My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

Besides the underwater volcanism, I have mentioned several times the unknown role of ocean biota as a weak point in the modeling process. This weakness applies both in its absence from the intial conditions, as well as the feedback formulas used in any particular model.

 

I recently saw a show on PBS and the folks were looking at the bacteria in ocean water. Past efforts to culture these bugs have failed apparently, but they were gene-sequencing them on the boat as I recall. This article C1ay just posted sounds like the same or a similarly minded group.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/general-science-news/14375-team-probes-mysteries-oceanic-bacteria.html

Microbes living in the oceans play a critical role in regulating Earth's environment' date=' but very little is known about their activities and how they work together to help control natural cycles of water, carbon and energy. [/quote']

 

Shall we just guess the bugs are not doing anything that my inhibit or speed the oceans' ability to take up CO2 and/or hold & release heat? To the boats! :) ;)

[InfiniteNow]

So, basically, all you are capable of doing is sowing seeds of doubt? You have yet to back anything up with evidence. Hand waving is not science.

 

 

Besides, Turtle, ocean biota extract CO₂ from the atmosphere, so what is your point?

[HydrogenBond]

I tend to believe that the human involvement in global warming is being blown out of proportion. What is making this possible is fear. What one feels will have an impact on how you perceive reality. Let me given an example, if one is in a good mood, children playing are fun to watch. If one is in a grouchy mood, the same children playing may now become an annoyance. If one is very cautious or fearful, the same children playing is an accident waiting to happen. The data entering the eyes is the same for all three, but the mood filter will affect how one interprets the data.

 

The person in the grouchy mood, may be able to rationalize why the children are an annoyance. He could even set up a scientific study how random noise can have an impact on mental health. The person who is fearful can also sight studies and statistics about playground accidents to support their filter of fear, thereby using valid scientific arguments. The person who is in the good mood can also come up with studies how watching children play is good for one's general well being.

 

What we have with man-made global warming is one main emotional filter that is based on fear. So it will only present an interpretation what helps to reinforces or justify the fear. I am not afraid of global warming, so I will filter the data in a way to that reinforces this filter. The problem is many people want to use the power the government to add more fear. The goal is to scare people with additional policing actions, that will increase the number of new criminals, in an attempt to make more people afraid. Once everyone is on the same fear page, then it will also look real since more people will perceive scientific reality with a global fear filter. The manmade global warming is manmade, stemming from the fear filter.

 

One easy observation. Why are the polar caps of Mars melting? This won't get through the fear filter, because it doesn't reinforce the fear. It is like telling the hysterical mom, the sandbox is safe. She will ignore this calming observation and focus on the swings so she can reinforce her fear.

[freeztar]

Besides the underwater volcanism

 

Turtle, can you address Reaper's post above?

[InfiniteNow]

I tend to believe that the human involvement in global warming is being blown out of proportion.

You should take your discussion about the politics of the issue to the Social Sciences forum.

 

This is the Environmental Studies forum, so your "beliefs" really have no place or business here.

[Turtle]

Turtle, can you address Reaper's post above?

 

Roger that. Apparently I was typing when it went up. :doh: :hyper:

 

All aboard the Yellow Submarine....

 

Even if we were to include more data from submarine volcanoes, I doubt they would make that much of a difference on the grand scheme of things, given the extremities over here. We do have data on most volcanoes and some submarine ones. And, of all the sources, it's seems pretty obvious that humans beat volcanoes in CO2 emissions by a great deal.

 

But keep in mind that many of the submarine ones are deep in the ocean, where the CO2 will usually stay and dissolve (or form compounds) rather than go up into the atmosphere. It's the same with methane, if you've ever read up on Methane Hydrates.

 

So what if he doubts? Based on what? Lack of evidence? Pleading ignorance?Where is 'here' exactly; I may have missed something? Most? Some? By what jury is that from now? All the sources? Really?

 

Usually stay dissolved? Dissolved as what? When? Where? Then where does it go? Erupting for how long? How big? where is the hot water going? How much is this all buffering or otherwise affecting the upper layers and so their measurements?

 

Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride)

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

 

The 8,000 figure implies some daunting beyond belief number of underwater volcanoes yet as I reported in the Underwater Volcanism thread, new sounding analysis (after 2002 in the reference) have put the number of underwater volcanoes from ~20,000 to at least ~212,000 and perhaps as many as 3 million.

 

Anyway, I answered and yada yada yada as this is after all a discussion if not a debate. :) Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. :hihi:

[freeztar]

The 8,000 figure implies some daunting beyond belief number of underwater volcanoes yet as I reported in the Underwater Volcanism thread, new sounding analysis (after 2002 in the reference) have put the number of underwater volcanoes from ~20,000 to at least ~212,000 and perhaps as many as 3 million.

 

20k-3 million you say...

What's the standard deviation on that one look like? :hihi:

 

On another note...

 

Physical oceanography influences the carbon cycle through its modulation of the biology and also through processes that control carbonate chemistry (e.g., temperature, alkalinity/salinity) and carbon dioxide flux rates between the air-sea interface (e.g., surface wind speeds). The ocean "solubility pump" removes atmospheric carbon dioxide as air mixes with and dissolves into the upper ocean. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water, so at high latitudes where surface cooling occurs, carbon dioxide laden water sinks to the deep ocean and becomes part of the deep ocean circulation "conveyor belt", where it stays for hundreds of years. Eventually mixing brings the water back to the surface at the opposite end of the conveyor belt in regions distant from where the carbon dioxide was first absorbed, e.g., the tropics. In the tropical regions, warm waters cannot retain as much carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is transferred back into the atmosphere.

 

Satellite measurements play a major role in the study of the carbon cycle because of their global synoptic temporal and spatial coverage. Satellite data are well suited for estimating scales and variability of physical and biological properties of the ocean surface serving to constrain models of physical and biogeochemical processes and for estimating global primary production, calcite, fluorescence line height, chromophoric dissolved organic matter absorption, photosynthetic available radiation, and sea surface temperature, winds, and sea surface height are generated operationally.

NASA Oceanography - The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle

[Turtle]

20k-3 million you say...

What's the standard deviation on that one look like? :doh:

 

Wide? I'll go get that specific reference from the Underwater Volcanism thread. OK. got it. >> Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves - earth - 09 July 2007 - New Scientist Environment

 

On another note... Oceanography - The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle

... Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water, so at high latitudes where surface cooling occurs, carbon dioxide laden water sinks to the deep ocean and becomes part of the deep ocean circulation "conveyor belt", where it stays for hundreds of years. Eventually mixing brings the water back to the surface at the opposite end of the conveyor belt in regions distant from where the carbon dioxide was first absorbed, e.g., the tropics. In the tropical regions, warm waters cannot retain as much carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is transferred back into the atmosphere. ...

 

Apparently the liquid CO2 spraying out of Vailulu'u was determined to not have come from the atmospheric cycle, by measuring its carbon isotope content. :hyper: :hihi: >> Giant Deep-Sea Volcano With "Moat of Death" Found

[Reaper]

But so what? None of the carbon dioxide actually accumulates into the atmosphere, as has been demonstrated. And the articles provided don't support you at all (or rather, they don't even say anything about global warming).

 

Just because there are a great many of submarine volcanoes doesn't mean anything. There are, after all, a great many of volcanoes on the surface too, but most of them aren't active.

 

On the other hand, we know exactly how much is being contributed by humans compared to other sources of CO2, if you care to look at this site over here: TRENDS: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

 

And here are some specific graphs:

 

[Turtle]

But so what? None of the carbon dioxide actually accumulates into the atmosphere, as has been demonstrated. And the articles provided don't support you at all (or rather, they don't even say anything about global warming).

 

Just because there are a great many of submarine volcanoes doesn't mean anything. There are, after all, a great many of volcanoes on the surface too, but most of them aren't active.

 

 

Seems to me that pushing carbon in from the bottom, no matter whether animals take it up or it becomes carbolic acid, or meets some other fate, it is carbon added to the oceans otherwise (in addition to) that coming in from the top. Surely no one suggests the lower ocean has no connection to the upper?

 

Now there is besides the issue of the gases, CO2, methane, what have you, the issue of the actual heat plume above any and all underwater volcanos and thermal vents. This heat is decidedly different in its effect than the averaged rate of thermal leakage from Earth to sea. How many such features are currently putting out how much heat? What is there recent history? What is their history in the last century? What is the temperature gradient with depth of the plume? How does the heat disdribute?

 

I know they say nothing about global warming; given the reception the idea is greeted with here it is no surprise. As I said before, I am the generalist who is gathering these data from diverse areas and drawing the conclusions. Just because you say something means nothing, means nothing more than that. :hihi:

[Reaper]

Seems to me that pushing carbon in from the bottom, no matter whether animals take it up or it becomes carbolic acid, or meets some other fate, it is carbon added to the oceans otherwise (in addition to) that coming in from the top. Surely no one suggests the lower ocean has no connection to the upper?

 

Now it's become clear that you didn't actually read anything that we have provided. It doesn't accumulate, period. And in the very deep ocean it doesn't even get the chance to for reasons already provided, due to the extreme pressures and temperature in the bottom; the gases basically sink.

 

Now there is besides the issue of the gases, CO2, methane, what have you, the issue of the actual heat plume above any and all underwater volcanos and thermal vents. This heat is decidedly different in its effect than the averaged rate of thermal leakage from Earth to sea. How many such features are currently putting out how much heat? What is there recent history? What is their history in the last century? What is the temperature gradient with depth of the plume? How does the heat disdribute?

 

No, that is not how a planet warms up at all. The actual heat or temperature released from the volcanoes themselves (or anything else that produces a lot of heat in general) doesn't really matter, because most of the energy it releases radiates into space, and/or dissipates out very quickly.

 

 

The reason that a planet would warm up is because the gases trap in the radiation released from the sun. They absorb specific wavelengths, and reflect others out. The energy absorbed from the sun isn't given a chance to escape, and so contributes to raising the temperatures. You can read more about how the greenhouse effect works, right in this site: Greenhouse Effect: Background Material . It is because of this effect that Venus has a temperature high enough to melt lead, and that Earth itself isn't an ice house.

 

I know they say nothing about global warming; given the reception the idea is greeted with here it is no surprise.

 

They don't say anything about global warming because your articles are just talking about the number of volcanoes discovered, and one of them even was alluding to the fact that some of our CO2 emissions might be detrimental to ocean habitats worldwide (something which you did not obviously read).

 

And, all the data indicates otherwise in any case.

 

As I said before, I am the generalist who is gathering these data from diverse areas and drawing the conclusions. Just because you say something means nothing, means nothing more than that. :cup:

 

Handwaving and rhetoric hardly qualifies as collecting data.

[Turtle]

...

They don't say anything about global warming because your articles are just talking about the number of volcanoes discovered, and one of them even was alluding to the fact that some of our CO2 emissions might be detrimental to ocean habitats worldwide (something which you did not obviously read).

 

And, all the data indicates otherwise in any case.

 

Handwaving and rhetoric hardly qualifies as collecting data.

 

:cup: Well, time will tell. Pay no attention to the volcanos behind the curtain; somebody knows all about them. :doh:

[Reaper]

Well, time will tell. Pay no attention to the volcanos behind the curtain; somebody knows all about them.

 

So far as we can tell, the models we have seem pretty accurate, so I'm pretty confident in them. But of course, anything could happen or could come up.......

 

 

And as for my "nasty tone", I'm sorry if I made you feel that way, but I (and many others) would appreciate it if you took the time to really understand the methodology behind it and make sure you research all sides to this (physical or otherwise) before you go off spreading the seeds of doubt.

 

I recommend you read the latest IPCC report on global warming, if it wasn't already posted earlier...:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

 

Most of the global average warming is very likely (i.e. > 90%) due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely (e.g. > 66%) that there is a discernable human induced warming average over each continent (except Antartica)

[Turtle]

:cup: Wouldn't want to give the impression that my challenges of climate modeling go on in a vacum. Here's some thoughts on the topic from a few others.

 

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,390,000 for climate models called into question

 

RealClimate

Irreducible imprecision in atmospheric and oceanic simulations -- McWilliams 104 (21): 8709 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

...Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically,

we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref.

23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.

...

For many purposes that are well demonstrated with present

practices, AOS models are very useful even without the necessity of

carefully determining their precision compared with nature. These

models are structurally unstable in various ways that are not yet well

explored, and this implies a level of irreducible imprecision in their

answers that is not yet well estimated. Their value as scientific tools

is undeniable, and the theoretical limitations in their precision can

become better understood even as their plausibility and practical

utility continue to improve. Whether or not the irreducible imprecision

proves to be a substantial fraction of present AOS discrepancies

with nature, it seems imperative.

 

- Prometheus: The Consistent-With Game: On Climate Models and the Scientific Method Archives

...One of the risks of playing the politics game through science is that you risk turning your science – or at least impressions of it – into pseudo-science. If policy makers and the public begin to believe that climate models are truth machines -- i.e.' date=' nothing that has been, will be, or could be observed could possibly contradict what they say -- then a loss of credibility is sure to follow at some point when experience shows them not to be (and they are not). This doesn’t mean that humans don’t affect the climate or that we shouldn’t be taking aggressive action, only that accurate prediction of the future is really difficult. (For the new reader I am an advocate for strong action on both adaptation and mitigation, despite what you might read in the comments at RC.) ...[/quote']

 

 

 

I love the models, irreducible imprecision and all. Useful as a dull chisel and waiting for unknown data to sharpen them.

[Turtle]

Now it's become clear that you didn't actually read anything that we have provided. ...

Now there is besides the issue of the gases, CO2, methane, what have you, the issue of the actual heat plume above any and all underwater volcanos and thermal vents. This heat is decidedly different in its effect than the averaged rate of thermal leakage from Earth to sea. How many such features are currently putting out how much heat? What is there recent history? What is their history in the last century? What is the temperature gradient with depth of the plume? How does the heat disdribute? ...

No, that is not how a planet warms up at all. The actual heat or temperature released from the volcanoes themselves (or anything else that produces a lot of heat in general) doesn't really matter, because most of the energy it releases radiates into space, and/or dissipates out very quickly.

 

OK First, let me point out that you can't conclude what I haven't read simply because I have a different interpretation, right or wrong. You appear to have read what I wrote above, but simply took a different view. You seem to have magically got that heat energy from the sea floor to space without allowing a consideration of the effect of its passage through the ocean layers to the surface and then the atmosphere. Should we conclude the Arctic underwater volcanism at Gakkel Ridge for example, is not contributing something to the melting of sea ice? NSF - OLPA - PR 01-93: HEALY RESEARCHERS MAKE A SERIES OF STRIKING DISCOVERIES ABOUT ARCTIC OCEAN

 

If we want better models, then one way to achieve that is to gather more data on underwater volcanism for inclusion. ;)

[REASON]

I have to admit Turtle, I'm still having a hard time understanding why this aspect of science is so unreasonable in your mind. I understand wanting to get at the reality of this issue, but this type of resistance by continually trying to subvert established climatological data and reporting appears to suggest that you have a proverbial axe to grind.

 

I don't understand the rationale behind rejecting years of climate science by thousands of respected climate scientists, in favor of alternative theories that by your own admission, have very little supporting evidence. Why does it seem so unfathomable to you that human beings, who for decades have been continually converting stored carbon to CO2 while simutaneously destroying a primary natural CO2 sink with deforestation, could be capable of being a primary factor in observed global warming? Global warming that has rapidly occurred while we have been conducting these activities.

 

I guess I'm still not clear about your frame of mind with this issue. Can you clarify your rejection of climate science?

[Turtle]

I have to admit Turtle, I'm still having a hard time understanding why this aspect of science is so unreasonable in your mind. I understand wanting to get at the reality of this issue, but this type of resistance by continually trying to subvert established climatological data and reporting appears to suggest that you have a proverbial axe to grind.

 

I don't understand the rationale behind rejecting years of climate science by thousands of respected climate scientists, in favor of alternative theories that by your own admission, have very little supporting evidence. Why does it seem so unfathomable to you that human beings, who for decades have been continually converting stored carbon to CO2 while simutaneously destroying a primary natural CO2 sink with deforestation, could be capable of being a primary factor in observed global warming? Global warming that has rapidly occurred while we have been conducting these activities.

 

I guess I'm still not clear about your frame of mind with this issue. Can you clarify your rejection of climate science?

 

Can I clarify? I have no idea. Will I try, again? Sure; but given all the hostility here, and now I see out there in cyberland, I suspect it's the last time for a while. Thanks for asking nicely. :)

 

What I see as unreasonable is an alarmist call to political & social action with the aim of purposefully altering the entire globe's dynamic system and justified primarily on the veracity of computer models of limited scope, resolution and computational capacity.

 

My axe is the same one I use in all topics that catch my interest, the generalist's axe with its sharp attention to details. A lack of supporting evidence does not mean no supporting evidence. :D ;)