Undersea Volcanoes May Be Impacting Climate Change

Okay, so since natural forces are generating current climate change (maybe) then we should do everything we can to make it worse. I suppose if you think that giving medicine for your kid's fatal disease is "thwarting God's will" that might make sense.

 

Largely because this is a political board and the science is beyond most of us. In that situation it is really very easy for con men to make science say whatever they want it to. We ARE up on conspiracy theories, though, and we know enough there to realize that the first step in finding out who is lying is to "follow the money" . Denialists are supported by the oil companies, who have more money than God, AGW advocates are supported by Al Gore, who is damned rich but doesn't even approach Exxon

 

The science is not that hard for the fundamentals - I am not speaking of some of the more esoteric stuff like spectroscopy but the basic overall science is understandable

The biggest issue is that the average member does not know how to discriminate in relation to source material and thinks that blogs like "whatnooneelseknows' are full of factual data and are more reliable than NOAA. They gobble material from sites like Prison Planet and wonder why no-one listens

For me one of the defining factors was "who is lying" and it came down to not the climate scientists because even the more respected sites like WUWT and Judith Curry keep posting contradictory material. WUWT even posted that joke of a physics paper "proving" CO2 is not a greenhouse gas - at the same time posting how CO2 has a saturation effect and at the same time talking of the warming that has happened but is not going to get worse

 

Show me a site that does not have massive internal inconsistencies - that is if you can refrain from the Ad homs long enough - BTW - how did those you tube experiments go for you?

 

That is because they were meant to be high school level - so tell me what they did not control for? Come on - they were very simple experiments showing that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature when light is shone through the gas

What part could have been more controlled?

Oh! And

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-43-11-1037

 

Wait till those volcanos get their tax bill in for global warming.

 

no they don't, they show very bad experiments that no one documented the actual heat ahead of any configuration changes, as stated very uncontrolled. the times were also very badly collected at when specifics were occurring. And, that last link is a theory link and not an experiment. So first, do you know the difference between writing something on a blackboard/ whiteboard and calculating what you think is supposed to happen and an actual experiment. And for the experiment one needs to document each and every step, the characteristics of each piece used idle temps and CO2 volumes ahead of any part of the test, before the lamp is ever turned on. Come on, at least know the basics of an experiment if one wants to use as a source.

- - - Updated - - -

I think they'd like to know what it is their money is going for to stop whatever from happening. I still haven't heard what is supposed to happen and what is happening. that's locked in a vault and only available to Al Gore.

 

It is ironic that no matter what the 'crisis' is, the solution is always the same:

pre 1970 - 'Another ice age is coming!'
solution: Put all energy under govt control, & empower them to force total compliance.

70s-90s - 'Global warming!'
solution: Put all energy under govt control, & empower them to force total compliance.

2000s - 'Climate change!!'
solution: Put all energy under govt control, & empower them to force total compliance.

today- 'I have a hangnail!!'
solution: Put all energy under govt control, & empower them to force total compliance.

 

And the climate scientists are not unanimous. Read the actual literature.

 

There is no requirement that climate scientists be unanimous about anything. I am certain you can find plenty of scientists who claim that Einstein was completely wrong. That doesn't mean he actually was, nor does it mean that the majority of climate scientists are wrong. That said, science is not a democracy, dude. You don't get to vote on the laws of thermodynamics.

 

I never mentioned needing 'full proof refutation' to be skeptical? But if one is going to be skeptical of scientific positions then your skepticism must be based in equal data and models...not just 'I don't believe that'.

Skepticism does not drive the quest for scientific truth. These theories and other positions are peer reviewed, not based on skepticism but based on reviewing the evidence as presented, testing and retesting, whether it be with hard data or computer models. Either the information holds up to peer review or it does not.

Once again, you ignore the fact that we continue to populate Earth, are draining it's resources, and polluting rivers, oceans and the atmosphere. It is doubtful we are going to stop or reduce Earth's population so these issues will only be exacerbated. Projected to be 9.5 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100. If these issues are already a problem to society, how bad will they become as we continue to populate? Therefore, the only way to change this trend is to change our behaviors! How can you be skeptical about these facts?

AGW scientists have very clearly defined what is happening, why it is happening, and what the potential might be. We can wait and see what happens, you know...roll the dice with society and humanity. Or we can change our behaviors to do better. How soon can this change happen; for individuals it can happen today! Larger scale changes require long term efforts and lots of money. Again, it is undeniable, that continued population increase, continued burning of fossil fuels, industrialization, etc. will trend us closer to the potential effects. Does anyone know where the tipping point is?

The solutions, which IMO only involve a change in our behaviors, require global participation. The USA only has 319 million people while outside the US there are about 7 billion more people. Yes the US is a major polluter but others are catching up to us regarding per capita.

CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the Earth’s surface — heat that would otherwise pass freely into space. The CO2 then releases that heat, warming the Earth’s atmosphere. As CO2 levels increase, the pace of warming accelerates. Can you prove this statement about CO2 is incorrect? If not, then where does it all lead...

 

CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the Earth’s surface — heat that would otherwise pass freely into space. The CO2 then releases that heat, warming the Earth’s atmosphere. As CO2 levels increase, the pace of warming accelerates.

Can you prove the above statement about CO2 is incorrect?

 

it's funny how you all have the same mantra. it's your fun claim that 120 PPM of CO2 affects temperature, not mine. you prove your claim. Show me an experiment where CO2 does anything to temperature. I've been waiting for 14 months for one.

- - - Updated - - -

can you explain to me what you think peer review is?

 

with agw promoters, it is 'rubber stamping anything that promotes agw, grants, & hysteria'.

 

CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases are nearly opaque to infrared heat radiation. Heat radiated by Earth is trapped in these greenhouse gases which warms the air, radiates some heat into space, and radiates heat back to Earth. If there were less greenhouse gases the opposite effect will happen...cooling. All of this has been validated in the lab.

So if you wish to peer review the above, emit invisible infrared heat radiation, and measure the heated atmosphere with and without greenhouse gases. Do you find that CO2 for example absorbs infrared heat radiation? If you reduce the amount of CO2 do you find less head absorption? What temperature changes do you see?

BTW...you obviously won't do this so just point us to a scientific study which shows the above to be incorrect...that CO2 does not absorb infrared heat radiation...

 

skepticism starts with, 'hmmm.. that sounds fishy to me.. do you have any proof?' If the 'proof' given is hand waving, loud shouts, & insults, the skeptic says, 'oh, well.. i guess not'.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've heard the claims, & examined the data & analysis. ME, as a lay scientist... I find them both inconclusive, the conclusions unwarranted, & the predictions hysterical. I have no axe to grind.. no ulterior motive.. no hidden agenda. I have been a lifelong ecologist, with a personal drive to 'save the earth' by living responsibly, preserving our resources, & minimizing my own carbon foot print.. not to thwart 'global warming', but to be a responsible citizen of the planet, & conserve resources.

I already know that population is the biggest danger to not only the planet, but the people ON the planet. The current growth is unsustainable, & will strip the earth of resources, arable land, energy, potable water, & food, long before any 'climate change' becomes problem. If the globalists want some credibility, they would concentrate their mandates on reducing population growth, especially in 3rd world countries. But they say nothing about that, only hysterically cry 'the earth is heating up!! We're all going to die!!'

I cannot 'prove' anything about your gotcha statement. But it is a lot like this one:

'God created the heavens & earth in 6 days.' Can you Prove this statement is incorrect?

correlation does not imply causation. For me to consider the claim, you would have to show 'causation' for the statement. You would also have to show real data that proves the claim. The last 17 yrs, according to satellite data, shows NO global warming. This completely refutes the claim, as fossil fuels have continued to be used over this time, increasingly.

I can keep my 'ecology' card & doubt the claims of global warming. I don't automatically become an industrial polluter, just because i'm skeptical of the hysteria. But i don't know if you can keep you 'scientist' card, for continuing to promote AGW.. Your skepticism seems to be a little shaky.

 

so you have no experiment eh? And, you can't prove your claim. Thanks for playing what's that CO2 do.

 

Oh! Dear! Sorry but both were class room experiments - designed to show a simple physics experiment. We do not have to know the exact temperatures to demonstrate that a cooling can of boiled water will collapse a tin tank. But in any event both experiments showed the beginning temperatures which were the same. They shone the same amount of light into the two bottles and the temperature rose highest in the bottle with the CO2, So what variables would give you a different outcome??

And THIS link which you obviously did not open shows some even more precise measurement of the behaviour of CO2

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-43-11-1037

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

 

Because both those experiments are obviously rigged.

The thermometers in both are not shielded from the lamps direct radiant heat. Any minor change in focusing can have huge changes in results.

In your first link, the bottle with CO2 added is getting obviously more light from the lamp.

In the second one, the one with added CO2 has the lamp focused directly on the thermometer. We also don't know if the lamps are equal intensity. A proper experiment would have also been to reverse the two lamps to see if they varied in heat output.

No good control to eliminate the variables outside of CO2.

OOICU8 that 12....

If you find such an experiment with proper controls in place, let us know please.

 

In the upper atmosphere, CO2 cools the earth.

Can you prove this to be incorrect?

 

It is no longer a hypothesis that under sea volcanoes impact the earths climate or for that fact surface volcanoes. I may be wrong, but I think I read that they are one of the biggest natural events that greatly impact our environment, and have done so many times over the life of the planet.

 

]

If they were "rigged" how come no-one has shown a true experiment without rigging? I mean this is the internet - it is not as if these demonstrations needed complex equipment. Surely with the number of people enthusiastically and determinedly posting in the denial blogosphere - surely someone somewhere would have done a demonstration showing that this basic physics experiment does not work

True but if both thermometers are getting the exposure to heat,,,,,,

I mean if it was not reproducible - why is it listed as a middle school science experiment?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/fairprojects/environment/greenhouse_effect.html

 

Despite the propaganda over man made 'climate change', the impact of volcanoes has evidence for their influence. The man made claims are based on computer models, which like most statistics, can be juggled to reach the desired conclusion. That is propaganda, not science.

We have clear, obvious influence of volcanoes, which allegedly puts a miniscule amount of co2 into the atmosphere, compared to the massive amounts that man does. But what is ignored is the particles, the smoke, & the massive amounts all at once, that make an immediate impact on weather. it can then domino into years of real climate change. The earth is very adaptable to incremental changes, & can absorb drawn out influences. But the volcanic activity is more comparable to multiple nuclear explosions, all at once. Their impact is indisputable.

Compare that to the imagined scenarios in the computer models. With NO facts, and only conjecture, they pretend to warn us of impending doom, if we don't give them all our money immediately.

“The bullying of citizens by means of dreads and fights has been going on since paleolithic times. Greenpeace fund-raisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than the tribal Wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. 'Oh no, Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.” ~P.J. O'Rourke

 

so, with your own testimony, science has rigged/altered the experiment to prove their side of the equation.
Finally some honesty from the left...... all of the data being used to support the need for money by the planet has come to fruition via rigged information/bogus numbers. How much money did the planet ask for this time?

 

Do you know that nobpody has? Even if someone did a well controlled experiment and showed no noticeable change, you would deny the science of it.

Deniers are too stupid to understand any of it. Do you mean those of us who respect science and remain skeptical?

Just a minor difference in focus of the lamps will make a huge difference. it is so laughable that this guy can pull the wool over so many people.

LOL...

What stupid experiments, please show me which one is valid.

I'll bet you don't even know why they are invalid experiments.