My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[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 (C), 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!

---

Originally Posted by Turtle

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

That's an "Appeal to authority" fallacy.

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

Originally Posted by Freezter

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?

Originally Posted by Freezener

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.

[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.

Team probes mysteries of oceanic bacteria

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

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]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Besides the underwater volcanism

Turtle, can you address Reaper's post above?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Turtle, can you address Reaper's post above?

Roger that. Apparently I was typing when it went up.

All aboard the Yellow Submarine....

Originally Posted by Reaperer

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)

Originally Posted by USGS

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 (C), 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.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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?

On another note...

Originally Posted by NASA

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.

Originally Posted by NASA

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