http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1247904929

Here I'll  attempt to explain Climate Change in simple terms as far as possible.

My approach will be to explain things one step at a time. then you should be able to quite easily answer point 1 in red

1. Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it then the scientists should be able to give a percentage contribution - but they can't. Never have - never will
2. Temperatures are continuing to rise by what cause and is carbon the only cause and what is the percentage contribution?
3. There are natural cycles, but current climate change is not just part of any natural cycle the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old and climate science studies but a dot on that timeline
4. Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone then open the right eye and look harder
5. If we continue to emit greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix. if you can't answer point 1. then this is an invalid point
and
6. Climate models predict the main features of future climate, and have successfully modelled past climate models are just that - models. and the models are only as good as the assumptions. if they can't answer point 1 then how valid is the assumption?

7. So why is it a problem? Good question - it's the Greenies that are making accusations with no fundamental proof other than "observations"

the science of observation has it's weaknesses eg it's observed that an apple is red therefore anything that's red is an apple

Re the title of this thread - If you had actually delved into the explanation itself rather than the initial summary, then it would make sense. If you take the trouble to read past the very first introductory post on that thread, you'll find your answers. If you don't find it there then ask.

Your question of "What percentage" is a loaded question.  For a start, it concentrates on the relatively minor temperature rise up to the present day rather than that projected by an increased concentration of greenhouse gases - because that is the real issue. 

That thread goes on to talk about natural variability. That's a key feature.

Do you think that human beings could have survived during all previous paleoclimates? If not, then your point about the age of the Earth is academic.

If you're prepared to read up some of the actual explanation itself rather than making a superficial attack on the title page, then I'd be happy to continue in a non-adversarial manner.

I have read it - hence the points I've made in Points 1, 2 and 3

In addition have you researched the  methodology they used especially weaknesses of "Observational Science" methodology

Adding 2 weaknesses together does not make the argument stronger

We'll all watch with interest to see you directly answer the points I've raised

Point 1 - that'll just be a number

Point 2 - that'll just be a number

Point 3 - 800,000 years in 4.5Billion is just a dot in time

Maqqa wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 7:37am:

I have read it - hence the points I've made in Points 1, 2 and 3 In addition have you researched the  methodology they used especially weaknesses of "Observational Science" methodology Adding 2 weaknesses together does not make the argument stronger We'll all watch with interest to see you directly answer the points I've raised Point 1 - that'll just be a number Point 2 - that'll just be a number Point 3 - 800,000 years in 4.5Billion is just a dot in time

IT'S ALL ABOUT SMALL ADVANTAGES, I MEAN DISADVANTAGES.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO TALK IN TERMS MR NIGHTMARE WOULD UNDERSTAND!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 7:37am:

I have read it - hence the points I've made in Points 1, 2 and 3 In addition have you researched the  methodology they used especially weaknesses of "Observational Science" methodology

Mate, it has very little to do with observational methodology and everything to do with Atmospheric physics. You are obviously talking about measuring temperatures. The past record is useful as a confirmation of the atmospheric physics, but that's about it. As far as atmospheric physics goes, I have a pretty good appreciation of it, having studied it as part of my Environmental Science degree.

You haven't read through that post, because most of your questions are answered in that thread.


Quote:

Point 3 - 800,000 years in 4.5Billion is just a dot in time

It's 0.017% of the age of the Earth - but what point are you making?  There was a time when there was no oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. How relevant is that, do you think?

Can you summarise which argument you are making - because you just seem to be pecking around the edges?

Are you saying that greenhouse gases don't cause any warming effect?

What everybody is saying is that human greenhouse gas emissions are not presented in the context of all other factors making up the climate. This is what you call a loaded question. But it isn't. It is a simple enquiry after the entire cast of characters that mak up climate and any change of it.

Soren wrote on Dec 24^th, 2011 at 4:52pm:

What everybody is saying is that human greenhouse gas emissions are not presented in the context of all other factors making up the climate. This is what you call a loaded question. But it isn't. It is a simple enquiry after the entire cast of characters that mak up climate and any change of it.

Reply 4 on the sticky thread. Note the various attributions.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 7:37am:

Point 1 - that'll just be a number

If you take all the greenhouse gas that has been produced since industrialisation, a large proportion of that has ended up dissolved in the ocean.

The warming caused by the continuing increase in CO2 will give rise to more of that CO2  being emitted by the oceans, giving rise to additional warming. So you can see that even past emissions are not yet fully accounted for in terms of temperature rise. For that reasons, you can't provide an answer to the question "How much of the warming is due to human activities?", because the full outcome depends on future activities, and it depends on when you draw the line. 

However, if you subtract the human influence, the global temperature  rise since industrialisation would be slightly negative (it would have dropped slightly). So it's possible to answer your question by saying "the human contribution is greater than 100%"

CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases. Whenever you heat a body of water, more of that water on average ends up in the atmosphere, and that amplifies the effect of the CO2 alone.

You're probably not really interested in explanations, but let's take an analogy unrelated to climate. A small town (Maggasville) is  situated by the central  portion of a river as it flows into the sea. The river has to flow between two hills before it heads out to sea.  Maybe once in a thousand years, the area occupied by the town is prone to flooding.

Now a second river runs from the same source and flows through some wetlands out to sea.  A mining company (Soren Mining) discovers gold in the  wetlands and decides to divert the second river so that it runs into the first river.

Now one year, there is more rain than average and Maqqasville is flooded. Usually, that amount of rainfall would not lead to flooding, but the additional water from the second river resulted in additional flooding.

Soren Mining makes the point that there have been floods in the past, and that the flooding was caused by rain falling from the sky.  Anybody who states that Gold mining causes flooding is crazy. Gold is beneficial. So is water. If you didn't have any water, you'd die of thirst. So more water must be a good thing - right?

So flooding is natural. Anybody can see that. They also ask the question, if the flooding was caused by their activities, then what percentage of the total floods were caused by their activities rather than natural events. They agreed to pay compensation based on this figure. So the river itself has been there for 5 million years and there have been around 5000 floods since then, so the percentage of their contribution must be less than  0.02 percent.

It's a simple question. What proportion of the floods were man-made as opposed to natural? None of you Maqqasville scientists can answer that question, so until such time as you can provide a number,  we at Soren Mining will continue to mine the wetlands as we've done in the past, and will pay no compensation. (Good grief - these Maqqasville people want to tax water. How stupid is that?  Water is natural)

Now the topic we're discussing is similar to that analogy, except that there have been no "floods" yet.

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 22nd, 2011 at 7:37am: I have read it - hence the points I've made in Points 1, 2 and 3 In addition have you researched the  methodology they used especially weaknesses of "Observational Science" methodology Mate, it has very little to do with observational methodology and everything to do with Atmospheric physics. You are obviously talking about measuring temperatures. The past record is useful as a confirmation of the atmospheric physics, but that's about it. As far as atmospheric physics goes, I have a pretty good appreciation of it, having studied it as part of my Environmental Science degree. You haven't read through that post, because most of your questions are answered in that thread. Quote: Point 3 - 800,000 years in 4.5Billion is just a dot in time It's 0.017% of the age of the Earth - but what point are you making?  There was a time when there was no oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. How relevant is that, do you think? Can you summarise which argument you are making - because you just seem to be pecking around the edges? Are you saying that greenhouse gases don't cause any warming effect?

'pecking around the edges' is PAUSE BUTTON POLITICS!

The so called 'conservatives' have accepted carbon emissions will be priced and they are simply maximising the allowed time for business to adapt to the aforementioned accepted changes!!

MAQQUA is nothing but the online version of ya mate at the barbie telling everyone what his liberal voting bean-counter dad got taught to tell everyone from the real estate agents wank-fest at the pub!!!

  :o ::) ::) ::) ::) :D

WHAT ELSE IS NEW!?!?!

muso wrote on Dec 25^th, 2011 at 7:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 22nd, 2011 at 7:37am: Point 1 - that'll just be a number If you take all the greenhouse gas that has been produced since industrialisation, a large proportion of that has ended up dissolved in the ocean. The warming caused by the continuing increase in CO2 will give rise to more of that CO2  being emitted by the oceans, giving rise to additional warming. So you can see that even past emissions are not yet fully accounted for in terms of temperature rise. For that reasons, you can't provide an answer to the question "How much of the warming is due to human activities?", because the full outcome depends on future activities, and it depends on when you draw the line.  However, if you subtract the human influence, the global temperature  rise since industrialisation would be slightly negative (it would have dropped slightly). So it's possible to answer your question by saying "the human contribution is greater than 100%" CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases. Whenever you heat a body of water, more of that water on average ends up in the atmosphere, and that amplifies the effect of the CO2 alone. You're probably not really interested in explanations, but let's take an analogy unrelated to climate. A small town (Maggasville) is  situated by the central  portion of a river as it flows into the sea. The river has to flow between two hills before it heads out to sea.  Maybe once in a thousand years, the area occupied by the town is prone to flooding. Now a second river runs from the same source and flows through some wetlands out to sea.  A mining company (Soren Mining) discovers gold in the  wetlands and decides to divert the second river so that it runs into the first river. Now one year, there is more rain than average and Maqqasville is flooded. Usually, that amount of rainfall would not lead to flooding, but the additional water from the second river resulted in additional flooding. Soren Mining makes the point that there have been floods in the past, and that the flooding was caused by rain falling from the sky.  Anybody who states that Gold mining causes flooding is crazy. Gold is beneficial. So is water. If you didn't have any water, you'd die of thirst. So more water must be a good thing - right? So flooding is natural. Anybody can see that. They also ask the question, if the flooding was caused by their activities, then what percentage of the total floods were caused by their activities rather than natural events. They agreed to pay compensation based on this figure. So the river itself has been there for 5 million years and there have been around 5000 floods since then, so the percentage of their contribution must be less than  0.02 percent. It's a simple question. What proportion of the floods were man-made as opposed to natural? None of you Maqqasville scientists can answer that question, so until such time as you can provide a number,  we at Soren Mining will continue to mine the wetlands as we've done in the past, and will pay no compensation. (Good grief - these Maqqasville people want to tax water. How stupid is that?  Water is natural) Now the topic we're discussing is similar to that analogy, except that there have been no "floods" yet.

iN OTHER WORDS SOREN AND CREW DON'T APRECIATE NON-LINEARITIES!  :o :o :o :o ;D

muso wrote on Dec 25^th, 2011 at 7:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 22nd, 2011 at 7:37am: Point 1 - that'll just be a number If you take all the greenhouse gas that has been produced since industrialisation, a large proportion of that has ended up dissolved in the ocean. The warming caused by the continuing increase in CO2 will give rise to more of that CO2  being emitted by the oceans, giving rise to additional warming. So you can see that even past emissions are not yet fully accounted for in terms of temperature rise. For that reasons, you can't provide an answer to the question "How much of the warming is due to human activities?", because the full outcome depends on future activities, and it depends on when you draw the line.  However, if you subtract the human influence, the global temperature  rise since industrialisation would be slightly negative (it would have dropped slightly). So it's possible to answer your question by saying "the human contribution is greater than 100%" CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases. Whenever you heat a body of water, more of that water on average ends up in the atmosphere, and that amplifies the effect of the CO2 alone. You're probably not really interested in explanations, but let's take an analogy unrelated to climate. A small town (Maggasville) is  situated by the central  portion of a river as it flows into the sea. The river has to flow between two hills before it heads out to sea.  Maybe once in a thousand years, the area occupied by the town is prone to flooding. Now a second river runs from the same source and flows through some wetlands out to sea.  A mining company (Soren Mining) discovers gold in the  wetlands and decides to divert the second river so that it runs into the first river. Now one year, there is more rain than average and Maqqasville is flooded. Usually, that amount of rainfall would not lead to flooding, but the additional water from the second river resulted in additional flooding. Soren Mining makes the point that there have been floods in the past, and that the flooding was caused by rain falling from the sky.  Anybody who states that Gold mining causes flooding is crazy. Gold is beneficial. So is water. If you didn't have any water, you'd die of thirst. So more water must be a good thing - right? So flooding is natural. Anybody can see that. They also ask the question, if the flooding was caused by their activities, then what percentage of the total floods were caused by their activities rather than natural events. They agreed to pay compensation based on this figure. So the river itself has been there for 5 million years and there have been around 5000 floods since then, so the percentage of their contribution must be less than  0.02 percent. It's a simple question. What proportion of the floods were man-made as opposed to natural? None of you Maqqasville scientists can answer that question, so until such time as you can provide a number,  we at Soren Mining will continue to mine the wetlands as we've done in the past, and will pay no compensation. (Good grief - these Maqqasville people want to tax water. How stupid is that?  Water is natural) Now the topic we're discussing is similar to that analogy, except that there have been no "floods" yet.

I like it, I like it a lot!

And, of course, you are correct!

muso wrote on Dec 25^th, 2011 at 7:42am:

Now the topic we're discussing is similar to that analogy, except that there have been no "floods" yet.

Probably because that river hasn't been divertd, either.

A lot of the doom-mongering is based on just that kind of sleight-of-hand insertion of assumptions and wild surmising, such as an entire river being causally diverted into another river held up as a devnt analogy for a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 proportions (a doubling bringing it to 0.05% or even 0.06%, where a 0.0286% increase is doing the work of the river of doom) .

Re flood-risk: if it was 1000 yeears betwen floods with one river and no wealth genration by Soren & Co, and say, 500 years with two rivers and wealth generation, the question is: which one would you rather: a once in 500 years flood damage to Maqasville or 500 years worth of wealth generated by Soren Mining?  The Netherlands is a country that has been  under the sea levl for centuries and is one of the wealthiest places on earth. Netherlands or Nepal? Doom mongers should all head to Nepal.

Soren wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:31pm:

muso wrote on Dec 25th, 2011 at 7:42am: Now the topic we're discussing is similar to that analogy, except that there have been no "floods" yet. Probably because that river hasn't been divertd, either. A lot of the doom-mongering is based on just that kind of sleight-of-hand insertion of assumptions and wild surmising, such as an entire river being causally diverted into another river held up as a devnt analogy for a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 proportions (a doubling bringing it to 0.05% or even 0.06%, where a 0.0286% increase is doing the work of the river of doom) . Re flood-risk: if it was 1000 yeears betwen floods with one river and no wealth genration by Soren & Co, and say, 500 years with two rivers and wealth generation, the question is: which one would you rather: a once in 500 years flood damage to Maqasville or 500 years worth of wealth generated by Soren Mining?  The Netherlands is a country that has been  under the sea levl for centuries and is one of the wealthiest places on earth. Netherlands or Nepal? Doom mongers should all head to Nepal.

Actually I don't have anything against Soren Mining, I'm sure you guys do a good job. You'd  probably approve of the compensation deal too.  Very magnanimous of them.

By the way, Soren Mining are based in Nordland and Maqqasville are based in Sudland. They are separate sovereign states, and no prosperity would flow on to Sudland - just muddy water.

Soren wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:31pm:

muso wrote on Dec 25th, 2011 at 7:42am: Now the topic we're discussing is similar to that analogy, except that there have been no "floods" yet. Probably because that river hasn't been divertd, either. A lot of the doom-mongering is based on just that kind of sleight-of-hand insertion of assumptions and wild surmising, such as an entire river being causally diverted into another river held up as a devnt analogy for a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 proportions (a doubling bringing it to 0.05% or even 0.06%, where a 0.0286% increase is doing the work of the river of doom) . Re flood-risk: if it was 1000 yeears betwen floods with one river and no wealth genration by Soren & Co, and say, 500 years with two rivers and wealth generation, the question is: which one would you rather: a once in 500 years flood damage to Maqasville or 500 years worth of wealth generated by Soren Mining?  The Netherlands is a country that has been  under the sea levl for centuries and is one of the wealthiest places on earth. Netherlands or Nepal? Doom mongers should all head to Nepal.

Yeh, I think quite a few people will be keeping their eyes on the Netherlands somehow!!  :o :o

Incisive, penetrating and original comment. And only two swivel eyes.

How do you do it?

Soren wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:31pm:

muso wrote on Dec 25th, 2011 at 7:42am: Now the topic we're discussing is similar to that analogy, except that there have been no "floods" yet. Probably because that river hasn't been divertd, either. A lot of the doom-mongering is based on just that kind of sleight-of-hand insertion of assumptions and wild surmising, such as an entire river being causally diverted into another river held up as a devnt analogy for a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 proportions (a doubling bringing it to 0.05% or even 0.06%, where a 0.0286% increase is doing the work of the river of doom) .

We're talking about a doubling of river volume in my analogy. That's a pretty good analogy for a doubling in atmospheric CO2.

With no CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth's mean temperature would be minus 18 degrees C, so that "tiny" proportion of 0.0039 % is pretty effective, don't you think? - and doubling that tiny proportion might also be pretty effective. ::)

I'm sorry, but Soren's Law was despatched to the general garbage many posts ago. It's not recyclable in any way shape of form.

You may do tricks with numbers all you like, but as the resident court  jester, that particular juggling act has lost its appeal. It was quite amusing while it lasted though.

Your suggestion is prepostrous. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, several magnitudes behind water vapour.

Mars, with almost saturation atmospheric CO2,  should be boiling, by your simplistic equation of 'tiny CO2, big temperature increase'.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

Your suggestion is prepostrous. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, several magnitudes behind water vapour. Mars, with almost saturation atmospheric CO2,  should be boiling, by your simplistic equation of 'tiny CO2, big temperature increase'.

...have you heard about the hydrological cycle soren!

???????????????????????????  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

CO2 is being injected into a closed system whereas water vapor isn't!

[color=#ff0000]Gawd, and you vote liberal??????  ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D :D

:D :D :D :D ...who would have thought!??!  ;) ;)[/color]

Oh, really? Water vapor just is? And CO2 is ...er.... injected.... Very penetrating insight from  a dead horse.
Thanks!

(with people like you representing the affirmative for AGW, it is a matter of mental hygene to oppose it. WHo knows what else you may be carrying?)

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

Your suggestion is prepostrous. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, several magnitudes behind water vapour. Mars, with almost saturation atmospheric CO2,  should be boiling, by your simplistic equation of 'tiny CO2, big temperature increase'.

What do you think would happen to the water vapour if you removed the CO2? (this has got to click some time)

Several Magnitudes eh? You mean like 1000 times greater?

Come on, you obviously have a source for your "several magnitudes" gaffe. You do realise that if that was actually  the case, the climate sensitivity would be around 100 degrees? (and I'm not going to explain the term this time. I've explained it many times before)

Tell me what you mean by several magnitudes and I'll extrapolate a few conclusions for you.

muso wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 10:38pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 7:03pm: Your suggestion is prepostrous. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, several magnitudes behind water vapour. Mars, with almost saturation atmospheric CO2,  should be boiling, by your simplistic equation of 'tiny CO2, big temperature increase'. What do you think would happen to the water vapour if you removed the CO2? (this has got to click some time) Several Magnitudes eh? You mean like 1000 times greater? Come on, you obviously have a source for your "several magnitudes" gaffe. You do realise that if that was actually  the case, the climate sensitivity would be around 100 degrees? (and I'm not going to explain the term this time. I've explained it many times before) Tell me what you mean by several magnitudes and I'll extrapolate a few conclusions for you.

Do you really think so, Muso?

Have you heard the story about the Leopard & the spots?

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

Your suggestion is prepostrous. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, several magnitudes behind water vapour. Mars, with almost saturation atmospheric CO2,  should be boiling, by your simplistic equation of 'tiny CO2, big temperature increase'.

Your approach is simplistic.  For any given planet, the exact same physics applies.  For equilibrium, the blackbody radiation must equal the incident radiation from the sun. You can calculate the effective temperature of a planet from solar irradiation and albedo, and then apply the greenhouse effect.

The frequency of the black body radiation depends on the temperature of the body. It can be predicted using  Wein's Law - the peak wavelength is inversely proportional to the body's temperature. (Incidentally, that's just a useful approximation for illustration purposes, because most planets are what are termed "grey bodies")

Stars are much hotter, and thus the radiation peaks in the visible. Planets generally peak in the Infrared. Now this might surprise you but Nitrogen is a greenhouse "gas" if the black body radiation of the planet is at sufficiently low a frequency to peak in the liquid nitrogen  absorption spectrum in the far IR.  That's actually quite important for planets like Saturn and Uranus, but not important for the Earth which doesn't have liquid nitrogen. 

http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/blackbody/Image21b.gif

To save me a lengthy discussion of the physics, here is  a site which does exactly that:
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html

As you can see, the physics involved is pretty fundamental stuff. The greenhouse effect of water vapour is about 3 times that of CO2 (not three magnitudes). That's where we get a climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

Now do you follow that?

Quote:

Your approach is simplistic.

;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hd2e_tRBlY

What I mean is that you are trying to say that the explanation is much simpler than it actually is. It's a strawman tactic.

- and guess what? physics actually works. They were able to predict the surface temperature of Mars based on these very equations long before any probes were sent there. 

i loved get smart.

ive been to don adams house.

...soren is no intellectual !!

Lol, just so lol!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D :D

  ::) :D :D

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 9:09pm:

Oh, really? Water vapor just is? And CO2 is ...er.... injected.... Very penetrating insight from  a dead horse. Thanks! (with people like you representing the affirmative for AGW, it is a matter of mental hygene to oppose it. WHo knows what else you may be carrying?)

you've been thouroughly outclassed by a very part time tradie, lol!

You, as a proud(!??!) silver spooner, should submit yourself to be whipped by Daddykins-and-his-real-estate-agent-drones with prawn heads... NOTHING LESS WILL BRING YOUR SELF-RESPECT BACK AND YOU KNOW IT!!

  :D :D :D :D :D :o ::) ::)

muso wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 10:38pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2011 at 7:03pm: Your suggestion is prepostrous. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, several magnitudes behind water vapour. Mars, with almost saturation atmospheric CO2,  should be boiling, by your simplistic equation of 'tiny CO2, big temperature increase'. What do you think would happen to the water vapour if you removed the CO2? (this has got to click some time) Several Magnitudes eh? You mean like 1000 times greater? Come on, you obviously have a source for your "several magnitudes" gaffe. You do realise that if that was actually  the case, the climate sensitivity would be around 100 degrees? (and I'm not going to explain the term this time. I've explained it many times before) Tell me what you mean by several magnitudes and I'll extrapolate a few conclusions for you.

uM,.... PROPGANDA DOESN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS i THINK YOU'LL FIND BUT, HEY, THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS!!

FORGET WHAT I JUST SAID IF YOU WANT...

... JUST ASLONG AS SOREN KNOWS HE IS OUTGUNNED BY A VERY ORDINARY MIND IN ME!
  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

  :-? :-? :-? :-? :-* :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :D ;D ;D

Soren,

This graph, if you can read it, illustrates what the Global Mean temperature would be for varying atmospheric concentrations of CO2 given current solar irradiance:

http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bifurcation_co2.jpg

Quote:

For CO2 inventories up to approximately 1,000 Pa, the inventory can be converted to a mixing ratio in parts per million by volume (ppmv) by multiplying by 6.6. The CO2 concentrations on the upper horizontal axis are stated as fractions (e.g., 0.0065 corresponds to6,500 ppmv). The vertical dashed lines marked “Left” and “Right” indicate the left and right boundaries of the hysteresis loop for the case with ice albedo equal to 55%.  Adopted From Pierrehumbert et al., 2011,

I'll try to put it in easy to understand terms. This graph, based on physics shows that CO2 provides the building block for the terrestrial greenhouse effect, both because it absorbs strongly near the peak emission for Earth, and because it allows Earth to be warm enough to sustain a powerful water vapor greenhouse effect. 

Now, in a previous post, I asked the question: What do you think would happen to the water vapour if you removed the CO2? Well, here's your answer.

See also:

http://climateclash.com/2011/01/15/g6-infrared-radiation-and-planetary-temperature/

DRAH - What on Earth are you talking about? prawn heads and real estate agents?   :o

It has never been about zero CO2. You would have to remove all living things from the earth to remove CO2.

It has always been about complexity and about the lack of understanding of interactions due to that complexity. There is several times more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. Research into CO2 is intense because it is the only measurable variable of any significance that humans contribute.

The predictive force of hypotheses about CO2 as the one ring that rules them all kind of villain in the piece have been negligible so far. There has been steady CO2 emission but no steady temperature increase. This points to other factors that evidently come into play.

In 2009:
The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

(Der Spiegel and every other publication on the planet)

Yet CO2 emission grew steadily but temperature didn't. This was not predicted by anyone because it doesn't fit the theory of AGW

Nobody is saying that it's all simple.  If you look at my posts and the links, anybody can see that there is a great deal of fairly complex science involved.  Changes in Solar output  and perturbations of the Earth's orbit cause dramatic changes in climate over thousands of years. Solar irradiance is therefore crucial to understanding this issue.

If you start talking about other planets, you need to understand that they have different temperatures and solar irradiance, so different aspects of the physics come into play.

Notwithstanding that, it is inevitable that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere causes warming. Superimposed on this effect is natural variation. 

Nobody is denying that if we had a supervolcano, there would be a significant cooling effect, or  if we get  a net reduction in solar output, the contribution will result in lower temperatures.

At the same time as all these well understood natural effects, there is an increase in carbon dioxide resulting in a net positive contribution to global warming.

You are denying that CO2 causes warming and in other posts, you speak of a huge conspiracy led by virtually every scientist in the world, including some who are long dead, such as Svante Arrhenius.

You are also denying that if you heat a body of water, this will result in an increased atmospheric concentration of water vapour. Nobody is denying that water vapour is  the most important Greenhouse gas, but it differs from CO2 in that it is non permanent.

Reduce the CO2 level and the warming contribution also drops. The consequence of this is to reduce the mean water vapour concentration in the atmosphere. Increase the CO2 level, and the water vapour concentration increases, and the leverage effect is about 3:1.

That's as basic as I can explain it, because you clearly don't understand the more rigorous mathematical explanation.

Nobody has ever denied that CO is a greenhouse gas or that humans contribute to atmospheric CO2 levels.

What I do not accept is that human CO2 is the driver of climate change (AGW). This would be true only if the climate was a simple, closed system and all other variables were 1. fully understood and 2. unchanging.

It is not simple, not closed, not all variables are understood and unchanging. I do think that there is a massive political program to present the picture as if it was simple, understood and unchanging in all other ways.

Human CO2 is presented as if it was the overwhelming controller of climate because significant political and economic milage can be derived from such a simple, reductionist presentation.

I am all for renewable,  clean energy but not at the political and economic cost proposed. You know that this has been my view ever since we started these dicussions. And I know that on this you and I are not as far apart as might appear from certain exchanges. ;)

Happy new year, Mr Musician.i

Soren wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 10:39am:

Nobody has ever denied that CO is a greenhouse gas or that humans contribute to atmospheric CO2 levels. What I do not accept is that human CO2 is the driver of climate change (AGW). This would be true only if the climate was a simple, closed system and all other variables were 1. fully understood and 2. unchanging.

Happy New Year Soren.   Your argument is flawed.  It's not necessary to have a closed system, just a system that is in short-term equilibrium.  1. You can predict the behaviour of a system without fully understanding it. An example of that is medicine. Another example is civil engineering.

2. It's also not necessary to have a system that's unchanging. Virtually all systems are changing/ dynamic. If those aspects that are changing are substantially understood and of a significantly lower magnitude, it's quite possible to predict its effects.

What you are saying flies in the face of modern engineering which routinely uses multi-variable hill climbing equations.

It is also quite possible to test  certain theories using natural events such as major volcanic activity and solar eclipses.


Quote:

I am all for renewable,  clean energy but not at the political and economic cost proposed. You know that this has been my view ever since we started these dicussions. And I know that on this you and I are not as far apart as might appear from certain exchanges.

 
I don't doubt that, but my issue is with your failure to accept basic science.  I am a great believer in gathering as much factual information as possible rather than taking the ostrich approach or the approach taken by the CEO of Soren Mining.

Could it not be that both sides of the argument are wrong and that we are all looking over there for the cause that is over here.

I'm not sold of any of this, but what I do know is that if we the people do not change our ways, we are going to be living in a garbage tip sooner then we think.

reduce, reuse, recycle.

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 12:33pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 10:39am: Nobody has ever denied that CO is a greenhouse gas or that humans contribute to atmospheric CO2 levels. What I do not accept is that human CO2 is the driver of climate change (AGW). This would be true only if the climate was a simple, closed system and all other variables were 1. fully understood and 2. unchanging. Happy New Year Soren.   Your argument is flawed.  It's not necessary to have a closed system, just a system that is in short-term equilibrium.  1. You can predict the behaviour of a system without fully understanding it. An example of that is medicine. Another example is civil engineering. 2. It's also not necessary to have a system that's unchanging. Virtually all systems are changing/ dynamic. If those aspects that are changing are substantially understood and of a significantly lower magnitude, it's quite possible to predict its effects. What you are saying flies in the face of modern engineering which routinely uses multi-variable hill climbing equations. It is also quite possible to test  certain theories using natural events such as major volcanic activity and solar eclipses.

Medicine and engineering are blessed with a very large number of patients and hills/cyclists, respectively, to test their various theories.
Not so with global climate. There is only on planet and as I said, the predictive powers of climate theories based on AGW have been disappointing.

wildkactus wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 7:30pm:

Could it not be that both sides of the argument are wrong and that we are all looking over there for the cause that is over here. I'm not sold of any of this, but what I do know is that if we the people do not change our ways, we are going to be living in a garbage tip sooner then we think. reduce, reuse, recycle.

No. Well you're right with the last bit of course.  It's very simple science, but most people don't understand even the basics, so they can easily be hoodwinked. 

It's a real pain to have to change our ways, but it's a matter of survival. There is no way I want to live in a world that's destitute and running out of resources, and there is no way that I want my kids and their kids struggling as a result of our inertia.  This is the most important issue to face our civilisation right now, and no country is even paying lip-service to it.   

Forget doing things as an individual. The action must come from governments.

It's not about frogs, whales and Polar Bears, it's about people. Greenie hippies and socialists who think it's trendy to support climate initiatives make me puke. Let's face it - they contribute to the inertia because anything they support is anathema by definition.

This is a problem related to atmospheric physics.  I have no wish to return to weaving and living in mud daub houses.  Those who promote ignorance are laying the foundations for a new Dark Age.

OK, it's an environmental issue, but really it's more about  economic survival.

I differ from PN, in that I think capitalism has a great future, but based on clean energy.  The growth fairy rocks.

The world population will stabilise eventually and we'll go on to colonise Mars, and eventually the galaxy.

Soren wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Medicine and engineering are blessed with a very large number of patients and hills/cyclists, respectively, to test their various theories. Not so with global climate. There is only on planet and as I said, the predictive powers of climate theories based on AGW have been disappointing.

The climate is blessed with a large number of natural events to test the accuracy of the basic science.  This is not cosmology, you know, it's really basic stuff.

Apart from that, we can measure radiative forcing directly, and that measurement is independent of the solar output. There have been a series of satellites which measure the radiative energy flux, and they have been doing that for well over 15 years so far.

The current satellite is called Aqua, and it was launched in 2004. It has a module called Modis (Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) which captures data in 36 spectral bands ranging in wavelength from 0.4  to 14.4 microns.

Here is a spec page for Modis:
http://mcst.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.php?section=32

Basically, stating that Carbon dioxide is an insignificant greenhouse gas because its concentration is measured in ppm is utter bullcrap. Sorry Soren, but it is. If you are really a graduate philosopher, you should know bullcrap when you see it. 

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html


Quote:

The nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil, and natural gas (fossil fuels) differ in their characteristics from the nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted under natural conditions........the first direct evidence that combustion of fossil fuels was causing a buildup of carbon dioxide and thereby diluting radioactive carbon in the atmosphere by measuring the decreasing fraction of radioactive carbon-14 captured in tree rings, each year between 1800 and 1950.

Quote:

Ice buried below the surface of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps contains bubbles of air trapped when the ice originally formed. These samples of fossil air, some of them over 200,000 years old, have been retrieved by drilling deep into the ice. Measurements from the youngest and most shallow segments of the ice cores, which contain air from only a few decades ago, produce carbon dioxide concentrations nearly identical to those that were measured directly in the atmosphere at the time the ice formed. But the older parts of the cores show that carbon dioxide amounts were about 25% lower than today for the ten thousand years previous to the onset of industrialization

Quote:

The final line of evidence comes from the geographic pattern of carbon dioxide measured in air. Observations show that there is slightly more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. The difference arises because most of the human activities that produce carbon dioxide are in the north and it takes about a year for northern hemispheric emissions to circulate through the atmosphere and reach southern latitudes.

Quote:

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.

Quote:

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.

[/quote]

Yes, but the contribution to the actual increase to date is greater than 100%. That 3% is a misleading figure because it's expressed as a proportion of fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere  only, and omits the fact that these fluxes have always been balanced by negative fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere.

In other words, 3% contribution to total fluxes to the atmosphere is not the same as 3% of net flux. That's the sleight of hand manoeuvre used by confusionalists. 

It's a bit like having a 30 ml drink out of a 1 litre whisky (single malt of course)  bottle and trying to argue with the bartender that you only have to pay 3% of $12, or 35 cents.   

muso wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 11:06am:

Quote: as a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels. Yes, but the contribution to the actual increase to date is greater than 100%. That 3% is a misleading figure because it's expressed as a proportion of fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere  only, and omits the fact that these fluxes have always been balanced by negative fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere. In other words, 3% contribution to total fluxes to the atmosphere is not the same as 3% of net flux. That's the sleight of hand manoeuvre used by confusionalists.

The number means your pre existing variable flux levels + or -  as has always existed plus an additional 3% per year at the current rate.

When you flux level is at minimum - its min + 3% and when it is maximised it is Max + 3%. or accumulated over time to this point it is +30% overall additional carbon dioxide in the system increasing at an accelerating 3% pa.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 11:17am:

muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 11:06am: Quote: as a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels. Yes, but the contribution to the actual increase to date is greater than 100%. That 3% is a misleading figure because it's expressed as a proportion of fluxes from the biosphere to the atmosphere  only, and omits the fact that these fluxes have always been balanced by negative fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere. In other words, 3% contribution to total fluxes to the atmosphere is not the same as 3% of net flux. That's the sleight of hand manoeuvre used by confusionalists. The number means your pre existing variable flux levels + or -  as has always existed plus an additional 3% per year at the current rate. When you flux level is at minimum - its min + 3% and when it is maximised it is Max + 3%. or accumulated over time to this point it is +30% overall additional carbon dioxide in the system increasing at an accelerating 3% pa.

In the atmosphere. A considerable amount of it  ends up in the ocean too.

Effectively the atmospheric inventory of CO2 is increasing by about 2ppm per year or about 0.7% of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric inventory, but the total emission is higher than that.   

muso wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 9:58am:

wildkactus wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 7:30pm: Could it not be that both sides of the argument are wrong and that we are all looking over there for the cause that is over here. I'm not sold of any of this, but what I do know is that if we the people do not change our ways, we are going to be living in a garbage tip sooner then we think. reduce, reuse, recycle. No. Well you're right with the last bit of course.  It's very simple science, but most people don't understand even the basics, so they can easily be hoodwinked.

Hoodwinking is the name of the game.

Who knew, for example, that a major part of th earth's volcanic activity takes place under the sea and therefore completely undetected.
What marvellous news.
Nobody has ever, ever, ever, taken into account CO2 coming from submarine volcanoes, because they are doing the business undetected. (Much like males, as Germain Greer observed, who "pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop.) And so with all these volcanoes under the seas, they are just sitting there, unnoticed, manufacturing CO2.

Who knew? Until 2008, nobody. Or rather, nobody had taken them into account when allocating CO2 responsibility because the contribution by submarine volcanoes is unquantified, because unknown. This is till the case. Current models do not take submarine volcanoes into account when calculating where all the Co2 is coming from.
The occasional find, however, indicated that is is enormous. See Gekkal Ridge under the Arctic's edge.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/haog-fut062508.php

Who was talking about not all factors are known and understood? Me. Who was waiving such concerns aside as bagatelle? You, Mr Musician. A case of unknown unknows becoming, before our eye, known unknowns.

The million dollar question: what proportion of active volcanoes is under water, undetected?
Supplementary: how much CO2 are we copping from them?i

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on!

Ah no, that was meant to read -
Maqqa having pointed the finger, leaves the discussion, knowing that her mis-direction will take up valuable time, by going over the same information, again & again!

Quote:

Hoodwinking is the name of the game. Who knew, for example, that a major part of th earth's volcanic activity takes place under the sea and therefore completely undetected. What marvellous news. Nobody has ever, ever, ever, taken into account CO2 coming from submarine volcanoes, because they are doing the business undetected. (Much like males, as Germain Greer observed, who "pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop.) And so with all these volcanoes under the seas, they are just sitting there, unnoticed, manufacturing CO2. Who knew? Until 2008, nobody. Or rather, nobody had taken them into account when allocating CO2 responsibility because the contribution by submarine volcanoes is unquantified, because unknown. This is till the case. Current models do not take submarine volcanoes into account when calculating where all the Co2 is coming from. The occasional find, however, indicated that is is enormous. See Gekkal Ridge under the Arctic's edge. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/haog-fut062508.php Who was talking about not all factors are known and understood? Me. Who was waiving such concerns aside as bagatelle? You, Mr Musician. A case of unknown unknows becoming, before our eye, known unknowns. The million dollar question: what proportion of active volcanoes is under water, undetected? Supplementary: how much CO2 are we copping from them?

Well you didn't get your "hunch" from that link, so where did you get it from? There is nothing in that link that suggests that a significant proportion of CO2 comes from submarine vents or that "current models do not take submarine volcanoes into account when calculating where all the CO2 is coming from.", so where is your source for that particular gem?

Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude (do I have to explain orders of magnitude again?), and exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions.

There is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

I've dragged the net looking for scholarly articles, and came up with this one from 2011:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf


Quote:

Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tonnes (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigatonnes per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates—published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates—are consistent with the global estimates. For more information, see the background, table, and references in the online supplement to this Eos issue (http:// www .agu .org/eoselec/).

Soren psst - Don't believe everything you read on those pages. People (ahem) make stuff up.

muso wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 9:58am:

wildkactus wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 7:30pm: Could it not be that both sides of the argument are wrong and that we are all looking over there for the cause that is over here. I'm not sold of any of this, but what I do know is that if we the people do not change our ways, we are going to be living in a garbage tip sooner then we think. reduce, reuse, recycle. No. Well you're right with the last bit of course.  It's very simple science, but most people don't understand even the basics, so they can easily be hoodwinked.  It's a real pain to have to change our ways, but it's a matter of survival. There is no way I want to live in a world that's destitute and running out of resources, and there is no way that I want my kids and their kids struggling as a result of our inertia.  This is the most important issue to face our civilisation right now, and no country is even paying lip-service to it.    Forget doing things as an individual. The action must come from governments. It's not about frogs, whales and Polar Bears, it's about people. Greenie hippies and socialists who think it's trendy to support climate initiatives make me puke. Let's face it - they contribute to the inertia because anything they support is anathema by definition. This is a problem related to atmospheric physics.  I have no wish to return to weaving and living in mud daub houses.  Those who promote ignorance are laying the foundations for a new Dark Age. OK, it's an environmental issue, but really it's more about  economic survival. I differ from PN, in that I think capitalism has a great future, but based on clean energy.  The growth fairy rocks. The world population will stabilise eventually and we'll go on to colonise Mars, and eventually the galaxy.

I just think the whole argument has become about money for the research centres and not about true science any more.

For me the real solution to this problem will be solved from entreprenuers looking to cash in on the new economy surrounding green energy, green products that people will start to demand more of. Basic supply and demand.

Governments will not solve the problem as they have more to lose then the sicentist involved. What government needs to do is get out of the way remove all subsidises to industry and let the green energy and green products directly compete on an open market.


Another point, I beleive we are doing the normal western thing when it comes to problems, we treat the symptoms not the cause, that's why I was saying maybe we are looking in the wrong place.

Consumerism in its current form is a big underlying factor to all this. everything has become at least in the western world throw away.

wildkactus wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 6:43pm:

I just think the whole argument has become about money for the research centres and not about true science any more.

That's probably the only part of your post I disagree with.  Sure, researchers need money, but having been a researcher once, it's definitely not all about the money. Put it this way - not many researchers are rich. It's about finding solutions. Of course a lot of research resources are totally wasted in responses to vested interests through their various puppets.


Quote:

For me the real solution to this problem will be solved from entreprenuers looking to cash in on the new economy surrounding green energy, green products that people will start to demand more of. Basic supply and demand. Governments will not solve the problem as they have more to lose then the sicentist involved. What government needs to do is get out of the way remove all subsidises to industry and let the green energy and green products directly compete on an open market.

I think you hit the nail on the head.  The point about the green energy economy is exactly what I've been saying all along. We have some ridiculous subsidies in place. Diesel is subsidised to primary producers and the mining industry and yet biodiesel is not. We should be encouraging primary producers to produce their own biodiesel, tax free.  They can at least supply the raw oil to central processing plants for methyl esterification. (Backyard FAME processing can be dangerous)


Quote:

Another point, I beleive we are doing the normal western thing when it comes to problems, we treat the symptoms not the cause, that's why I was saying maybe we are looking in the wrong place. Consumerism in its current form is a big underlying factor to all this. everything has become at least in the western world throw away.

Yes, goods (mostly from China) are too cheap. Repair shops are a thing of the past. 

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Well you didn't get your "hunch" from that link, so where did you get it from? There is nothing in that link that suggests that a significant proportion of CO2 comes from submarine vents or that "current models do not take submarine volcanoes into account when calculating where all the CO2 is coming from.", so where is your source for that particular gem? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude (do I have to explain orders of magnitude again?), and exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions. There is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint. I've dragged the net looking for scholarly articles, and came up with this one from 2011: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf Quote: Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tonnes (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigatonnes per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates—published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates—are consistent with the global estimates. For more information, see the background, table, and references in the online supplement to this Eos issue (http:// www .agu .org/eoselec/). Soren psst - Don't believe everything you read on those pages. People (ahem) make stuff up.

Soren is typical of the deniers. He's decided in his own mind that man is not responsible for climate change. He may have come to that conclusion because of political loyalties, or just a distrust of academia, or some other reason. The reason is not important.

Now, he hunts down for data that will support his arguments. He finds obscure things that can excuse man from responsibility. Sun spots, ocean vents, etc. The more obscure the better, because that means there is little research or data to contradict his view. 

While he clings to these little footholds of skepticism, he ignores the elephant in the room which is the enormous release of co2 from underground stores happening on a global scale (ie burning coal and oil)

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Quote: Hoodwinking is the name of the game. Who knew, for example, that a major part of th earth's volcanic activity takes place under the sea and therefore completely undetected. What marvellous news. Nobody has ever, ever, ever, taken into account CO2 coming from submarine volcanoes, because they are doing the business undetected. (Much like males, as Germain Greer observed, who "pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop.) And so with all these volcanoes under the seas, they are just sitting there, unnoticed, manufacturing CO2. Who knew? Until 2008, nobody. Or rather, nobody had taken them into account when allocating CO2 responsibility because the contribution by submarine volcanoes is unquantified, because unknown. This is till the case. Current models do not take submarine volcanoes into account when calculating where all the Co2 is coming from. The occasional find, however, indicated that is is enormous. See Gekkal Ridge under the Arctic's edge. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/haog-fut062508.php Who was talking about not all factors are known and understood? Me. Who was waiving such concerns aside as bagatelle? You, Mr Musician. A case of unknown unknowns becoming, before our eye, known unknowns. The million dollar question: what proportion of active volcanoes is under water, undetected? Supplementary: how much CO2 are we copping from them? Well you didn't get your "hunch" from that link, so where did you get it from? There is nothing in that link that suggests that a significant proportion of CO2 comes from submarine vents or that "current models do not take submarine volcanoes into account when calculating where all the CO2 is coming from.", so where is your source for that particular gem? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude (do I have to explain orders of magnitude again?), and exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions. There is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint. I've dragged the net looking for scholarly articles, and came up with this one from 2011: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf [quote]Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tonnes (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigatonnes per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates—published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates—are consistent with the global estimates. For more information, see the background, table, and references in the online supplement to this Eos issue (http:// www .agu .org/eoselec/).

Soren psst - Don't believe everything you read on those pages. People (ahem) make stuff up. [/quote]

Really? so now even the Helmholz Association is controlled by Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch?
"Helmholtz Association is with 31.745 employees in 18 research centres and an annual budget of approximately 3,4 billion euros, Germany's largest scientific organisation."

The amount of submarine volcanoes and their activity and output is unknown. There are estimates but as all estimates, they are based on assumption. My article from Helmholz (via Eureka Alert) indicates very clearly that some of those assumptions have been found, quite recently, to be wrong.

SO the point is, we do not know how much CO2 submarine volcanoes contribute to the total CO2 in the biosphere. This should give pause for at least reviewing the assumptions behind CO2 levels in the oceans. That, of course would mean another blow to the school of "we understand enough, kids, so let's just model it on a computer". Evidently we do not understand all the components and how they interact - my argument all along. A discovery that assumptions about submarine volcanoes have been wrong is just one very clear practical example of there being significant unknown unknowns So, submarine volcanic output being unknown, and estimates being based on incorrect assumptions, as the article shows, models of AGW are inaccurate in this area (at least) as they do not, obviously, include accurate CO2 outputs by evidently unknown submarine volcanoes.

The sun's influence is no more fully understood.

Man does generate atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it is a massive leap from this to 'man changes the global climate." AGW boosters focus on man's contribution because this where the political action is. There is no societal influence to be gained by researching the extent, say, of submarine volcanoes. Will never get you into government.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

Really? so now even the Helmholz Association is controlled by Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch? "Helmholtz Association is with 31.745 employees in 18 research centres and an annual budget of approximately 3,4 billion euros, Germany's largest scientific organisation."

You know for a fact that you didn't get that gem from that article, because there is nothing on that excellent article that states anything about CO2 emissions from volcanoes.

Come on, Google tells me that denialists are having multiple orgasms with this one, so don't try and tell me that you invented it independently.

What it actually implies is that there are more eruptions on that particular plate boundary than were previously understood, but the contribution of "submarine" volcanoes is miniscule anyway. In deep ocean trenches, the CO2 comes out as a liquid, and never even reaches the atmosphere. In fact the Americans were looking as sequestration of CO2 in ocean sediments at one stage because it's relatively stable if you go deep enough. 200 metres or 21 bars will get you in the liquid envelope for CO2. In the ocean trenches where the volcanoes really rock and roll, you're talking up to 1000 bars. 

Look, even allowing for ten times the highest emission estimate, the overall volcanic contribution is still negligible.

Can you see the contribution due to stratospheric volcanoes such as Pinatubo on the graph of atmospheric CO2?

The Icelandic volcano emitted as much CO2 as a small European nation.  Can you see it on the graph?

No?  :o Well that's hardly surprising because  large stratospheric volcanoes and small European nations are insignificant in the scheme of things.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/volcanicco2smaller.jpg

---

By the way I feel sorry for the employee who is only counted as 0.745. He must feel incomplete (It's ok, I understand European number formatting.)

Incidentally, the Icelandic volcano resulted in a net reduction of CO2 emissions ;D


http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/planes_volcanos.png

So far, researchers have assumed that explosive volcanism cannot happen in water depths exceeding 3 kilometres because of high ambient pressure.
...
A major part of Earth's volcanism happens at the so-called mid-ocean ridges and, therefore, completely undetected on the seafloor.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/haog-fut062508.php

There was a letter to the editor about it in The Australian a few days ago. If a lot of this submarine volcanic activity is undetected or unexpected, none of it, by definition, could have been included in any models.

The point : computer models are assumptions and in this case do not cover all variables and their complex interactions. Undetected submarine colcanoes = unkown unknows transitioning to known unknows. Until their full extent is understood (known knowns), they will be examples of 'not fully understood complexity'. My argument all along.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/planes_volcanos.png

Ay?!!?

Is this fair dinkum correct?

Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected.

Lol, break out the crack pipe cos I'm in the mood for a dodgy accounting party!

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected.

How do you know there are any?

Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected.

In a political poll, your voting intentions are undetected too, unless you participate.  but polls usually end up being reasonably accurate.

As I said, submarine vents are a miniscule contribution due to the temperature/pressure at these depths.  You can get reasonable estimates from other ridges, and the more data we get, the better the estimates. The major volcanic contribution is from sub-aerial stratospheric volcanoes. 

Have you considered that the emissions from submarine vents may already be overestimated?  They usually err on the conservative side.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:12pm: Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected. How do you know there are any? Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected.

So your whole argument against the consensus of climate change science is based on these (vents) "known unknowns" , or even "unknown unknowns".

Are you Donald Rumsfeld ?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

Ay?!!? Is this fair dinkum correct?

The figures are pretty close to the mark. 

The bit about emissions from Eyjafjallajokull being equivalent to those of a small European nation was all across the European media when I was on holiday there last year. It refers to what the emission rates from the volcano would have added up to extrapolated over a year. Of course, the eruption didn't last for a year (thankfully) or I would still be stuck in Europe.

It was a big joke about the EC presenting the volcano with a bill for carbon tax - if anybody could get close to it.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:34am:

Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:12pm: Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected. In a political poll, your voting intentions are undetected too, unless you participate.  but polls usually end up being reasonably accurate. As I said, submarine vents are a minuscule contribution due to the temperature/pressure at these depths.  You can get reasonable estimates from other ridges, and the more data we get, the better the estimates. The major volcanic contribution is from sub-aerial stratospheric volcanoes.  Have you considered that the emissions from submarine vents may already be overestimated?  They usually err on the conservative side.

Well, the main thrust of that eureka alert article is that they discovered submarine volcanic activity they'd though not possible.  In other words, things have been happening all along that they'd thought impossible because these events didn't fit the earlier theory, which in the light of the discovery will now have to be revised and re-formulated.

This is happening ALL the time in science, except, it seems, in certain sections of climate science where there seems to me to be an unseemly certainty about the sufficiency and accuracy of models, even though all players are aware that overall, the grasp of how it all works is far from firm.

Some certainties are promoted, partly for political reasons, while some uncertainties are discounted, for the same reason, until facts, time and time again, force a rethink and grudging reformulation and adjustment. Submarine volcanoes are an example of this, rather than a conclusive rebuttal of AGW. As an unexpected discovery of an unexpoected phenomenon, they are one of the thousands of paper cuts over the last decade that have slowly bled confidence in AGW predictions.

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:34am: Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:12pm: Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected. In a political poll, your voting intentions are undetected too, unless you participate.  but polls usually end up being reasonably accurate. As I said, submarine vents are a minuscule contribution due to the temperature/pressure at these depths.  You can get reasonable estimates from other ridges, and the more data we get, the better the estimates. The major volcanic contribution is from sub-aerial stratospheric volcanoes.  Have you considered that the emissions from submarine vents may already be overestimated?  They usually err on the conservative side. Well, the main thrust of that eureka alert article is that they discovered submarine volcanic activity they'd though not possible.  In other words, things have been happening all along that they'd thought impossible because these events didn't fit the earlier theory, which in the light of the discovery will now have to be revised and re-formulated. This is happening ALL the time in science, except, it seems, in certain sections of climate science where there seems to me to be an unseemly certainty about the sufficiency and accuracy of models, even though all players are aware that overall, the grasp of how it all works is far from firm. Some certainties are promoted, partly for political reasons, while some uncertainties are discounted, for the same reason, until facts, time and time again, force a rethink and grudging reformulation and adjustment. Submarine volcanoes are an example of this, rather than a conclusive rebuttal of AGW. As an unexpected discovery of an unexpoected phenomenon, they are one of the thousands of paper cuts over the last decade that have slowly bled confidence in AGW predictions.

Thats is complete and utter rubbish.  The models of climate science are being challanged and refined every day.  I doubt any other science in the world has had as much aggressive review as climate science.

You conclusion that undersea vents are eroding validity of the climate science is devoid of any logic. Nowhere, and no one (except you) has drawn that conclusion.

You have made up your mind on political biases, and search for glimpses of science to back yourself up.

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

Well, the main thrust of that eureka alert article is that they discovered submarine volcanic activity they'd though not possible.  In other words, things have been happening all along that they'd thought impossible because these events didn't fit the earlier theory, which in the light of the discovery will now have to be revised and re-formulated. This is happening ALL the time in science, except, it seems, in certain sections of climate science where there seems to me to be an unseemly certainty about the sufficiency and accuracy of models, even though all players are aware that overall, the grasp of how it all works is far from firm. Some certainties are promoted, partly for political reasons, while some uncertainties are discounted, for the same reason, until facts, time and time again, force a rethink and grudging reformulation and adjustment. Submarine volcanoes are an example of this, rather than a conclusive rebuttal of AGW. As an unexpected discovery of an unexpoected phenomenon, they are one of the thousands of paper cuts over the last decade that have slowly bled confidence in AGW predictions.

I agree with Doctor Jolly, but add the point that the connection to vast impacts on natural CO2 levels is yours alone (albeit with some inspiration from the blogosphere ). There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that estimates of CO2 flux attributions have been impacted by this finding.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:51pm: Ay?!!? Is this fair dinkum correct? The figures are pretty close to the mark.  The bit about emissions from Eyjafjallajokull being equivalent to those of a small European nation was all across the European media when I was on holiday there last year. It refers to what the emission rates from the volcano would have added up to extrapolated over a year. Of course, the eruption didn't last for a year (thankfully) or I would still be stuck in Europe. It was a big joke about the EC presenting the volcano with a bill for carbon tax - if anybody could get close to it.

...yeh, well, that is certainly interesting!

Warren Buffet is now investing in solar power so I think, adding atleast those two facts up, we are witnessing a world that is turning!

  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 9:02am: Well, the main thrust of that eureka alert article is that they discovered submarine volcanic activity they'd though not possible.  In other words, things have been happening all along that they'd thought impossible because these events didn't fit the earlier theory, which in the light of the discovery will now have to be revised and re-formulated. This is happening ALL the time in science, except, it seems, in certain sections of climate science where there seems to me to be an unseemly certainty about the sufficiency and accuracy of models, even though all players are aware that overall, the grasp of how it all works is far from firm. Some certainties are promoted, partly for political reasons, while some uncertainties are discounted, for the same reason, until facts, time and time again, force a rethink and grudging reformulation and adjustment. Submarine volcanoes are an example of this, rather than a conclusive rebuttal of AGW. As an unexpected discovery of an unexpoected phenomenon, they are one of the thousands of paper cuts over the last decade that have slowly bled confidence in AGW predictions. I agree with Doctor Jolly, but add the point that the connection to vast impacts on natural CO2 levels is yours alone (albeit with some inspiration from the blogosphere ). There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that estimates of CO2 flux attributions have been impacted by this finding.

Has soren added up all the naturally occuring and unaccounted for coal seam fires!??!
...because that could seemingly be seen to conspire against a few richies if they were to get wind of it couldn't it!!!?????!!  :-? ::) ::) ::)

...break out the crack fellas because I feel the  need for a dodgy accounting party right now!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate.

Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect.

Whistle on.



70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno.
How many are active? Dunno.
Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not.
Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno.
Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you).
What else don't we know? Dunno.



ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

Soren, please...

Not knowing something, does not disprove something else.

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate. Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect. Whistle on. 70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans. How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno. How many are active? Dunno. Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not. Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno. Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you). What else don't we know? Dunno. ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

I'm glad you realise that finally. The CO2 emitted by submarine vocanoes is definitely a relatively small issue. Volcanic activity is largely limited to the subsea plate boundaries, so your point about coverage by oceans is not relevant. 

Some fluxes are more accurately known than others. 

Soren, has it occurred to you than we can actually see where the CO2 is coming from as plain as your nose.

CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA.

Mate, Colonel Mustard has just been photographed in the kitchen, knife in hand.

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2008/04/080407172656-large.jpg

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 10:48pm: I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate. Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect. Whistle on. 70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans. How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno. How many are active? Dunno. Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not. Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno. Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you). What else don't we know? Dunno. ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes. I'm glad you realise that finally.

Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads??

With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity.


But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian.


BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:
"Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. "
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/nsf-hrm112601.php


It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google  "contrary to expectations".

Soren,

Quote:

Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads??

I meant that you've finally realised that it's an insignificant and totally irrelevant issue. (Don't get upset, that's a good thing. I'm lauding the fact that you understand that point)


Quote:

It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google  "contrary to expectations".

That article has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It's about submarine volcanics in the Arctic Ocean.


Quote:

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:

Show me where I said that.


Quote:

With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity.

Show me where I said or implied that. My point was that they don't need to be known to any great accuracy because they couldn't possibly be emitting any significant mass of CO2 to the atmosphere.  Let's put it this way, we know how much CO2 human activity is emitting.  In order for volcanic activity to match that rate would require a Pinatubo style eruption every 12 hours (give or take), which would rapidly throw us into another ice age because of the cooling effect of sulphates produced by the volcanoes.

You see, that's the other preposterous side to it. Volcanoes actually have much more of a cooling effect due to their sulphates and aerosols.  An absence of volcanic activity (such as in the mid 20th century) can lead to warming.  (aha you say - maybe we are overestimating volcanic activity)

Anyway, please remind me why you we talking about volcanic CO2  again? - Have you  suddenly decided that the tiny proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere does actually have a substantial warming effect? Don't tell me that you have finally abandoned Soren's Law?

You see like other climate change deniers, you are not presenting a very cohesive argument, and what's left of your credibility is currently around about 398 parts per million (but not rising in your case).

As a philosopher you must realise by now that contradicting yourself is not really very good.


Quote:

But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian.

Thanks. I picture you more in the model of Diogenes, but let's not get too personal. 

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate. Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect. Whistle on. 70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans. How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno. How many are active? Dunno. Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not. Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno. Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you). What else don't we know? Dunno. ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

SOWING THE SEEDS OF DOUBT, LOL!

GO SOREN!!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)

muso wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Quote: BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so: "Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. " Show me where I said that.

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA.

Are you suggesting that submarine volcanoes do not emit CO2.

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

muso wrote on Jan 7th, 2012 at 10:17am: Quote: BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so: "Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. " Show me where I said that. muso wrote on Jan 6th, 2012 at 10:45am: CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA. Are you suggesting that submarine volcanoes do not emit CO2.

No. I'm stating that the CO2 they do emit is  insignificant in the scheme of things.  Human beings exhale CO2 too, but that is also insignificant in the scheme of things.   

- And we don't know how many people are exercising at the moment and exhaling CO2 at an increased rate. Should we be worried because it's an unknown? Of course not, because it's insignificant in the scheme of things.

I don't know if you do budgets, but if you do, do you try to detail every single item of petty cash that you'll spend in the next year, or just allocate an estimate?

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

muso wrote on Jan 6th, 2012 at 10:45am: Soren wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 10:48pm: I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate. Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect. Whistle on. 70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans. How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno. How many are active? Dunno. Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not. Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno. Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you). What else don't we know? Dunno. ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes. I'm glad you realise that finally.  Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads?? With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity. But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian. BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so: "Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. " http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/nsf-hrm112601.php It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google  "contrary to expectations".

-->>.. soren has a superiority complex and he votes liberal!

lol, just so "...NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

muso wrote on Jan 7th, 2012 at 10:17am: Quote: BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so: "Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. " Show me where I said that. muso wrote on Jan 6th, 2012 at 10:45am: CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA. Are you suggesting that submarine volcanoes do not emit CO2.

COAL SEAM FIRES IN CHINA CERTAINLY DO!!

I WONDER WHERE ELSE THEY COULD BE???  :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 7th, 2012 at 9:51am: muso wrote on Jan 6th, 2012 at 10:45am: Soren wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 10:48pm: I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate. Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect. Whistle on. 70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans. How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno. How many are active? Dunno. Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not. Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno. Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you). What else don't we know? Dunno. ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes. I'm glad you realise that finally.  Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads?? With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity. But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian. BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so: "Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. " http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/nsf-hrm112601.php It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google  "contrary to expectations". -->>.. soren has a superiority complex and he votes liberal! lol, just so "...NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Regarding you, being simply normal creates a sense of superiority, so I share that sense with countless others here.

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2012 at 10:01am:

Regarding you, being simply normal creates a sense of superiority, so I share that sense with countless others here.

So I take it that you have no issue with my argument since you clearly prefer to speak to dead horse walking (or whatever).

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2012 at 10:01am:

Regarding you, being simply normal creates a sense of superiority, so I share that sense with countless others here.

Weakness personified is what you are mate!

;D

How 'bout them coal seem fires!??!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 8^th, 2012 at 5:53pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2012 at 10:01am: Regarding you, being simply normal creates a sense of superiority, so I share that sense with countless others here. Weakness personified is what you are mate! ;D How 'bout them coal seem fires!??!

Yeah, how about them?

Let's see if you can say anything longer than a line without breaking out in swivel eyes.

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2012 at 8:22pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 8th, 2012 at 5:53pm: Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2012 at 10:01am: Regarding you, being simply normal creates a sense of superiority, so I share that sense with countless others here. Weakness personified is what you are mate! ;D How 'bout them coal seem fires!??! Yeah, how about them? Let's see if you can say anything longer than a line without breaking out in swivel eyes.

YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT UNDERSEA VOLCANOES CONTRIBUTING TO CARBON EMISSIONS YET YOU DON'T KNOW IF THEY CONTRIBUTE MORE OR LESS THAN COAL SEAM FIRES!!

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE!!!

  :o :o :o

fACE IT, YOU'RE CLUTCHING AT STRAWS!!!!

You are simply trying to press the pause button of doubt but when questioned you can't give good reason as to why that doubt should properly exist!

LET'S NOT WORRY ABOUT THE KIDS AY SOREN!!

COUNTING SOMEONE ELSES BOTTOMLINE IS MUCH MORE FUN  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :-* :-*

YEH, I SMOKE CRACK AND VOTE LIBERAL WHILST PRETENDING I DON'T TOUCH MYSELF OR MY SHITE DON'T STINK  ;D ;D

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 5:50pm:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on! Ah no, that was meant to read - Maqqa having pointed the finger, leaves the discussion, knowing that her mis-direction will take up valuable time, by going over the same information, again & again!

Actually I am not

The essential question remains unanswered - we do not know how in percentage terms much humans contribute to the carbon cycle

all information produced by the climate alarmists focus on how much they think humans emit but never our share of the total emissions

Those wishing to valid what I am saying just try to Google "world carbon emissions from all sources" or any other variation of the sentence

All you'll get are links to human emissions rather than total emissions from all sources

You'll get flash pictures and figures but no one will give you a total emission

Even the IPCCC does not contain the information either

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

Once you have all your facts - consider that Climate Science is an Observational Science

Google "Observational Science" and see the flaws within that system

Maqqa wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 3:29pm:

Once you have all your facts - consider that Climate Science is an Observational Science Google "Observational Science" and see the flaws within that system

PAUSE BUTTON POLITICS IS MAQQUA!

:o :o :o :o :o


PAUSE BUTTON POLITICS IS MAQQUA!

:o :o :o :o :o

PAUSE BUTTON POLITICS IS MAQQUA!

:o :o :o :o :o


PAUSE BUTTON POLITICS IS MAQQUA!

:o :o :o :o :o

Maqqa wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 3:03pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 5:50pm: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on! Ah no, that was meant to read - Maqqa having pointed the finger, leaves the discussion, knowing that her mis-direction will take up valuable time, by going over the same information, again & again! Actually I am not The essential question remains unanswered - we do not know how in percentage terms much humans contribute to the carbon cycle all information produced by the climate alarmists focus on how much they think humans emit but never our share of the total emissions

- and as I said before, your question is loaded. The natural carbon cycle has a net value of ~ zero, because the positive fluxes (land to atmosphere/ocean to atmosphere) balance the negative fluxes (Atmosphere to land/ Atmosphere to ocean). 

If you express anthropogenic emissions as a percentage of positive fluxes, and totally ignore the negative fluxes, you are grossly underestimating the effect. Try to understand that point.

The argument that human emissions are a tiny proportion of natural emissions is nothing more than dodgy accounting.

Our "share" of total emissions is greater than 100% as I explained before.

(Highlighted text) - Yes you are. Refer back to my original replies.

Interesting.

Everything in nature seems to have a balance mechanism to deal with change. You walk faster, your heart rate and oxidn intake go up, your temperature increases - so you perspire to keep you cool.
More CO2 - more what? The temperature goes up by how much before the counter mechanism kicks in? What IS th counter-balance mechanism?
More rain, more vegetation (more CO2 absorption)? After all, that's how we got all this coal and oil and gas -massive tropical vegetation.

Mebbe the dinosaurs died out because the jungles, having absorbed all the available CO2, disappeared, giving way to deserts and thus making the dinosaur habitat vanish. Most of the oil and gas and black coal today is in deserts or arid areas.
;)

Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2012 at 10:35am:

Interesting. Everything in nature seems to have a balance mechanism to deal with change. You walk faster, your heart rate and oxidn intake go up, your temperature increases - so you perspire to keep you cool. More CO2 - more what? The temperature goes up by how much before the counter mechanism kicks in? What IS th counter-balance mechanism? More rain, more vegetation (more CO2 absorption)? After all, that's how we got all this coal and oil and gas -massive tropical vegetation. Mebbe the dinosaurs died out because the jungles, having absorbed all the available CO2, disappeared, giving way to deserts and thus making the dinosaur habitat vanish. Most of the oil and gas and black coal today is in deserts or arid areas. ;)

Don't hold your breath waiting for that, the way we've been chopping down tropical forests.

- but yes, there is scope for  increased planktonic growth in the oceans, and that acts as a carbon sink. You just need to add iron (apparently) because the limiting factor is iron deficiency.

There is no question that nature could compensate.... given enough time. However time is the problem.

There is no evidence that trees absorbed all the CO2 during the Mesozoic period.  It wasn't until the late Cenozoic (actually about 40 million years ago)  that CO2 levels dropped to levels similar to recent times.

Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2012 at 10:35am:

Interesting. Everything in nature seems to have a balance mechanism to deal with change. You walk faster, your heart rate and oxidn intake go up, your temperature increases - so you perspire to keep you cool. More CO2 - more what? The temperature goes up by how much before the counter mechanism kicks in? What IS th counter-balance mechanism? More rain, more vegetation (more CO2 absorption)? After all, that's how we got all this coal and oil and gas -massive tropical vegetation. Mebbe the dinosaurs died out because the jungles, having absorbed all the available CO2, disappeared, giving way to deserts and thus making the dinosaur habitat vanish. Most of the oil and gas and black coal today is in deserts or arid areas. ;)

You seem to be struggling with the rate of change. Evolution can keep up with changing co2 density if occuring over millions of years. Life evolves to suit the conditions.  Over decades, various lifeforms cant adapt and simply die out.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:36am:

Soren wrote on Jan 22nd, 2012 at 10:35am: Interesting. Everything in nature seems to have a balance mechanism to deal with change. You walk faster, your heart rate and oxidn intake go up, your temperature increases - so you perspire to keep you cool. More CO2 - more what? The temperature goes up by how much before the counter mechanism kicks in? What IS th counter-balance mechanism? More rain, more vegetation (more CO2 absorption)? After all, that's how we got all this coal and oil and gas -massive tropical vegetation. Mebbe the dinosaurs died out because the jungles, having absorbed all the available CO2, disappeared, giving way to deserts and thus making the dinosaur habitat vanish. Most of the oil and gas and black coal today is in deserts or arid areas. ;) You seem to be struggling with the rate of change. Evolution can keep up with changing co2 density if occuring over millions of years. Life evolves to suit the conditions.  Over decades, various lifeforms cant adapt and simply die out.

Oh we've been through all this before, and explained about evolution and lifespans. Obviously you can't get very much adaptation in a few lifespans.

If you were dealing with bacteria though where the reproduction rate and lifespan is much shorter, then they can certainly adapt.

In many cases, you're talking to the faithful (who believe that God will save the world) and their followers.  (Not you Soren)

Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation.

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:27am:

Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation.

Remind me again, how much the planet has warmed since 19th century industrialisation ?

vs

how much it is expected to warm in the next 100 or 200 years unchecked ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:33am:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:27am: Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation. Remind me again, how much the planet has warmed since 19th century industrialisation ? vs how much it is expected to warm in the next 100 or 200 years unchecked ?

So a 150 years worth of extra, man-made CO2 hasn't made a difference yet? But will in the future? This is like the promise to Alice bout jam every other day.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:33am:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:27am: Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation. Remind me again, how much the planet has warmed since 19th century industrialisation ? vs how much it is expected to warm in the next 100 or 200 years unchecked ?

0.9 C since 1800-1870 up to now, and projected estimate of 1.1 to 4.0C by 2100...

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:42am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:27am: Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation. Remind me again, how much the planet has warmed since 19th century industrialisation ? vs how much it is expected to warm in the next 100 or 200 years unchecked ? So a 150 years worth of extra, man-made CO2 hasn't made a difference yet? But will in the future? This is like the promise to Alice bout jam every other day.

We have been (and continue to do so) increase our co2 emissions exponentially.

You do know what "exponentially" means dont you ?
If not, look it up.
We probably produce as much c02 in a couple of years now, as we did in the first 100 or your 150 year timeline.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:48am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:27am: Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation. Remind me again, how much the planet has warmed since 19th century industrialisation ? vs how much it is expected to warm in the next 100 or 200 years unchecked ? 0.9 C since 1800-1870 up to now, and projected estimate of 1.1 to 4.0C by 2100...

Sorry the 1.1C° rises are completely sold out. You missed your chance years ago. All we have left are the higher ranges. Would you like fries with your global catastrophe?  ::)

How would you like your descendants?  Well done or medium?  Sorry, you can't have them rare.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/images/mit-wheels.gif

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 12:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:42am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:27am: Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation. Remind me again, how much the planet has warmed since 19th century industrialisation ? vs how much it is expected to warm in the next 100 or 200 years unchecked ? So a 150 years worth of extra, man-made CO2 hasn't made a difference yet? But will in the future? This is like the promise to Alice bout jam every other day. We have been (and continue to do so) increase our co2 emissions exponentially. You do know what "exponentially" means dont you ? If not, look it up. We probably produce as much c02 in a couple of years now, as we did in the first 100 or your 150 year timeline.

An exponential rate of change is itself changing exponentially!

  :D :D :D :D :D

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:48am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:27am: Just remind me again - what has actually died out since the supposed man made global warming started with 19th century industrialisation. Remind me again, how much the planet has warmed since 19th century industrialisation ? vs how much it is expected to warm in the next 100 or 200 years unchecked ? 0.9 C since 1800-1870 up to now, and projected estimate of 1.1 to 4.0C by 2100... Sorry the 1.1C° rises are completely sold out. You missed your chance years ago. All we have left are the higher ranges. Would you like fries with your global catastrophe?  ::) How would you like your descendants?  Well done or medium?  Sorry, you can't have them rare. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/images/mit-wheels.gif

Yes please..Fries will be good thanks...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

muso wrote on Jan 20th, 2012 at 7:11am: (being lazy) As above, but "Yes" for the last question. The suggested question "Is Climate Change caused by man?" is ambiguous. Anthropogenic Climate Change is caused by man.  Climate change can also include the slow natural processes that have been manifested in previous periods of glaciation. Obviously these were not caused by man, and I doubt if anybody in their right mind would disagree with that, because man was not yet established on the planet en masse. Perhaps the question could be more like - "Do the potential threats of climate change worry you (rising sea levels, higher temperatures, animal extinction, etc.)?" - which is what you asked anyway. The whole term 'climate change' is generally used in an ambiguous manner anyway...There are two different types, Anthropogenic and Natural......but people rarely differentiate between them, in mass media and on forums like these.....

That may be the case, but carbon dioxide that is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is the same carbon dioxide that causes the natural greenhouse effect. It's the same molecule, and it still absorbs outgoing long wave infrared radiation centred around 10 microns wavelength, thus augmenting the natural greenhouse effect.

What annoys me is the fact that people who don't even understand that mechanism, (which is basic atmospheric physics) are too quick to jump on the denialist bandwagon.  Andrew Bolt has blood on his hands. I just hope that he can live a long life so that he can eventually be subject to the justice of a less civilised age where things are going majorly pear-shaped due to inaction.

There is a term for a person who argues against something without understanding what he is arguing against. It's called "TAPS".

muso wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 1:24pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2012 at 9:04am: muso wrote on Jan 20th, 2012 at 7:11am: (being lazy) As above, but "Yes" for the last question. The suggested question "Is Climate Change caused by man?" is ambiguous. Anthropogenic Climate Change is caused by man.  Climate change can also include the slow natural processes that have been manifested in previous periods of glaciation. Obviously these were not caused by man, and I doubt if anybody in their right mind would disagree with that, because man was not yet established on the planet en masse. Perhaps the question could be more like - "Do the potential threats of climate change worry you (rising sea levels, higher temperatures, animal extinction, etc.)?" - which is what you asked anyway. The whole term 'climate change' is generally used in an ambiguous manner anyway...There are two different types, Anthropogenic and Natural......but people rarely differentiate between them, in mass media and on forums like these..... That may be the case, but carbon dioxide that is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is the same carbon dioxide that causes the natural greenhouse effect. It's the same molecule, and it still absorbs outgoing long wave infrared radiation centred around 10 microns wavelength, thus augmenting the natural greenhouse effect. What annoys me is the fact that people who don't even understand that mechanism, (which is basic atmospheric physics) are too quick to jump on the denialist bandwagon.  Andrew Bolt has blood on his hands. I just hope that he can live a long life so that he can eventually be subject to the justice of a less civilised age where things are going majorly pear-shaped due to inaction. There is a term for a person who argues against something without understanding what he is arguing against. It's called "TAPS".

And just because no one can point to a control mechanism in nature (negative feedback loop, or natural balancing system) doesn't mean it's not there...

And for that matter....It's still not proven that Co2 IS the driver for the changes...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 6:22pm:

And for that matter....It's still not proven that Co2 IS the driver for the changes...

Of course it is.

muso wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 9:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21st, 2012 at 6:22pm: And for that matter....It's still not proven that Co2 IS the driver for the changes... Of course it is.

Oh, so they've reduced the Co2 content and measured the temperature drop, have they???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 10:57pm:

muso wrote on Jan 21st, 2012 at 9:45pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21st, 2012 at 6:22pm: And for that matter....It's still not proven that Co2 IS the driver for the changes... Of course it is. Oh, so they've reduced the Co2 content and measured the temperature drop, have they???

It's basic atmospheric physics, Gizmo.  I don't know if you followed that link I gave to Soren, but that shows how you can calculate planetary temperatures from basic physics as fundamental as calculating planetary orbits. They could do that for Mars long before any probes landed there.

Your statement is like saying "Oh, so they reduced  the Earth's mass and proved that there was less gravity?"
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html

For God's sake man, you obviously have more common sense than Soren. Can't you see the relative contributions of water and CO2 for each planet? If you don't, say so and I'll explain some more. The water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere is driven by CO2(and is obviously subject to solar fluctuations too. On Mars, the atmosphere is too thin to support  any substantial concentration, so the total Greenhouse effect is less.  (This is a first order approximation of course)

For  Venus, the answer is significantly out because it fails to include the effect of the sulfuric acid clouds. 

Now does that make sense to you or not?

---

muso wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2012 at 9:56am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21st, 2012 at 10:57pm: muso wrote on Jan 21st, 2012 at 9:45pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21st, 2012 at 6:22pm: And for that matter....It's still not proven that Co2 IS the driver for the changes... Of course it is. Oh, so they've reduced the Co2 content and measured the temperature drop, have they??? It's basic atmospheric physics, Gizmo.  I don't know if you followed that link I gave to Soren, but that shows how you can calculate planetary temperatures from basic physics as fundamental as calculating planetary orbits. They could do that for Mars long before any probes landed there. Your statement is like saying "Oh, so they reduced  the Earth's mass and proved that there was less gravity?" http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html For God's sake man, you obviously have more common sense than Soren. Can't you see the relative contributions of water and CO2 for each planet? If you don't, say so and I'll explain some more. The water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere is driven by CO2(and is obviously subject to solar fluctuations too. On Mars, the atmosphere is too thin to support  any substantial concentration, so the total Greenhouse effect is less.  (This is a first order approximation of course) For  Venus, the answer is significantly out because it fails to include the effect of the sulfuric acid clouds.  Now does that make sense to you or not?

Nio, I'm sorry..but the Greenhouse Effect is about controlling temperatures....it's an insulation system, and like all insulation it is designed to keep temperatures between two levels...( I know I'm not using the right words, but I can't help that)...

There is still no way to prove or disprove ACC except by waiting...

And Venus is at or just over inner edge of the habitable zone for our type star, and Mars is just over the outer edge of the zone....
Sorry, but I do not buy the idea that Co2 is the driver for warming...I think it's an effect, not a cause.

Honestly, it's only been 170 years since we started to think weather wasn't made by spirits...There are still gaps in our knowledge, so identifying the causes of increases and decrease in average world temperatures is still theortical at this point..

There are gaps in our knowledge about gravity, but it doesn't prevent us launching satellites and knowing precisely where the satellite is at any stage.

Don't think of the Greenhouse Effect in terms of an insulation system. It's much more useful to think of it in terms of the Earth's energy (heat) balance.  Increase greenhouse gas concentration, and less energy is released to space.


Quote:

but I do not buy the idea that Co2 is the driver for warming...I think it's an effect, not a cause.

You see, CO2 can be both a cause and an effect.  The old strawman that CO2 lags, and doesn't lead has caused a lot of confusion. What we have is an equilibrium. Increase the Global temperature due to increased solar activity and CO2 is released.  Increase CO2 due to increased burning of fossil fuels (for example), and temperatures increase due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. If you deny the latter, you must also deny that CO2 provides a natural greenhouse effect in the first place. It's not a linear relationship either. It's a logarithmic relationship, so we talk about warming for doubling of atmospheric CO2.

I'm not sure which part you disagree with, but you can easily measure the absorption of infrared by CO2. It's a very simple measurement.

From the satellite measurement of radiated IR radiation, we can measure the changes over time and we can prove that progressively more energy is retained by the atmosphere. 

This is very basic atmospheric physics. It's taught at University and there are no other competing theories. It's not quantum mechanics. It's really very fundamental.

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:14am:

There are gaps in our knowledge about gravity, but it doesn't prevent us launching satellites and knowing precisely where the satellite is at any stage. Don't think of the Greenhouse Effect in terms of an insulation system. It's much more useful to think of it in terms of the Earth's energy (heat) balance.  Increase greenhouse gas concentration, and less energy is released to space. Quote: but I do not buy the idea that Co2 is the driver for warming...I think it's an effect, not a cause. You see, CO2 can be both a cause and an effect.  The old strawman that CO2 lags, and doesn't lead has caused a lot of confusion. What we have is an equilibrium. Increase the Global temperature due to increased solar activity and CO2 is released.  Increase CO2 due to increased burning of fossil fuels (for example), and temperatures increase due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. If you deny the latter, you must also deny that CO2 provides a natural greenhouse effect in the first place. It's not a linear relationship either. It's a logarithmic relationship, so we talk about warming for doubling of atmospheric CO2. I'm not sure which part you disagree with, but you can easily measure the absorption of infrared by CO2. It's a very simple measurement. From the satellite measurement of radiated IR radiation, we can measure the changes over time and we can prove that progressively more energy is retained by the atmosphere.  This is very basic atmospheric physics. It's taught at University and there are no other competing theories. It's not quantum mechanics. It's really very fundamental.

I do understand your point of view. But as far as I can see, there is no definitive historical evidence for the idea, quite the opposite in fact.....add to that the problem that there isn't any reputation risk involved to the scientists and pundits, because any proof of the theory will be so far into the future that the people stating it will be long dead before it becomes clear one way or the other.....It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:46am:

..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future...

It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH.

I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist"  ;D

If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know.

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:12am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 8:46am: ..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future... It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH. I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist"  ;D If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know.

By result I mean a slowing or cooling due to reduction of Co2 production....
Basically...we're supposed to shut down our industrial civilzation, in the hope that something will happen 50 to 100 years after we're dead (so we won't know whether or not it actually works)...

And isn't "Trust me - I'm a scientist" what the whole idea is based on????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:52am:

muso wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:12am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 8:46am: ..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future... It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH. I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist"  ;D If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know. 1. By result I mean a slowing or cooling due to reduction of Co2 production.... Basically...we're supposed to shut down our industrial civilzation, in the hope that something will happen 50 to 100 years after we're dead (so we won't know whether or not it actually works)... 2. And isn't "Trust me - I'm a scientist" what the whole idea is based on????

1. Nobody is talking about shutting down anything. It's all about a shift to using renewable energy. We can have a successful economic system based on other energy forms. It doesn't have to be oil and coal. In fact we need to transition from oil and coal. If we just shut everything down, it would be chaos.

2. No, certainly not from my perspective.  I have Scottish ancestry. I trust nobody.  ;D

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 1:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:52am: muso wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:12am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 8:46am: ..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future... It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH. I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist"  ;D If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know. 1. By result I mean a slowing or cooling due to reduction of Co2 production.... Basically...we're supposed to shut down our industrial civilzation, in the hope that something will happen 50 to 100 years after we're dead (so we won't know whether or not it actually works)... 2. And isn't "Trust me - I'm a scientist" what the whole idea is based on???? 1. Nobody is talking about shutting down anything. It's all about a shift to using renewable energy. We can have a successful economic system based on other energy forms. It doesn't have to be oil and coal. In fact we need to transition from oil and coal. If we just shut everything down, it would be chaos. 2. No, certainly not from my perspective.  I have Scottish ancestry. I trust nobody.  ;D

Well I don't see a solar blast furnace being very successful...
Simply put, at the moment, 100% renewable energy (which is what the Greens in particular are talking about) simply won't do the job of keeping our societies running......Maybe a combined renewable + coal/gas/oil or nuclear would work....

Me too, Irish/Welsh/Scottish.....I trust nothing at face value...

In case anybody wonders, I cleaned up Eddy's survey thread and put the off topic posts here.

I've now locked it because he said he had printed out the results.

I believe that climate change is irrelevant.
We have spend so long arguing about this and that like two year olds that we completely forget what we KNOW oil is actually doing to our environment.
There’s way more than enough evidence not climate change related to stop using fossil fuels.
If people did some research they would see that clean renewable energy is not just some fairy tale that the oil cartels would have you believe. It’s easily attainable and we had the technology a century ago.
Another thing about oil. We should never depend on something so much that is controlled by a monopoly. It’s to dangerous, the oil cartels literally hold billions of life’s in their hands because without oil the modern world stops turning.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

:o ::) ::) ::) ::) :D WHAT ELSE IS NEW!?!?!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZILPvIUs-p4/Tyhh9OryR_I/AAAAAAAAEE4/imn-fkbThPU/s1600/stop+global+warming.jpg

Anyone along Australia's eastern seaboard is getting a good taste of what climate change will be like, and the correlation between sea temperature rise and weather patterns.

The El Nino and La Nina climate patterns cause only a 0.5 degree difference (on average) in sea temperative in the pacific off Australia's coast. And yet we can see how remarkable the difference is in weather pattern. A couple of years ago, during El Nino, severe drought. Now during La Nina, last years floods, and a very, very wet summer.

Thats only 0.5 degree's.  Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees!

With warming comes increased precipitation  ::) 

- but then that's not simplistic enough. This beer is cold, therefore no Global Warming. (hyuk hyuk)

muso wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 7:43am:

Soren wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 8:59pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 10:07am: Thats only 0.5 degree's.  Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees! Exactly - imagine. Because that's the realm we are talking abut, the imagination. If AGW theories were correct and if they had any predictive value, we would  have had a steady increase in warming in the last 10+ years. We haven't. The steady increase on CO2 has not steadily amplified the warmth. Wha' happened? Where do I download the patch to fix this error? What's the current afterthought, the current 'oh, I forgot to mention that... ' fix? 10 years is too short a time period to pick any trend of this nature, although the underlying drop in outgoing LWIR emissions can be determined from satellite data. You can put your imagination away. It's there in black and white data. 10 years is less than the ENSO period. You do know what the ENSO period is, don't you? Remember the bumpy road on a hill analogy? 10 years is just one of the bumps in the road.

What arelief!

What causes the bump in the temperature if there is no corresponding bump in CO2?

Who was the secret wizard, er, significant climate component that was so powerful that it was able to override the mighty Lord Sauron, er, steadily increasing human CO2 emissions, the single, overwhelming  cause of us facing an uphill road with temperature?

Shurely shome mishtake.

Soren wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 6:48pm:

muso wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 7:43am: Soren wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 8:59pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 10:07am: Thats only 0.5 degree's.  Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees! Exactly - imagine. Because that's the realm we are talking abut, the imagination. If AGW theories were correct and if they had any predictive value, we would  have had a steady increase in warming in the last 10+ years. We haven't. The steady increase on CO2 has not steadily amplified the warmth. Wha' happened? Where do I download the patch to fix this error? What's the current afterthought, the current 'oh, I forgot to mention that... ' fix? 10 years is too short a time period to pick any trend of this nature, although the underlying drop in outgoing LWIR emissions can be determined from satellite data. You can put your imagination away. It's there in black and white data. 10 years is less than the ENSO period. You do know what the ENSO period is, don't you? Remember the bumpy road on a hill analogy? 10 years is just one of the bumps in the road. What arelief! What causes the bump in the temperature if there is no corresponding bump in CO2? Who was the secret wizard, er, significant climate component that was so powerful that it was able to override the mighty Lord Sauron, er, steadily increasing human CO2 emissions, the single, overwhelming  cause of us facing an uphill road with temperature? Shurely shome mishtake.

Soren Lorenson You have not been listening.

Nobody is saying that natural processes don't exist. Nobody is saying that CO2 is the only driver - just those people who put up strawmen.

How many times do I have to explain the Solar cycle and the ENSO cycle to you?  hmmm?

If you bothered to read that report on planetary temperatures, it would be obvious how it all fits together. Use your noggin.

How many times, do I have to show you this graph showing all the factors involved?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/attributions.jpg

Now go back to the sticky thread and try to understand what you are arguing  about, because right now, you are not trying.

That's a C minus   ;D

I created a separate topic for the Nuclear Power related posts, because it was getting a bit entangled.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Mr Soren - before you come back with your stock reply to the word "Model", let me point out to you that this is historical data. Engineers used the term "model"  for example to describe nomograms based on sound engineering data. For example a pressure relief system that relies on a hinged orifice can be modelled in terms of temperature, pressure, flow rate etc depending on the percentage opening of the valve.

It is possible to measure all these parameters, including such things as sulphates in the atmosphere, which originate from volcanic releases and have a net cooling effect. 

muso wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:56am:

Mr Soren - before you come back with your stock reply to the word "Model", let me point out to you that this is historical data. Engineers used the term "model"  for example to describe nomograms based on sound engineering data. For example a pressure relief system that relies on a hinged orifice can be modelled in terms of temperature, pressure, flow rate etc depending on the percentage opening of the valve. It is possible to measure all these parameters, including such things as sulphates in the atmosphere, which originate from volcanic releases and have a net cooling effect.

I have never said that things cannot be measured or modelled.

What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions, to present current models as if they covered all variables. They don't.

The proof? The AGW theory's lack of predictive power.

Anyway, you didn't comment on the central point I made, which was that there are other influences and we know their magnitude. I hope I addressed your ahem.... "Lord Sauron" post.

Quote:

What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions....

Well, I think you've demonstrated that basic High School Science is too complex for you to recognise B/S when you read it.

muso wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Anyway, you didn't comment on the central point I made, which was that there are other influences and we know their magnitude. I hope I addressed your ahem.... "Lord Sauron" post. Quote: What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions.... Well, I think you've demonstrated that basic High School Science is too complex for you to recognise B/S when you read it.

We do not know their magnitudes - becasue we do not know ALL of them. Climate science is like brain science - we know everything about chemistry but it doesn't tell us anythibng about the mind. We have not the faintest idea about how he mind works, even as we map the brain.

Soren wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

muso wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 12:45pm: Anyway, you didn't comment on the central point I made, which was that there are other influences and we know their magnitude. I hope I addressed your ahem.... "Lord Sauron" post. Quote: What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions.... Well, I think you've demonstrated that basic High School Science is too complex for you to recognise B/S when you read it. We do not know their magnitudes - becasue we do not know ALL of them. Climate science is like brain science - we know everything about chemistry but it doesn't tell us anythibng about the mind. We have not the faintest idea about how he mind works, even as we map the brain.

We've been through this before.. Nobody is pretending that an intense study of dopamine, noradrenaline, adrenaline, histamine and  serotonin levels in the brain will give us a clue as to what you'll decide to have in your lunch box on Monday morning.

In the same way, we're talking about some very well established and deterministic relationships between solar irradiation, atmospheric sulphate emissions, aesrosols, greenhouse gases and their effect on a single variable - global mean temparture.

This is akin to brain surgery in the same way as predicting that you'll get drunk if you drink half a bottle of Glen Fiddich. (Only single malts are worth getting drunk on - not that I do that any more)

It's really not brain surgery at all.

Indeed, we have been through this before. Yet the mind is not the brain. You can have brain surgery but you cantt have mind surgery. You can map the brain and all the chemicals and electrical firings, yet you will never read another's mind by doing all that brain analysis.

I am not suggesting that the mind and the climate are the same or comparable - except in that they are both understood in a very limited way, all the analysis and modelling in both cases notwithstanding.

Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer.
Science used to prescribe lobotomy. No longer.
Down syndrome babies used to be aborted. No longer.
The history of science is replete with 'no longers'.


So when science says 'We've got it all covered, baby, we've got this sucker ( climate change) all figured', people are rightly sceptical.

Soren wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer.

Was it the case fifty years ago that we didn't think alcohol caused intoxication?  That's how basic it is.

Have you read Roger Scruton's latest book?

muso wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:29am:

Soren wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:15pm: Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer. Have you read Roger Scruton's latest book?

Not yet. I have heard an interview with him about it.
Needless to say, I agree with him.


As he so brilliantly argues in this book, the only way to save the planet is to work together to protect the home we all love.

“The shift away from radical, government-shaped solutions should be welcomed by Conservatives, since this promises the thing that environmentalists of both persuasions need, which is a way of sharing our problems and co‑operating to solve them.”

Soren wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

muso wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 8:29am: Soren wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:15pm: Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer. Have you read Roger Scruton's latest book? Not yet. I have heard an interview with him about it. Needless to say, I agree with him. As he so brilliantly argues in this book, the only way to save the planet is to work together to protect the home we all love. “The shift away from radical, government-shaped solutions should be welcomed by Conservatives, since this promises the thing that environmentalists of both persuasions need, which is a way of sharing our problems and co‑operating to solve them.”

- except that you disagree with his position that it's a serious issue.

Quote:

So if the facts are granted, and the market is not the answer, what can a conservative offer to combat climate change? Scruton writes: “We should introduce a flat-rate carbon tax. The more you emit, the more you pay.” Admittedly, what Scruton wants is not exactly the tax introduced by Australia’s Labor Government, supported by the Greens and so vigorously opposed by the conservative Opposition. He wants a tax on products based on the amount of carbon released in the process of their production, whether they were made in the country imposing the tax or made elsewhere and imported. This would, if it could be done, provide an incentive for the country of manufacture (read: China) to reduce the amount of carbon emitted by its export industries.

He goes on to talk about local solutions to renewable energy. On the whole, a very sensible approach.  I wish we had politicians in Australia who took that stance.