Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SO2 is an aerosol, volcanos cause global cooling, if the eruption is a major one like Pinatubo global temps will drop four a year or two....you verify my point that if you don't understand the science you can't make an informed opinion...

'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?'

Durkin went on to reject his opponents' position that the cooling period observed post Second World War was caused by sulphate aerosol cooling: "Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?"
Edited by bjre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

SO2 is an aerosol, volcanos cause global cooling, if the eruption is a major one like Pinatubo global temps will drop four a year or two....you verify my point that if you don't understand the science you can't make an informed opinion...

But it's still fun to bust your globally warmed balls....obviously you have never been to the Philippines! Not so cool right now.....LOL!

The 1990's has warming according to your last fable, and that was after Pinatubo blew its top. Please get your story straight oh wise one.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there are criticism in the web, some of which are from those people who have built their careers and reputations on it. There are lots of opinion on the web support it as well, which makes me think lots of that in the film maybe true.
it fools people who are not well versed in the topic and want to believe the message, the more you learn the more feeble it appears...
I have no idea how can isotope signature tell CO2 is out of your nose or from a monkey's nose. And I don't know what is difference between CO2 from your nephew's nose with those produce by a car as a greenhouse gas. :-)
it's grade 11 chemistry and I've given you the key "isotopes" really if you're an engineer you should know this...
Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's still fun to bust your globally warmed balls....obviously you have never been to the Philippines! Not so cool right now.....LOL!

The 1990's has warming according to your last fable, and that was after Pinatubo blew its top. Please get your story straight oh wise one.

no one can accuse me of being rude while you make yourself look foolish...really I'm embarrassed for for you...

a volcano will cause short term cooling of the planet they don't warm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just as I explained the constant of solar radiation, anthropogenic SO2 is factored in...SO2 is an aerosol it cools the planet...that cooling effect is present and will mask/counter some of the CO2 GHG effects...the question is then how much warmer would the average Global temp be without the cooling properties of SO2...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no one can accuse me of being rude while you make yourself look foolish...really I'm embarrassed for for you...

a volcano will cause short term cooling of the planet they don't warm...

Warming or cooling is not the issue....GHGs are, and active volcanoes definitely emit CO2....and have been doing so for billions of years. Anthropogenic forcing with more emissions over a much shorter period of time does not a disaster make.

Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. (wikipedia).

I am not embarrassed for you, since you have been foolish the entire time.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warming or cooling is not the issue....GHGs are, and active volcanoes definitely emit CO2....and have been doing so for billions of years. Anthropogenic forcing with more emissions over a much shorter period of time does not a disaster make.

Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. (wikipedia).

I am not embarrassed for you, since you have been foolish the entire time.

so... what's your point? Volcanoes have a short term SO2=>H2SO4 induced cooling impact, typically in the order of a few short months - wyly showed you that with his graphic link. As a reinforcement to that:

Volcanoes that pose the greatest threat are those that erupt with sufficient force and thermal structure to lift massive quantities of effluent into the stratosphere. Some of the effluent turns into small sulfuric acid droplets that remain in the stratosphere for many months, up to a few years. It is the influence of these droplets on solar and thermal radiation that can affect short-term climate. There are several ways that the volcanic droplets can influence the earth's energy budget, which in turn has the capability to force changes in the world's wind and weather patterns. Most basically, the droplets block the sun's energy from entering the lower portion of the atmosphere, or troposphere, and the warming of the earth's surface and troposphere is reduced. A lesser effect of the acid drops is to block some of the outgoing infrared radiation from the earth's surface, similar to (but physically different from) water vapor and other greenhouse gases, thus causing a slight warming. Research has shown that the cooling (reduced warming) from the blocked sunlight is a much greater influence than the enhanced warming caused by the trapping of infrared energy so that a net cooling is realized near the earth's surface, as was observed following Mt. Pinatubo (1991). The manner in which the radiative cooling is manifested around the planet is a complex set of events including changes in ocean heat storage and influences on wind patterns and precipitation events which are also simultaneously affected by many unrelated factors such that the exact influence of the volcano may be difficult to discern

the following link/quote corroborates your yearly volcano CO2 emissions release figure... and puts it into context as compared to yearly human CO2 emission release activities. Again, what's your point?

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 ©, 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)

when you state, "Anthropogenic forcing with more emissions"... is this quoted anthropogenic versus volcano emission difference (30 billion tons versus 145-255 million tons)... "more enough" for you to consider anthropogenic emissions as measurably significant - in relation to volcanoes? To consider volcanic CO2 emissions, relative to anthropogenic emissions, as measurably insignificant? Again, what was your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you state, "Anthropogenic forcing with more emissions"... is this quoted anthropogenic versus volcano emission difference (30 billion tons versus 145-255 million tons)... "more enough" for you to consider anthropogenic emissions as measurably significant - in relation to volcanoes? To consider volcanic CO2 emissions, relative to anthropogenic emissions, as measurably insignificant? Again, what was your point?

The point is obvious vis-a-vis any GHG source and sink modeling over millions of years vs. a mere millennia for land masses/oceans, feedback loops, leading/lagging indicators, proxies, etc., etc. Volcanism has continued unabated for billions of years, confounding any assumed "balance" in the imagination of so called "climate experts". Mankind's "forcing" is a very short term event on a very long time horizon with mechanisms still not entirely understood.

Copenhagen was not really about guarantees for reductions in warming (that would be another fairy tale), just the political exercise in promising reductions and wealth transfer to developing nations...it failed at that. If it were about "global cooling", the political process would be exactly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is obvious vis-a-vis any GHG source and sink modeling over millions of years vs. a mere millennia for land masses/oceans, feedback loops, leading/lagging indicators, proxies, etc., etc. Volcanism has continued unabated for billions of years, confounding any assumed "balance" in the imagination of so called "climate experts". Mankind's "forcing" is a very short term event on a very long time horizon with mechanisms still not entirely understood.

Copenhagen was not really about guarantees for reductions in warming (that would be another fairy tale), just the political exercise in promising reductions and wealth transfer to developing nations...it failed at that. If it were about "global cooling", the political process would be exactly the same.

notwithstanding your musings about Copenhagen, in the context of this volcano related discussion you and wyly were having... why not make your "obvious" point up front, rather than dance around "millions of years versus millennia"... while at the same time quoting a yearly volcano CO2 emission release figure! Huh! What's the assumed balance you refer to... and what's the confounding aspect of volcanoes to that balance? It would seem much is known about volcanoes impact on both short-term climate affect and CO2 emission levels. Again... what's the confounding you speak to? Regardless of your statement towards the duration and time frame of anthropogenic forcings... what does that have to do with - volcanoes - and the volcanic CO2 GHG emission emphasis you made?... which really seems a somewhat misplaced emphasis given the significant disparity in CO2 release levels - wouldn't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

notwithstanding your musings about Copenhagen, in the context of this volcano related discussion you and wyly were having... why not make your "obvious" point up front, rather than dance around "millions of years versus millennia"...

Because it is obvious that volcanism has continued far longer to even a child.

while at the same time quoting a yearly volcano CO2 emission release figure! Huh! What's the assumed balance you refer to... and what's the confounding aspect of volcanoes to that balance?

Because that is the estimated annual CO2 emission from volcanoes...the rest of the exercise is left to the student with rudimentary understanding of a modern calculator or paper calculations.

It would seem much is known about volcanoes impact on both short-term climate affect and CO2 emission levels. Again... what's the confounding you speak to? Regardless of your statement towards the duration and time frame of anthropogenic forcings... what does that have to do with - volcanoes - and the volcanic CO2 GHG emission emphasis you made?... which really seems a somewhat misplaced emphasis given the significant disparity in CO2 release levels - wouldn't you think?

Not at all....you would have us believe that a "balanced" source/sink model over millions (if not billions) of years suddenly is sent out of whack by manmade forcing over a very modest timeline because of acute emissions two orders of magnitude greater than volcanism (in the case of CO2). Either the forcing mechanism is very weak, extremely non-linear, subject to more complex factors of unknown duration, or all of the above.

Climate "experts" think they have put volcanism to bed just like Cindy Lou Who with their aerosol magic and correlations to glaciation, but it remains a thorny problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

notwithstanding your musings about Copenhagen, in the context of this volcano related discussion you and wyly were having... why not make your "obvious" point up front, rather than dance around "millions of years versus millennia"... while at the same time quoting a yearly volcano CO2 emission release figure! Huh! What's the assumed balance you refer to... and what's the confounding aspect of volcanoes to that balance?

Because it is obvious that volcanism has continued far longer to even a child.

Because that is the estimated annual CO2 emission from volcanoes...the rest of the exercise is left to the student with rudimentary understanding of a modern calculator or paper calculations.

so wyly shows you up for your lack of understanding of the warming/cooling affects of volcanoes... and you childishly deflect to state "Warming or cooling is not the issue....GHGs are, and active volcanoes definitely emit CO2". You quote a one-sided figure for yearly volcanic CO2 emissions while conveniently ignoring the dramatically larger figure for yearly anthropogenic CO2 emissions... perhaps your rudimentary calculations could not deal with the huge disparity between the two CO2 emission levels, volcanic versus anthropogenic :lol: I note you didn't attempt to clarify your statement concerning balance and the volcanic affect that confounds that balance... perhaps you were confounded in attempting to articulate that "confounding balance"!

It would seem much is known about volcanoes impact on both short-term climate affect and CO2 emission levels. Again... what's the confounding you speak to? Regardless of your statement towards the duration and time frame of anthropogenic forcings... what does that have to do with - volcanoes - and the volcanic CO2 GHG emission emphasis you made?... which really seems a somewhat misplaced emphasis given the significant disparity in CO2 release levels - wouldn't you think?
Not at all....you would have us believe that a "balanced" source/sink model over millions (if not billions) of years suddenly is sent out of whack by manmade forcing over a very modest timeline because of acute emissions two orders of magnitude greater than volcanism (in the case of CO2). Either the forcing mechanism is very weak, extremely non-linear, subject to more complex factors of unknown duration, or all of the above.

Climate "experts" think they have put volcanism to bed just like Cindy Lou Who with their aerosol magic and correlations to glaciation, but it remains a thorny problem.

duh! Apparently, to you... imbalance can't occur if there's been previous "balance". No factor can impact to shift that balance - because... it's a long-standing balance!!! :lol: You are correct though; the radiative forcing for volcanic activity is very weak (very small) in relation to the radiative forcing from human activities. From IPCC AR4 WG1 - Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing:

Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes

Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo). The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.

that thorny volcanism problem you speak to is HUGE!... although it appears these guys managed to scratch out something on the back of a napkin... something about negative feedback and a (relatively) short response time :lol:

Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity λ and response time τ for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower troposphere, measurements of the long wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density. Using standard linear response theory we find λ = 0.15 ± 0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of −1.4 (+0.7, −1.6). The intrinsic response time is τ = 6.8 ± 1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm that involves long response times and positive feedback.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....I note you didn't attempt to clarify your statement concerning balance and the volcanic affect that confounds that balance... perhaps you were confounded in attempting to articulate that "confounding balance"!

Try to pay attention....we're discussing Copenhagen....GHGs...reductions to. Warming (or cooling) is the assumed effect of politicized reductions in emissions. Volcanoes don't give a damn about politics or carbon credit markets, and offer a relatively well rsearched benchmark and correlation to glaciation periods. That's why I like them....the Philippines was also great for liberty (Subic Bay). Other like them too when playing the Global Warming Game:

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/9785/Global_warming_smokescreen.html

duh! Apparently, to you... imbalance can't occur if there's been previous "balance". No factor can impact to shift that balance - because... it's a long-standing balance!!! :lol: You are correct though; the radiative forcing for volcanic activity is very weak (very small) in relation to the radiative forcing from human activities.

It's not balance at all...never has been. The "system" is not closed and has been very dynamic over a longer time horizon. But it's fun to use and play with with the lexicon of our climate priesthood as they pray at the alter. There is no shortage of magic feedback loops in their toolkit.

that thorny volcanism problem you speak to is HUGE!... although it appears these guys managed to scratch out something on the back of a napkin... something about negative feedback and a (relatively) short response time :lol:

They sure did, because they had to suppress the obvious. No matter....the "collossal" manmade contribution over a very short duration cannot impact the source/sink relationship as a step function. No need to plant orange groves in Greenland just yet.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is obvious vis-a-vis any GHG source and sink modeling over millions of years vs. a mere millennia for land masses/oceans, feedback loops, leading/lagging indicators, proxies, etc., etc. Volcanism has continued unabated for billions of years, confounding any assumed "balance" in the imagination of so called "climate experts". Mankind's "forcing" is a very short term event on a very long time horizon with mechanisms still not entirely understood.

Copenhagen was not really about guarantees for reductions in warming (that would be another fairy tale), just the political exercise in promising reductions and wealth transfer to developing nations...it failed at that. If it were about "global cooling", the political process would be exactly the same.

volcanism is a constant just as solar forcing is a constant...changes in CO2 output from volcanism are relatively very small and the SO2 counters/masks CO2....even the effects of super volcanos is small... when volcanism is truely massive and sustained such as the Siberian Traps or Deccan traps is there good cause to suspect climate change where CO2 is the driver...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so wyly shows you up for your lack of understanding of the warming/cooling affects of volcanoes... and you childishly deflect to state "Warming or cooling is not the issue....GHGs are, and active volcanoes definitely emit CO2". You quote a one-sided figure for yearly volcanic CO2 emissions while conveniently ignoring the dramatically larger figure for yearly anthropogenic CO2 emissions... perhaps your rudimentary calculations could not deal with the huge disparity between the two CO2 emission levels, volcanic versus anthropogenic :lol: I note you didn't attempt to clarify your statement concerning balance and the volcanic affect that confounds that balance... perhaps you were confounded in attempting to articulate that "confounding balance"!

Try to pay attention....we're discussing Copenhagen....GHGs...reductions to. Warming (or cooling) is the assumed effect of politicized reductions in emissions. Volcanoes don't give a damn about politics or carbon credit markets, and offer a relatively well rsearched benchmark and correlation to glaciation periods. That's why I like them....the Philippines was also great for liberty (Subic Bay). Other like them too when playing the Global Warming Game:

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/9785/Global_warming_smokescreen.html

ok, you’re wildly spinning now… after wyly updates your misunderstandings, you shift the discussion away from temperature (warming/cooling), claiming GHG-CO2 volcanic emissions are the real issue. When the most significant difference in CO2 emissions (anthropogenic versus volcanoes) is pointed out, you flip back to a temperature theme with this latest post link to a decade old Heartland Institute article… oh my… anything a bit more current… from a reputable unbiased source? ...you must have really scrambled to find that Heartland Institute/Michaels gem. Without offering any comment you dropped a blind link to a dated “article” that references an early 2000 Santer et al study that speaks to what was, at that time, an apparent lack of tropospheric warming from 1979… that is to say, a perceived difference between surface and tropospheric warming rates. The study concludes by acknowledging:

a significant difference between models and data in terms of their relative temperature changes at the surface and in the lower troposphere. This discrepancy is probably related to a combination of four factors: forcing uncertainties, model errors, residual uncertainties in the surface and MSU 2LT data, and signal estimation problems.

The study conclusion continues to elaborate on each of the four factors and finishes with the statements,

These results highlight the difficulty of reliably estimating the climate responses to different forcing mechanisms without multiple realizations for each forcing experiment. All of these factors make it difficult to determine the precise cause or causes of recent observed surface-troposphere temperature trend differences. To better understand these causes, we urgently require additional simulations of the climate of the past two decades. Such simulations should be performed with a variety of models and should explore current uncertainties in key natural and anthropogenic forcings, using multiple realizations of each experiment

Imagine… scientists acknowledging discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems… and yet… somehow the Heartland Institute/Michaels clap-trap interprets an author’s (Santer et al) self-serving misrepresentation while at the same time throwing innuendo around – beauty!

In any case, you can choose to while away in the Heartland Institute fallacious past… or you can recognize that science progresses – go figure! Santer… one of the most distinguished and recognized atmospheric scientists… has been most busy this past decade since that early 2000 paper – busy in bringing forward a most prolific body of work with multiple papers per year. With this, your latest temperature-GHG-temperature spin-cycle, perhaps you’ll give passing acknowledgment to this 2008 Santer et al paper: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a potentially serious inconsistency between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006).
Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs).
We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes.
We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.
This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not significantly different from those in all other model simulations.
Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test
. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society

... or perhaps you have a more current Heartland Institute response! :lol:

Not at all....you would have us believe that a "balanced" source/sink model over millions (if not billions) of years suddenly is sent out of whack by manmade forcing over a very modest timeline because of acute emissions two orders of magnitude greater than volcanism (in the case of CO2). Either the forcing mechanism is very weak, extremely non-linear, subject to more complex factors of unknown duration, or all of the above.

duh! Apparently, to you... imbalance can't occur if there's been previous "balance". No factor can impact to shift that balance - because... it's a long-standing balance!!! :lol:
It's not balance at all...never has been. The "system" is not closed and has been very dynamic over a longer time horizon. But it's fun to use and play with with the lexicon of our climate priesthood as they pray at the alter. There is no shortage of magic feedback loops in their toolkit.

you're the one that brought the issue of 'balance' forward... you're the one that nuances the word every other post... oh, wait... apparently, you're playing with the lexicon! Are you claiming a balance, or lack thereof, can't be influenced to set forward either an imbalance or to amplify an existing imbalance? You spoke earlier to your 'fondness' for volcanic correlation to glaciation periods... perhaps you'd like to speak to the ice-core interpretations of those periods CO2 ppm concentrations, where you describe "billions of years" of volcanic activity, and compare it with today's CO2 ppm level (with continued ongoing volcanic activity). Anything in your magic toolkit, at the alter you pray to... to account for those CO2 ppm level differences? Anything?

that thorny volcanism problem you speak to is HUGE!... although it appears these guys managed to scratch out something on the back of a napkin... something about negative feedback and a (relatively) short response time :lol:

Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity λ and response time τ for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower troposphere, measurements of the long wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density. Using standard linear response theory we find λ = 0.15 ± 0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of −1.4 (+0.7, −1.6). The intrinsic response time is τ = 6.8 ± 1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm that involves long response times and positive feedback.

They sure did, because they had to suppress the obvious. No matter....the "collossal" manmade contribution over a very short duration cannot impact the source/sink relationship as a step function. No need to plant orange groves in Greenland just yet.

referring to the obviousness of the obvious... is such an obvious tactic in debate! Add in suppression of the obvious obviousness and... bingo! Do you have an Engrish interpretation of how best to decipher your source/sink step function proclamation... you know, something to correlate and attribute, "collossal", contribution, duration, impact and relationships therein. In Engrish!... even Americanese will do :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....referring to the obviousness of the obvious... is such an obvious tactic in debate! Add in suppression of the obvious obviousness and... bingo! Do you have an Engrish interpretation of how best to decipher your source/sink step function proclamation... you know, something to correlate and attribute, "collossal", contribution, duration, impact and relationships therein. In Engrish!... even Americanese will do :lol:

Yes....with respect to Copenhagen, "Deniers" 1, "Scientists" 0. And that would be Chinese "Engrish" (??) for you.

The point of the Heartland piece was the exclusion of additional data / analysis wrt volcanism. These guys just make it up as they go along....so why can't anyone else?

...Kuhn’s notion is that virtually all scientists work within “paradigms,” or belief structures, “mopping up” (in his words) the inconsistencies that eventually evolve between the structure and reality. Sometimes, however, large anomalies appear that damage the central principals of the paradigm. In that case, Kuhn notes, scientists first ignore the problem, and then once they find it exists, attempt increasingly ornate, bizarre, and inconsistent explanations.

....still true today! :lol:

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes....with respect to Copenhagen, "Deniers" 1, "Scientists" 0. And that would be Chinese "Engrish" (??) for you.

interesting... you beak off about researchers "suppressing the obvious" in direct association to a paper that challenges your statement/claim on the "thorny volcanism problem"... a paper that predates Copenhagen (by 5 years) - and when challenged on your use/intent of "suppressing the obvious"... somehow... it's about Copenhagen, 5 years later, 5 years after the paper was presented!

The point of the Heartland piece was the exclusion of additional data / analysis wrt volcanism. These guys just make it up as they go along....so why can't anyone else?

...Kuhn’s notion is that virtually all scientists work within “paradigms,” or belief structures, “mopping up” (in his words) the inconsistencies that eventually evolve between the structure and reality. Sometimes, however, large anomalies appear that damage the central principals of the paradigm. In that case, Kuhn notes, scientists first ignore the problem, and then once they find it exists, attempt increasingly ornate, bizarre, and inconsistent explanations.

I provided you a link to the paper and quoted from the conclusion... you want to grab on to a decade old paper and the Heartland Institute fabrication of that paper - a paper that concludes there is "a significant difference between models and data in terms of their relative temperature changes at the surface and in the lower troposphere. This discrepancy is probably related to a combination of four factors: forcing uncertainties, model errors, residual uncertainties in the surface and MSU 2LT data, and signal estimation problems." As I said, as I quoted, the conclusion continues on to elaborate on each of those four factors. The paper states there's a problem! Somehow... that open acknowledgment to a problem, that open acknowledgment to "discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems"... is the Heartland Institute categorization of misrepresentation... that is what you're hanging your hat on! The data that was, as you say, "excluded" was referenced in the conclusion and footnotes. The paper... the conclusions... speak openly to an acknowledgment of contributing discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems... open acknowledgment. No misrepresentation was made no matter how hard you spin it.

what... no comment on the more recent 2008 Santer et al paper... or are you still searching the Heartland Institute archives?

what... no comment on a comparison of ice-core interpretations of CO2 ppm concentrations... vis-a-vis a presentation and comparison of that natural variability volcanic activity you so favour. What? Nothing to account for the differences seen today... the significant increased levels seen today? What... nothing?

....still true today! :lol:

don't hesitate to reference actual examples that would speak to that stated notion... best to pick up your game though - how about something that's not a decade old and not falsely presented from a biased web site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting... you beak off about researchers "suppressing the obvious" in direct association to a paper that challenges your statement/claim on the "thorny volcanism problem"... a paper that predates Copenhagen (by 5 years) - and when challenged on your use/intent of "suppressing the obvious"... somehow... it's about Copenhagen, 5 years later, 5 years after the paper was presented!

In the end, that's all that matters to me. You can write your book exclaiming the virtues of junk science on your own dime and time.

I provided you a link to the paper and quoted from the conclusion... you want to grab on to a decade old paper and the Heartland Institute fabrication of that paper - a paper that concludes there is "a significant difference between models and data in terms of their relative temperature changes at the surface and in the lower troposphere. This discrepancy is probably related to a combination of four factors: forcing uncertainties, model errors, residual uncertainties in the surface and MSU 2LT data, and signal estimation problems."

Again, the point is that the entire industrialized world cannot / will not pull the trigger on a massive carbon emissions reduction scheme based on uncertain models, conclusions, factors, errors, etc., etc. Moreover, even in the face of a 100% confidence level, the political/economic choice may still be to do nothing except adapt. Climate "scientists"...hell...no "scientists" get to decide such policy or actions.

As I said, as I quoted, the conclusion continues on to elaborate on each of those four factors. The paper states there's a problem! Somehow... that open acknowledgment to a problem, that open acknowledgment to "discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems"... is the Heartland Institute categorization of misrepresentation... that is what you're hanging your hat on!

No...I don't obsess on these tactical struggles that fascinate you to no end, acting in the same behavioral way as our pinheaded experts competing for research grants and publishing kudos. There is no hat to hang...on anything.

The data that was, as you say, "excluded" was referenced in the conclusion and footnotes. The paper... the conclusions... speak openly to an acknowledgment of contributing discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems... open acknowledgment. No misrepresentation was made no matter how hard you spin it.

Oh really? Perhaps we need an advocacy group for all the volcanoes of the world...throughout the last millennia.

what... no comment on the more recent 2008 Santer et al paper... or are you still searching the Heartland Institute archives?

2008? That is so ancient in this game according to you. Can't you do better?

what... no comment on a comparison of ice-core interpretations of CO2 ppm concentrations... vis-a-vis a presentation and comparison of that natural variability volcanic activity you so favour. What? Nothing to account for the differences seen today... the significant increased levels seen today? What... nothing?

Significant to who.....you? Wanna buy a Lead vs. Lag T-shirt for the coming tropical days in Nunavut?

don't hesitate to reference actual examples that would speak to that stated notion... best to pick up your game though - how about something that's not a decade old and not falsely presented from a biased web site.

This is laughable given recent "ClimateGate" disclosures. The Pythagorean Theorem is about 4000 years old....but they got it right early on. You prefer to play "Whack-A-Mole" with iffy climate models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, that's all that matters to me. You can write your book exclaiming the virtues of junk science on your own dime and time.

I see... all that mattered to you was offering a completely unrelated Copenhagen score declaration as a shuck-n-jive deflection to being called on a statement you, obviously, can't back up. Really, if that's all that mattered to you, why bother with your volcano dance and suffer the stings of a wyly/waldo rubbin! Equally, you can waste others time if you can't be bothered to actually participate in meaningful exchange over the virtues of that science... you know, actually engage beyond blindly linking to a decade old fabricated article from a heavily biased group, one that has a clear agenda to falsely exclaim on the virtues of that science.

Again, the point is that the entire industrialized world cannot / will not pull the trigger on a massive carbon emissions reduction scheme based on uncertain models, conclusions, factors, errors, etc., etc. Moreover, even in the face of a 100% confidence level, the political/economic choice may still be to do nothing except adapt. Climate "scientists"...hell...no "scientists" get to decide such policy or actions.

and this relates to the previous exchange acknowledging a decade old specific model temperature discrepancy between surface and tropospheric warming rates... how? Rather than have you spin wildly and ramble on about model uncertainty, based on a decade old discrepancy that doesn't exist anymore, perhaps come to the table with real/actual issues relative to model-to-observation comparisons? Nice policy rant, but yours is a false, fabricated concern over who/what actually makes policy decisions.

No...I don't obsess on these tactical struggles that fascinate you to no end, acting in the same behavioral way as our pinheaded experts competing for research grants and publishing kudos. There is no hat to hang...on anything.

well, of course, you don't obsess over actual details, particularly when they show the failings of your argument/position. Why bother with lil ole details that contradict your statements... much easier for you to grunt-n-groan and wildly throw shit you can't substantiate. Again, really... if you peel away so quickly from any challenges to your shit throwing, perhaps you'd be better off simply wallowing in it than your having to deal with your own spin-cycling, your own shuck-n-jive and your own dance till you drop exercises.

Oh really? Perhaps we need an advocacy group for all the volcanoes of the world...throughout the last millennia.

hey buddy, go for it... you've already expressed a fondness for volcanoes - you could be their champion. Clearly, after this thread, your understandings of volcano affects on climate have been significantly improved. Study harder and... perhaps... you could be a part of that advocacy group - good luck!

2008? That is so ancient in this game according to you. Can't you do better?

compared to your linked reference to a 2000 study, it's not too bad - hey? You see, the way this typically works around here, is the onus is now on you to challenge that 2008 paper - it's findings - with something else out there... if it exists. Of course, that 2008 Santer et al paper was, in itself, a challenge to a previous papers position. That's how it works. Science moves forward with new learnings or updates/challenges to existing science. Can't you do better... than the Heartland Institute?

Significant to who.....you? Wanna buy a Lead vs. Lag T-shirt for the coming tropical days in Nunavut?

oh my! You should really define your position more clearly. You were the one that brought forward the yearly volcanic CO2 emission figure. You were the one who stated, "Warming or cooling is not the issue....GHGs are, and active volcanoes definitely emit CO2". So... CO2 appears to mean something to you... it appears to be significant - to you! But apparently not so much when you're asked to account for the disparity between glacial period ice-core interpretations of CO2 ppm concentrations relative to today's figure. It's quite clear why you apply selective and self-serving significance to CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see... all that mattered to you was offering a completely unrelated Copenhagen score declaration as a shuck-n-jive deflection to being called on a statement you, obviously, can't back up. Really, if that's all that mattered to you, why bother with your volcano dance and suffer the stings of a wyly/waldo rubbin! Equally, you can waste others time if you can't be bothered to actually participate in meaningful exchange over the virtues of that science... you know, actually engage beyond blindly linking to a decade old fabricated article from a heavily biased group, one that has a clear agenda to falsely exclaim on the virtues of that science.

It was a fine decade too...remember Bill Clinton. Frankly, I am amazed that you are so easily derailed with any slobbery tennis ball I decide to throw your way. Bias is two way street...stop whining.

and this relates to the previous exchange acknowledging a decade old specific model temperature discrepancy between surface and tropospheric warming rates... how? Rather than have you spin wildly and ramble on about model uncertainty, based on a decade old discrepancy that doesn't exist anymore, perhaps come to the table with real/actual issues relative to model-to-observation comparisons? Nice policy rant, but yours is a false, fabricated concern over who/what actually makes policy decisions.

Maybe if you saved your lunch money you could buy your pinhead buddies some time on a Cray XT5. Round and round we go...where it stops nobody knows.

well, of course, you don't obsess over actual details, particularly when they show the failings of your argument/position. Why bother with lil ole details that contradict your statements... much easier for you to grunt-n-groan and wildly throw shit you can't substantiate. Again, really... if you peel away so quickly from any challenges to your shit throwing, perhaps you'd be better off simply wallowing in it than your having to deal with your own spin-cycling, your own shuck-n-jive and your own dance till you drop exercises.

The best part is that even if you are right...you still lose. Volcanism will continue just the way I have described, long after we are all dead. But that should give you plenty of time to whack some more modeling moles trying to explain why 30 billion metric tonnes of manmade CO2 has such minimal relative impact. Science!

hey buddy, go for it... you've already expressed a fondness for volcanoes - you could be their champion. Clearly, after this thread, your understandings of volcano affects on climate have been significantly improved. Study harder and... perhaps... you could be a part of that advocacy group - good luck!

OK..."buddy"...see you on the other side. Time to burn another cord of wood.

compared to your linked reference to a 2000 study, it's not too bad - hey? You see, the way this typically works around here, is the onus is now on you to challenge that 2008 paper - it's findings - with something else out there... if it exists. Of course, that 2008 Santer et al paper was, in itself, a challenge to a previous papers position. That's how it works. Science moves forward with new learnings or updates/challenges to existing science. Can't you do better... than the Heartland Institute?

Science still has to beg for the research dollars, no? That's how it really works, pilgrim.

oh my! You should really define your position more clearly. You were the one that brought forward the yearly volcanic CO2 emission figure. You were the one who stated, "Warming or cooling is not the issue....GHGs are, and active volcanoes definitely emit CO2". So... CO2 appears to mean something to you... it appears to be significant - to you! But apparently not so much when you're asked to account for the disparity between glacial period ice-core interpretations of CO2 ppm concentrations relative to today's figure. It's quite clear why you apply selective and self-serving significance to CO2.

The relationship between volcanism and glacial/interglacial periods is well documented irrespective of the now fashionable climate change debate...has been for many years. My post about CO2 and volcanism was engaged by another member like a large tuna, and you joined in the tail chasing fun. Your rabid defense in even a throwaway context vis-a-vis a current Philippine eruption is quite telling.....wipe the foam off your mouth.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post about CO2 and volcanism was engaged by another member like a large tuna, and you joined in the tail chasing fun. Your rabid defense in even a throwaway context vis-a-vis a current Philippine eruption is quite telling.....wipe the foam off your mouth.

a lot of double and triple and quadruple talk doesn't change the fact you were WRONGthere is no hiding it...volcanic eruptions cool because of SO2 and that is absolutely undisputed in science, you claimed their CO2 would warm and there was no cooling in the world after the eruption of Pinatubo, the link I posted proved you absolutely WRONG, major volcanic events are followed by brief global cooling...volcanism is a constant and always part of the enivronment, relatively the same amount of emissions are pumped year after year, decade after decade, century after century only major erutions briefly bump the output... SO2 an aerosol is the dominant volcanic emission not CO2...

if you don't understand the science you can't make an honest informed opinion...no matter how you try to twist and turn it around you were WRONG!

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a lot of double and triple and quadruple talk doesn't change the fact you were WRONGthere is no hiding it...volcanic eruptions cool because of SO2 and that is absolutely undisputed in science, you claimed their CO2 would warm and there was no cooling in the world after the eruption of Pinatubo, the link I posted proved you absolutely WRONG, major volcanic events are followed by brief global cooling...volcanism is a constant and always part of the enivronment, relatively the same amount of emissions are pumped year after year, decade after decade, century after century only major erutions briefly bump the output... SO2 an aerosol is the dominant volcanic emission not CO2...

You still don't get it...I set you up for the obvious riddle that even waldo bit on....hard. If natural volcanism with SO2 cooling is accounted for in source/sink modeling, how can two orders of magnitude greater CO2 from human activity (with far less "aerosols") in the past 100 years be so relatively benign? Benign to the point where Pinatubo actually cools the planet?

if you don't understand the science you can't make an honest informed opinion...no matter how you try to twist and turn it around you were WRONG!

Get off your high horse....opinions are like assholes....we can all have one...honest or not. The "science" does not stand up to even elementary poking from laypersons like myself, and is certainly not bolstered by the lemming ramblings of laypersons like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't get it...I set you up for the obvious riddle that even waldo bit on....hard. If natural volcanism with SO2 cooling is accounted for in source/sink modeling, how can two orders of magnitude greater CO2 from human activity (with far less "aerosols") in the past 100 years be so relatively benign? Benign to the point where Pinatubo actually cools the planet?

too funny :lol: , you're not smart enough you're just desperately scrambling trying to save face for being WRONG! :lol: SO2 and CO2 are not equal in effect...SO2 is far stronger but has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2...

Get off your high horse....opinions are like assholes....we can all have one...honest or not. The "science" does not stand up to even elementary poking from laypersons like myself, and is certainly not bolstered by the lemming ramblings of laypersons like you.

...do stupid people realize they are stupid??? many laypersons like yourself believe the sun orbits the earth they don't believe the "science" because they know better...lol...

it must really hurt when you post something so wrong that you feel a need to create a fantasy cover story..."I knew what posted I was wrong, I did it deliberately because I'm so clever I wanted them to think I didn't know what I talking about" (you proved that)... that's so funny I can't stop the tears LOL...can't wait till waldo sees this, dude you kill me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

too funny :lol: , you're not smart enough you're just desperately scrambling trying to save face for being WRONG! :lol: SO2 and CO2 are not equal in effect...SO2 is far stronger but has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2...

Screaming in large red font will not change your perdicament...you are not qualified to answer my simple question.

...do stupid people realize they are stupid??? many laypersons like yourself believe the sun orbits the earth they don't believe the "science" because they know better...lol...

Do "smart" people realize they are stupid?

it must really hurt when you post something so wrong that you feel a need to create a fantasy cover story..."I knew what posted I was wrong, I did it deliberately because I'm so clever I wanted them to think I didn't know what I talking about" (you proved that)... that's so funny I can't stop the tears LOL...can't wait till waldo sees this, dude you kill me...

Unlike yourself, I do not present my self as a global warming climate change expert. Volcanism forces (pun intended) wannabes like you who think they know it all to invent better fairy tales. I prefer analytics....like this one that keeps the ball in play:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

"Me and Waldo"...a new book coming to stores soon!

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...