My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Acknowledged on the holy bridge...errr...holey bridge, twixt us.

Very clever Turtle.

Spank my bottom & call me Sally!

Uhhh...let me check my calendar....yep, I'm busy for the rest of...my life, sorry.

If I make the charcoal myself in my little retort, with its 7 to 1 return on wood/charcoal, that's a whopping 434 pounds of woot. What if I walk there at ~ 2 miles an hour?

Yeah, it's a little disheartening when you look at the numbers this way.
But, thinking in terms of acres of farmland, yet to be charred, it becomes much more hopeful (not so much for the backyard enthusiast unfortunately).

Offset underwater-volcano carbon influx through char

[Michaelangelica]

Fox News Promotes Global Warming Deniers, Says US Should Fear "Cooling"

Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress at 3:57 PM on March 3, 2008.

This staged conference "proves" little more than that a group funded by Big Oil can easily attract sham scientists to tout the industry’s line.

This morning, Fox and Friends trumpeted the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute’s global warming skeptics conference, taking place this week in New York City. Fox hosted Dan Gainor, the vice president of the Business and Media institute, a group run by the right-wing Media Research Center.

Fox host Steve Doocy used to segment to tout the “bitterly cold” weather and the “worst winter,” suggesting global warming is a sham:

Despite it being bitterly cold outside in the Northern plains, we hear a lot about global warming, and that we better do something to fix it or we’re doomed. But is there another side to this story? Many scientists would say yes, but most media outlets, the mainstream media, only cover Al Gore’s earth has a fever perspective. […] In fact, last week we were reporting that this is the worst winter in some parts of America and around the world, and perhaps we should be worried now about global cooling.

AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: Fox News Promotes Global Warming Deniers, Says US Should Fear "Cooling"

[Reaper]

I see that you too also have your share of deniers. Ah well, time to pull out a little known graph I came across in my travels...

Wait, hold on, can't put in an image either. Well, here's the link, just copy it and put it in: solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

You will see a graph.

[freeztar]

Welcome Reaper!

That is a good graph. I'm pretty sure it's been posted here before, but it's one worth repeating.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Welcome Reaper!

That is a good graph. I'm pretty sure it's been posted here before, but it's one worth repeating.

Mmmm...so that shows volcanism going down, (I presume that's terrestrial volcanism and not including underwater volcanism we have no data for), 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.
Lunar eclipse may shed light on climate change - space - 03 March 2008 - New Scientist Space
Furthermore, because there is a general match between model and actual circumstance, the implication is that the model is accurate, never mind the wide variations on shorter scales one see there or the tweeking along the way as time flows and the model is ammended to match results.

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

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Furthermore, because there is a general match between model and actual circumstance, the implication is that the model is accurate, never mind the wide variations on shorter scales

Turtle, can I ask that you, at the very least, express this quantitatively? Your qualitative comment is vague, does not have any parameters, and is not consistent.

I suggest that your comment above is more like "that was a super on the scale of awesome," as opposed to the more appreciated scientific feedback of, "I noticed an error +/- 3% due to the minimum and maximum of the volcanic forcing graph. I'd like to ask more about that..."


Can you appreciate the importance of this request? When you do math, you don't give an answer of "x equals a blueish sort of color with a faint like hue of cloudy marine skies." You say, "x = this."

Why should your challenges of global climate change be any different?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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).

Originally Posted by Turltotal

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.

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

Originally Posted by Turquoter

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

From the article...

Originally Posted by newscientist

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.

Originally Posted by newscientist

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...

Originally Posted by Turtlenator

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).

Originally Posted by Turtlewind

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.)

Originally Posted by Turtlerupt

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.

Originally Posted by Turtler

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

That *is* the intent.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

...
(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.)...

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.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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

The 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