My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[freeztar]

Mmmm...so that shows volcanism going down

 

No, that's not what I read from the graph.

I see that modeled volcanic forcing response (VFR) has varied greatly over the last thirty or so years, while the observed *and* modeled temperature change has risen positively despite negative Celsius VFR.

(I presume that's terrestrial volcanism and not including underwater volcanism we have no data for)

 

I wouldn't say we have *no* data for them, but I hear your point (for the 20th time).

 

and that derease in terrestrial volcanism by the new evidence I earlier posted is potentially driving driving warming. I get the sense the graph means to imply otherwise as if it is only a concern about CO2 emitting from volcanoes. :shrug:

 

I see no mention of [ce]CO2[/ce] on the graph, so I'm straining to see the implication you suggest. Can you be more specific?

 

Lunar eclipse may shed light on climate change - space - 03 March 2008 - New Scientist Space

 

From the article...

 

Because more sunlight is reaching the surface, Earth should be 0.1 to 0.2° Celsius warmer in recent years than it was back in the late 1960s, Keen and his colleagues calculate. Over the same period, the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen by about 0.6° C.

 

So again, solar forcing falls short.

 

Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, a member of the Nobel-prize-winning team that put together the 2007 IPCC report, says atmospheric haze, including haze from volcanoes, was included in computer models used for the report.

 

Another quote from the article...

 

Furthermore, because there is a general match between model and actual circumstance, the implication is that the model is accurate

 

Cause and effect. The level of accuracy is a constant dispute (or at least was a constant dispute when I was formally studying climate models in college 6 or so years back; a lot has changed since then and I'm not at the same level of familiarity with current climate models as I was back then).

 

never mind the wide variations on shorter scales one see there

 

These wide variations are accounted for. The graph is not the data. The map is not the territory.

 

(anticipating a rebuttal that says, "Exactly, the map is not the territory. The models are not reality." I repeat that models are just that, models. Nonetheless, assuming an intricate orienteering exercise, I would rather have a GPS unit (despite their faults) rather than a compass.)

 

or the tweeking along the way as time flows and the model is ammended to match results.

In that respect, terrestrial volcano prediction studies should be halted because the models are constantly tweaked to match the results.

No need to respond, I'm sure the next model is going to be much better.

 

That *is* the intent. :)

[Turtle]

...

(anticipating a rebuttal that says, "Exactly, the map is not the territory. The models are not reality." I repeat that models are just that, models. Nonetheless, assuming an intricate orienteering exercise, I would rather have a GPS unit (despite their faults) rather than a compass.)... :)

 

:D Rebuttal yes; 21st no. :) Instead, to the compass vs. GPS argument; I can go & make a workable compass and clinometer in 15 minutes. I would rather have the know how. :shrug:

[REASON]

I see no mention of [ce]CO2[/ce] on the graph, so I'm straining to see the implication you suggest. Can you be more specific?

 

The [ce]CO2[/ce] would be represented on the graph as included in the blue "Greenhouse Gases" line. That reading is considered separate from the green "Volcanic" activity line. The slight increase in the "solar line" may be consistant with the minor decrease in the average of volcanic activity as implied by the article, and therefore only registering as a minor contributor to the increase in average temperature.

 

The way I see it, this model is consistent with both the article, and the noted increase in average temperature. And I think this consistency gives credibility to it.

 

I am by no means an expert on climate models, but I'm pretty sure I can read a graph.

[Michaelangelica]

Well I was in the middle of posting afew links on mud and underwater volcanoes but my server went down

So to cut to the chase, these volcanoes mainly emit methane.

According to Tim Flannery world methane levels have been going down over the last eight years.

So maybe the volcanoes are having a rest :)

[Turtle]

Well I was in the middle of posting afew links on mud and underwater volcanoes but my server went down

So to cut to the chase, these volcanoes mainly emit methane.

According to Tim Flannery world methane levels have been going down over the last eight years.

So maybe the volcanoes are having a rest :shrug:

 

That is a presumptuous mis-generalization for one, and (sorry Freez) for the 21st time, the number of underwater volcanoes has only been recently reevaluated at 10 times the earlier estimates (from 20,000 to 212,000+). That's not yet in the models. Moreover, only a relative few of the known underwater volcanoes have the kind of data from study that tells what they do & for how long, and when. One underwater volcano we found over in the underwater volcanism thread is spewing out jets of liquid CO2. Here's that link where you can add your discoveries on this fascinating subject. :) >> http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/13926-underwater-volcanism.html

[freeztar]

The [ce]CO2[/ce] would be represented on the graph as included in the blue "Greenhouse Gases" line. That reading is considered separate from the green "Volcanic" activity line. The slight increase in the "solar line" may be consistant with the minor decrease in the average of volcanic activity as implied by the article, and therefore only registering as a minor contributor to the increase in average temperature.

 

The way I see it, this model is consistent with both the article, and the noted increase in average temperature. And I think this consistency gives credibility to it.

 

I am by no means an expert on climate models, but I'm pretty sure I can read a graph.

 

Of course, you are right, Reason. The greenhouse-gas line includes [ce]CO2[/ce].

I was trying to make the point that [ce]CO2[/ce] is not being singled out here. Hence, Turtle's statement from above, "I get the sense the graph means to imply otherwise as if it is only a concern about [ce]CO2[/ce] emitting from volcanoes.", is not shown by the graph. The volcanic forcing does not specify "[ce]CO2[/ce] from volcanos" (from the graph).

 

Here's a good link that emphasizes the science behind climate-modeling, in layman terms.

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/ar4wg1faq-8-1.pdf

[REASON]

Of course, you are right, Reason. The greenhouse-gas line includes [ce]CO2[/ce].

I was trying to make the point that [ce]CO2[/ce] is not being singled out here.

 

Sorry. I probably shouldn't have used your quote. I knew you understood the Greenhouse Gas line. I was using your quote as a segue to make my point that the model seemed consistent with the article as I saw it. Turtle seemed to see it differently I thought.

[Turtle]

...

I was trying to make the point that [ce]CO2[/ce] is not being singled out here. Hence, Turtle's statement from above, "I get the sense the graph means to imply otherwise as if it is only a concern about [ce]CO2[/ce] emitting from volcanoes.", is not shown by the graph. The volcanic forcing does not specify "[ce]CO2[/ce] from volcanos" (from the graph).

 

Sorry. I probably shouldn't have used your quote. I knew you understood the Greenhouse Gas line. I was using your quote as a segue to make my point that the model seemed consistent with the article as I saw it. Turtle seemed to see it differently I thought.

 

As I understand it, the terrestrial volcanism is included both because of the CO2, methane, water vapor, gasses o'plenty, as well as the particulates they emit. Given the great variability of eruption type both among volcanoes in different locals as well as singular volcanoes, the graph gives me the impression that volcanism is somehow homogenous or 'normalized. In the last couple thousand years my nearby St. Helens has blown up, slowly erupted in dome building as it is now, and erupted runny lava like we see in Hawaii.

 

Coming back to the modeling, the models are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, and note on the graph at 1900 the model & observed lines meet. Well they should at the start, as all good models do. Now drag back in that dirty red-headed stepchild the underwater volcano, and where is it in the initial conditions? As we are beginning to learn, underwater volcanoes are every bit as variable and unpredictable as their terrestrial sisters and then some.

 

One certain way to better models is more data at higher resolution. To the Bat Sub Robin! :bat:

[Reaper]

Coming back to the modeling, the models are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, and note on the graph at 1900 the model & observed lines meet. Well they should at the start, as all good models do. Now drag back in that dirty red-headed stepchild the underwater volcano, and where is it in the initial conditions? As we are beginning to learn, underwater volcanoes are every bit as variable and unpredictable as their terrestrial sisters and then some.

 

Do you mind being a little more specific, preferebly with a peer-reviewed source?

 

And, I would suggest you take a look at this little site over here, about climate modeling (you are going to have to type it in yourself, since I can't post links yet):

 

logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

 

Here are some specific quotes:

 

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;

 

Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere. For a while satellite readings seemed to disagree but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors due to changing orbit (gravity pulling on satellite), sensor issues, etc and on correction, this warming has been observed;

 

Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved, in favor of the models.

 

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed.

 

Models have successfully reconstructed ocean heat content. (Fig 6)

 

Cheers.

[Turtle]

Do you mind being a little more specific, preferebly with a peer-reviewed source?

 

And, I would suggest you take a look at this little site over here, about climate modeling (you are going to have to type it in yourself, since I can't post links yet):

 

logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

 

Here are some specific quotes:

 

 

 

Cheers.

 

Here's that link: Logical Science

 

... If you are wondering why there is a dip in temperatures after 1991 it's because that is the year Mount Pinatubo erupted. The ash tends to block light and cool the earth. The models do account for volcanic eruptions. However, it's simply impossible to predict the exact time and date these events will occur. Unless you are an expert you won't have the background to understand why one year is slightly off and the next year is lined up with the models. This is why it's important to view the general trend and not any specific year. And as you can see the overall trend is a very good match. ...

 

What kind of volcanism; explosive, thick magma, runny magma? How do the physics of these different types of eruption affect the atmosphere? How have they varied over time? Do the models account for underwater volcanism? I don't see that mentioned. Nor do I see any mention of deep ocean conditions such as temperature, gas content, or biota, just surface.

 

...The climate models used by the IPCC and NASA are not statistical models. NASA's climate models make their predictions based off of the laws of physics. Since the models are based off of physics comparing them to the past is almost as good as testing them with predictions of the future. Another advantage of physical models over statistical models is best described by physicist Ulf Bossel: "the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes." There may be gaps in our knowledge but once a mechanism is understood the physics used to describe that mechanism is not going to change. ...

 

So again, what are the phyics of underwater volcanism and how does that affect the climate? Pretty big gap in our knowledge if you ask me. :hihi:

[freeztar]

So again, what are the phyics of underwater volcanism and how does that affect the climate? Pretty big gap in our knowledge if you ask me. :hihi:

 

You've defeated your own argument right here.

How is it a pretty big gap? How do you know that the effect is not negligible?

 

Until we have the data, it is presumptious to attribute underwater volcanism to climate change, *either way*. Hence, the scientist don't account for them. This will likely change in the future.

 

I believe this horse is quite dead.

[Turtle]

You've defeated your own argument right here.

How is it a pretty big gap? How do you know that the effect is not negligible?

 

Until we have the data, it is presumptious to attribute underwater volcanism to climate change, *either way*. Hence, the scientist don't account for them. This will likely change in the future.

 

I believe this horse is quite dead.

 

You have to be kidding!? If terrestrial volcanism is not negligable enough to leave out, how exactly is it underwater volcanism is any different? :hihi:

[freeztar]

You have to be kidding!? If terrestrial volcanism is not negligable enough to leave out, how exactly is it underwater volcanism is any different? :)

 

The difference is that we have vast amounts of data on terrestrial volcanos. Underwater volcanos, not so much.

 

Since the ocean is the largest carbon sink in the world, I would suspect that volcanos in and under the ocean would have a different effect than terrestrial volcanos. More or less of an effect? I don't know and neither do you. (unless of course you have a source to back up your claim)

[Turtle]

The difference is that we have vast amounts of data on terrestrial volcanos. Underwater volcanos, not so much.

 

Since the ocean is the largest carbon sink in the world, I would suspect that volcanos in and under the ocean would have a different effect than terrestrial volcanos. More or less of an effect? I don't know and neither do you. (unless of course you have a source to back up your claim)

 

;) My skepticism and arguments are my own. That you et al do not 'see' the math problems as do I is no small surprise. Whether or not my perspective is of any value, I can only suggest you try for an objective opinion by reading my math postings here at Hypography. If you should find I say something you don't understand or never thought of in such a way, then you might pause and ask yourself if maybe the case here is the same. This particular thread is focussed on skepticism and so reasoned skepticism is what I am giving.

 

No less am I actively contributing reasoned ideas and actions to the threads that assume anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is the culprit, so painting me as an enemy of action toward environmental care or some such is rather an empty brush. :)

[Reaper]

Relating volcanoes, humans and CO2 emissions:

 

volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

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)

 

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.

[freeztar]

Great post Reaper! :)

 

---

 

:D My skepticism and arguments are my own. That you et al do not 'see' the math problems as do I is no small surprise. Whether or not my perspective is of any value, I can only suggest you try for an objective opinion by reading my math postings here at Hypography. If you should find I say something you don't understand or never thought of in such a way, then you might pause and ask yourself if maybe the case here is the same. This particular thread is focussed on skepticism and so reasoned skepticism is what I am giving.

 

That's an "Appeal to authority" fallacy.

Demonstrating the math errors would be convincing. Otherwise, it's hearsay and not very scientific in comparison to the mountains of data being produced by professional scientists and researchers.

 

No less am I actively contributing reasoned ideas and actions to the threads that assume anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is the culprit, so painting me as an enemy of action toward environmental care or some such is rather an empty brush. ;)

 

Huh? :)

Where have I painted you as "an enemy of action toward environmental care"?

[Turtle]

That's an "Appeal to authority" fallacy.

 

I grant you the appeal to authority, and raise you a proof of its fallacy.

 

Demonstrating the math errors would be convincing.

I have and you don't understand the demonstration no matter how I phrase it. What's a turtle to do?

 

Huh? :)

Where have I painted you as "an enemy of action toward environmental care"?

I see it as the background of the skepticism of my skepticism, and more or less then, written between the lines. If it is not the case for you, my bad, but there is no denying the world at large expresses that view and I am attempting to put my case in context in order to clarify it.

 

Models are great and I love them; but they are just one tool in the box, and one that requires constant honing no less. As a carpenter, one is expected to show up with the proper tools to work, and while showing up with no chisel is an amateurs goof, showing up with only a chisel is a gaff. :) ;)