carbon dioxide into small organic compounds. So this cycle ... is the same metabolic pathway that is utilized by plants in photosynthesis ... takes inorganic carbon dioxide and fixes it into organic compounds that are then food. But, the difference here, the critical difference, is that rather than using sunlight, these animals and bacteria are completely independent of sunlight. They utilize chemical energy to power that reaction.

[freeztar]

No, what I imply and have explicitly stated elsewhere is that spending money to bury charcoal or any such carbon sequestration or reduction plan is money not spent toward any remedial action. By all accounts this is about the effect on people. We need to find energy sources other than fossil fuels because they're finite, they add particulates, carbon monoxide, sulphur compound, etcetera, bad stuff to who laid the chunk. How much less carbon in the air if Gore had them mail his trophy from Norway? Inconvenient truth indeed. :)

 

I wasn't discussing charcoal or sequestration. I know your views on fossil fuels and I certainly was not implying that you thought rampant coal burning was ok. Gore is a whole different topic as well. :)

 

So your whole rebuttal is laying on an assumption based on facts not in evidence? :)

My rebuttal was based on logic. We have certain factors that we can influence, certain factors we can't. We should act accordingly.

 

Speaking of heat on the frigid bottom, and volcanoes aside, how many hydrothermal vents are on the ocean floor and what is their contribution to heating & chemical compounds directly? What of their newly discovered ecosystems? How many tons of carbon in these cycles now & historically?

Good questions. :eek:

 

All of these rebuttals don't deny the Sun's role, volcanoes' roles, hydrothermal vent's roles, they just marginalize and minimize them with rhetoric.

 

Rhetoric that marginalizes and minimizes?

 

The models are only as good as the data going in, and incomplete data is as good as bad data.

 

[scottish accent]We're givin'er all she's got Capt'n[/scottish accent]

 

In mathematical terms, this is a 'complex system', as in 'complex system theory' previously know as 'chaos theory'. Claiming it's all about CO2 is like looking at the bulbous black outline of the Mandelbrot set and saying you know what it looks like.

 

Nobody serious can claim that "it's all about CO2", Turtle, and no one has made that claim here.

[InfiniteNow]

I want to thank Turtle for bringing an opposing viewpoint. It's helpful to consider different perspectives when approaching an issue so complex.

 

I do though assert with confidence that the strawman/red herring argument of censorship and presumed heresy is one which I find hardly applies to the area of global climate change research. I shared some of my reasons for this viewpoint previously in this thread. Primarily, nobody is censoring deniers. It's just that nearly every attempt they make to refute the data fails upon scrutiny.

 

 

 

The recent posts above regarding volanism are important, but they do nothing to negate evidence surrounding human contributions of CO₂ to the atmosphere and the consequent impact on global climate. Volcanic forcing has been demonstrated to be a significantly smaller forcing factor than human emissions. Volcanic forcing must be considered, but it in no way negates the overall dominance of the impact humans contributions have on climate.

 

 

As I have said repeatedly in this thread, these issues have already been addressed by my sources. Nobody has argued against volcanism's impact, just the relative scope of it. Please also note that nobody has succesfully challenged the validity of any of the data I have provided. It's unfortunate people are not reading them (or, completely ignoring them), and it's further unfortunate that so many false claims have been presented here to our readers.

 

 

Speaking specifically to the issue of volcanism, please see the excerpts below. I welcome challenges to the data. I welcome healthy debate. I discourage logical fallacies like strawmen, red herrings, false dichotomies, ad hominems, and all types of appeals (to ignorance, to shame, to ridicule, etc.).

 

 

If you wish to challenge the data I've presented, please do so. Posting of links from non-peer reviewed sources or from articles that have already thoroughly been debunked should be avoided.

 

 

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

 

The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8]2 W m^–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.

 

 

Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

 

Simulations of global mean 20th-century temperature change that accounted for anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols as well as solar and volcanic forcing were found to be generally consistent with observations. In contrast, a limited number of simulations of the response to known natural forcings alone indicated that these may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century, but could not provide an adequate explanation of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, nor the observed changes in the vertical structure of the atmosphere.

 

 

Differences in the temporal evolution and sometimes the spatial pattern of climate response to external forcing make it possible, with limitations, to separate the response to these forcings in observations, such as the responses to greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol forcing. In contrast, the climate response and temporal evolution of other anthropogenic forcings is more uncertain, making the simulation of the climate response and its detection in observations more difficult. The temporal evolution, and to some extent the spatial and vertical pattern, of the climate response to natural forcings is also quite different from that of anthropogenic forcing. This makes it possible to separate the climate response to solar and volcanic forcing from the response to anthropogenic forcing despite the uncertainty in the history of solar forcing noted above.

 

 

It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.

 

 

Nevertheless, ozone, solar and volcanic forcing changes are generally not found to have made a large contribution to the observed NAM trend over recent decades (Shindell et al., 2001a; Gillett et al., 2003a).

 

Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors.

 

 

 

In addition, differences in the timing of the human and natural external influences help to distinguish the climate responses to these factors. Such considerations increase confidence that human rather than natural factors were the dominant cause of the global warming observed over the last 50 years.

 

Estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last one to two millennia, based on natural ‘thermometers’ such as tree rings that vary in width or density as temperatures change, and historical weather records, provide additional evidence that the 20th-century warming cannot be explained by only natural internal variability and natural external forcing factors. Confidence in these estimates is increased because prior to the industrial era, much of the variation they show in Northern Hemisphere average temperatures can be explained by episodic cooling caused by large volcanic eruptions and by changes in the Sun’s output. The remaining variation is generally consistent with the variability simulated by climate models in the absence of natural and human-induced external factors. While there is uncertainty in the estimates of past temperatures, they show that it is likely that the second half of the 20th century was the warmest 50-year period in the last 1300 years. The estimated climate variability caused by natural factors is small compared to the strong 20th-century warming.

 

 

Chapter 2 concludes that it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural (solar and volcanic) radiative forcing has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic forcing over the period 1950 to 2005.

 

 

 

 

Since my previous posts seem to have gone ignored, I hope the above is specific enough to warrant attention and due consideration.

[Turtle]

I wasn't discussing charcoal or sequestration. I know your views on fossil fuels and I certainly was not implying that you thought rampant coal burning was ok. Gore is a whole different topic as well. ;)

 

 

 

My rebuttal was based on logic. We have certain factors that we can influence, certain factors we can't. We should act accordingly.

 

You misunderstood my rebuttal to your rebuttal.:) I am not referring to what we can change, rather to the fact that poor estimates -poor by anyone's estimation because it is lacking*- of the extent of underwater volcanism and hydrothermal vents and their biotic colonies, means the models of the whole system using or not using those (presumably underestimated) values is by necessity increasing the apparent % of influence of other known sources of CO2 & it's ilk. If too little of the contribution is attributed to these 2 underwater systems then too much is logically accorded to the usuasl suspects. It's worth repeating that the biota at hydrothermal vents, the extent of which is unknown, are fixing CO2 at a happy rate. Is that part of the CO@ cycle in the models?

* note one of my links put the unknown underwater volcanoes at 60%

 

 

Good questions. :)

 

Rhetoric that marginalizes and minimizes?

 

Yes thank you, & the general rebuttal rhetoric, not your own impeccable personal rhetoric. I refer to the same slippery words and phrases they use to recuse the disenting view; words like 'unlikely', 'mostly', 'little if at all' , or 'almost all...'.

 

 

[scottish accent]We're givin'er all she's got Capt'n[/scottish accent]

 

You got that right. And then there's the heat of the engine room. If no one knows how many volcanoes underwater, fur sure, or hydrothermal vents, fur sure, then we have yet another serious accountiung error about where the heat is coming from that the bad ol' gasses are trapping. Lucy! You got some splainin' ta do!!! :eek:

 

 

 

Nobody serious can claim that "it's all about CO2", Turtle, and no one has made that claim here.

 

I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot poll. :) :D ..........:)

[Turtle]

...

As far as the thread title goes, we do have a valid basis to say that CO2 concentrations do affect climate and if we can lessen that single "part of the whole" then we can at least help slow/mitigate any additional heating caused by "other contributers".

 

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that humans have been emitting CO2 at increasing rates. We know that we are in a warming trend (for whatever reasons).

 

We can't influence solar activity or volcanoes (at least not with current tech). We can influence CO2 concentrations. ...

 

I want to touch on this before moving to some more heretical inconvenient truths. So Freezy, taking the above and making an anology with your work with runoff, soils, etcetera. Given that you know some particular piece of property is susceptable to 100 year floods, or some such other period, do you spend the owners money on efforts to keep the flooding from happening via weather control or other means, or do you spend the money on projects to control the consequences of these events?

 

Now to a logical error on the part of many of those 'damning' rebuttals on the influence of the Sun on global warming.

 

We start with the Sun, Earth, & Moon and all that gravitationaly driven water sloshing we call tides. There is at one level a relatively high frequency level, that of the daily double cycle of ebb & flow; a change every 6 hours. On top of that, the arrangement of all 3 bodies has a result of higher than normal and lower than normal when all three align, called sysygy. On top of that, the distance between Earth/Moon & Earth Sun varies with the eccentricity of orbit, so that when sysygy occurs during the closest approaches, the perigees, then the highs and lows are even more extreme.

 

Moving this principle then to the Sun cycles, both inter-solar-system and galactic, the same compounding of cycles make for some very long intervals of time to coincident peaks. Discounting a particular scientific study about an element of solar forcing related to a short cycle, is tantamount to discounting the possibility of a neap tide after 10 days of watching tides. Not good if you're a boater. :) This is a real problem to the logic that says 'things' have never been this high/low before when in fact the highs and lows may simply have not occured often enough to even have meaning. You cannot say some flood is a 100 year flood until you get one. Moreover, the Sun observers thought they knew the limits of Sun outbursts when they calibrated SOHO, and yet, last year a CME blew out that was off the scale they didn't think existed.

 

Anyway, that's another rap from mah shell. :)

[Turtle]

Just when you don't want another inconvenient truth about energy contributing to Earth warming, let alone a newly discovered one, what comes along but exactly that and right into our Hypography laps (thank you C1ay for this and all the others!). Given this data is no more than 8 months old, I assure you no climatologist has figured it into their model. No matter how small the contribution yet of the energy added to Earth by magnetic coupling, as the measures are only now starting as the discovery advances. What matters is that this addition means some other estimated input is overestimated. :)

 

http://hypography.com/forums/space-news/13648-nasa-spacecraft-make-new-discoveries-about.html

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries About Northern Lights

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A fleet of NASA spacecraft, launched less than eight months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power.

 

NASA's Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission observed the dynamics of a rapidly developing substorm, confirmed the existence of giant magnetic ropes and witnessed small explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December. ...

[Turtle]

By the authority and knowledge vested in me by TV law school, I acquit CO2 of a felony charge of causing global warming and charge it with misdemeanor conspiracy to contribute to global warming, perjury, and promoting a riot. I also bring misdemeanor conspiracy indictments against the co-conspirators. If I loose in criminal court, I'll sue in civil court. :D

 

Indictment against meteoric dust:

 

News in Science - Cosmic dust may change climate - 25/08/2005

Dust' date=' dust everywhere

...Klekociuk says the disintegration of the meteor is unlikely to have had any immediate impact on climate.

However, the findings about the size of the particles should cause us to rethink the cumulative effect of cosmic dust globally, he says.

Dust has the potential to warm or cool the Earth depending on the size and composition of the particles.

It can do this by either scattering or absorbing solar visible light. If light scatters away from the Earth cooling occurs, and if it's absorbed there's warming.

It can also trigger cloud nucleation, which occurs what drops of water cling to a speck of dust, eventually causing clouds to form.

Impact on climate?

The magnesium, iron and silica composition of the meteor dust could also react with chemicals in the atmosphere, potentially eroding the ozone layer.

"If the dust from large meteors was much larger it would have a much larger climate forcing potential," Klekociuk says.

Analysis of the dust could also predict how the climate would be affected if a meteor were to crash into Earth.

 

Klekociuk says around 40 tonnes of cosmic dust fall to Earth each day. [/quote']