My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by 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

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. >> Underwater Volcanism

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by REASON

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.

Of course, you are right, Reason. The greenhouse-gas line includes .
I was trying to make the point that 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 emitting from volcanoes.", is not shown by the graph. The volcanic forcing does not specify " 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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Of course, you are right, Reason. The greenhouse-gas line includes .
I was trying to make the point that 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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

...
I was trying to make the point that 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 emitting from volcanoes.", is not shown by the graph. The volcanic forcing does not specify " from volcanos" (from the graph).

Originally Posted by Reasonable

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!

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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:

Originally Posted by LogicalScience

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]

Originally Posted by Reaper

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by LogicalScience

...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.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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.

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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.