My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

20k-3 million you say...
What's the standard deviation on that one look like?

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

Originally Posted by Freezoid

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

Originally Posted by NASA

... 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. >> 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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.

Handwaving and rhetoric hardly qualifies as collecting data.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Reaper

...
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.

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

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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"

Originally Posted by IPCC report part 6

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]

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

Originally Posted by James C. McWilliams

...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., 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.) ...

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

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Reaper

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.