Australian Politics Forum - Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #45 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:33am

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #46 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:44am

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)

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #47 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:48am

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #48 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 2:11pm

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? Shocked

Well that's hardly surprising because large stratospheric volcanoes and small European nations are insignificant in the scheme of things.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 4^th, 2012 at 3:21pm by muso »

co2_data_mlo_001.jpg (86 KB | 38 )

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #49 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 3:14pm 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
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #50 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 4:37pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #51 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:51pm Ay?!!? Is this fair dinkum correct ?
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #52 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:12pm Undetected submarine volcanoes, you thick bvgger. Undetected means cannot be estimated because it is...er... undetected.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #53 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:44pm 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!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 62328
Here
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #54 - Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:45pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #55 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:34am

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #56 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:41am

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

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.

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 ?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #57 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:41am

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #58 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:02am

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

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 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #59 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:22am

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

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

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 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.

Back to top

IP Logged