So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.
For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.
I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?
I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.
As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.
I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.
The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source
So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?
Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.
So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?
just by itself, that explanation is scientifically plausible...but it doesn't agree with the rest of the data. If all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was coming from ancient oceanic stores that are being heated by volcanic activity, one would expect the pH of the ocean to rise (become less acidic). This is because when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water, a small amount of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which makes the water more acidic. Now, carbonic acid is a very unstable acid that breaks back down into water and carbon dioxide quite easily, and thus, when the carbon dioxide leaves the water, the acid leaves with it.
But this is not what we are seeing the pH level of the ocean do:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
and hence, we deduce that the carbon dioxide is coming from some other source. good question, though.
Since the atmosphere is only about 3% CO2, and human output is only about 4-5% of that small amount, it would seem more plausible that the spike in atmospheric CO2 would more likely come from a natural source. What if they recently found, like, in the last 15 years, giant undersea volcanoes all over the world that ebb and flow in cycles along tectonic rifts?
We have never explained things like the medieval warming period, or the little ice age, yet now when we have a little warming period of our own, we instantly blame ourselves for suddenly being able to control the climate, and in turn, give governments a free pass to increase taxes and regulations to "fix what we have done". What if the majority of major media thought that it was a good idea to go along with the idea that humans are responsible and report stories that support that idea and ignore discoveries that don't? (preemptive for lib media
)
One thing that all scientist do agree on, is that the driving force of climate is the oceans, not the air.
Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 12, 2005
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.
The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.
"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.
Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic.
The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry.
"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."
Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world's known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models.
"Some studies estimate that for the Pacific, background thermal heating might increase ocean circulation by up to 50 percent," Murton said.
Regular hydrothermal fields stir the water for only a few hundred meters (about a thousand feet) above the ocean floor. "But these megaplumes can reach a column of 1,000 to 1,500 meters [3,280 to 4,920 feet], so it reaches right up into the midwater," he said.
But even the Indian Ocean megaplume may be small compared to larger underwater eruptions that have as yet gone undetected.
"At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things," he said.
"But we know when we look at the ocean floor that there have been much larger eruptions, so we can only speculate about what magnitude of event plumes would come from those."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.htmlEven in the Arctic Ocean:
Hydrothermal Vents Found in Arctic Ocean
John Roach
for National Geographic News
January 23, 2003
Marine scientists surveying an unexplored mountain range deep beneath the Arctic Ocean have discovered at least nine hydrothermal vents on the Gakkel Ridge, a mid-ocean mountain range that snakes for 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) from high above Greenland to Siberia.
Scientists say the underwater hotspots may potentially host unique forms of life previously unknown to science.
"To find as many [hydrothermal vents] as we did was completely unexpected and incredibly exciting," said Henrietta Edmonds, a marine scientist at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the lead researchers that made the discovery. "At first it was difficult to believe, but I soon managed to convince my colleagues."
Scientists have long theorized that only a few vents existed on the ridge and would be difficult to locate.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html