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


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 10:45am:


...because that could seemingly be seen to conspire against a few richies if they were to get wind of it couldn't it!!!?????!! 

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


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.

Soren,
Quote:


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:


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

Quote:


Show me where I said that.

Quote:


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:


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

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



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



Are you suggesting that submarine volcanoes do not emit CO2.

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

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

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

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



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