Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429382 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1500 on: September 20, 2015, 12:45:08 PM »
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:

Quote
"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  :curse:)

One thing that all scientist do agree on, is that the driving force of climate is the oceans, not the air.

Quote
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.html

Even in the Arctic Ocean:

Quote
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
« Last Edit: September 20, 2015, 12:48:22 PM by john "teach me how to" dougie »

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1501 on: September 20, 2015, 01:05:10 PM »
I don't think they're evil and my post farther up the thread wasn't really scientific in nature.    Plants need CO2, warmer climates have longer growing seasons1, 3rd world countries will get no where on the back of alternative energy.

I've also never been a denier2 I am just smart enough to understand that the science is not settled3, and that politcal agendas are driving warmest propagandist science, thus rendering it in need of questioning every step of the way.

1. Your original statement had nothing to do with growing seasons, but rather posited that it is evolutionarily easier to adapt to warmer climates as opposed to colder climates, which in your words, meant "certain death". (Also, not true).

2. You're right. I purposely misrepresented your position on the issue because your language intimated that you thought an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a warming climate was actually a positive effect, which is an even stupider position to have than being a denier. I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for bringing that lapse in judgement to my attention.

3. Through my arguments, I think I've highlighted that you don't understand the science. So how you be smart enough to know that the science isn't settled?

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1502 on: September 20, 2015, 01:12:05 PM »
I find it a bit fascinating that warmest propagandist scientists nearly stampeded each other trying to disprove the impact of volcanos on global warming.   While understanding that volcanos emissions impact both heating and cooling of the earth. 

For example the relatively recent Icelandic major eruption was estimated to have emitted Co2 at a rate equal to a midsize Eurozone economy/country.  They concluded that these emissions were "insignificant" in the context of global warming.   While there are no major eruptions occurring now, there are still 40 something volcanos erupting right now and many more that are very active.  It seems interesting that natural events that emit warming gasses equal to entire modern economies in a relatively short period are so easily dismissed. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1503 on: September 20, 2015, 01:16:11 PM »
Trey solid.  First off thank you so much for verifying the need to seriously question NOAA's temp data and that also walks hand in hand with a recent UGA study confirming just how much land (and air) in the US is impacted by the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1504 on: September 20, 2015, 01:18:18 PM »
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:

Quote
"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  :curse:)

One thing that all scientist do agree on, is that the driving force of climate is the oceans, not the air.

Quote
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.html

Even in the Arctic Ocean:

Quote
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

The presence of underwater volcanic activity doesn't negate anything that I mentioned in my post. To reiterate: if volcanic activity was substantially increasing the temperature of the ocean water, causing it to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the pH level of the ocean would be rising. But the pH of the ocean is falling.

And given the rate at which tectonic plates move, it's highly likely that this level of volcanic activity has persisted for a loooong time (millenia), and we are just getting a better idea of its magnitude as the technology for detecting this activity improves over time. So it still doesn't explain the large increase in carbon dioxide and methane concentration of the atmosphere within the last 100-200 years.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1505 on: September 20, 2015, 01:25:41 PM »
Excellent points on technology Trey and how it wasn't until recently that the technology even existed to even study many of these complex systems. 

This also comes into play when warmest propagandists become weather scare mongers.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1506 on: September 20, 2015, 01:28:34 PM »
I find it a bit fascinating that warmest propagandist scientists nearly stampeded each other trying to disprove the impact of volcanos on global warming.   While understanding that volcanos emissions impact both heating and cooling of the earth. 

For example the relatively recent Icelandic major eruption was estimated to have emitted Co2 at a rate equal to a midsize Eurozone economy/country.  They concluded that these emissions were "insignificant" in the context of global warming.   While there are no major eruptions occurring now, there are still 40 something volcanos erupting right now and many more that are very active.  It seems interesting that natural events that emit warming gasses equal to entire modern economies in a relatively short period are so easily dismissed.

Volcanic activity absolutely impacts climate. The question is...can you provide data that there have been more carbon dioxide-emitting eruptions in the last 200 years than in the prior 800 years in a way that would account for the following data?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1507 on: September 20, 2015, 01:33:24 PM »
Excellent points on technology Trey and how it wasn't until recently that the technology even existed to even study many of these complex systems. 

This also comes into play when warmest propagandists become weather scare mongers.

You know we can measure carbon dioxide concentration from ice core samples, right?
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

I bet you also question the validity of carbon-dating, don't you?

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1508 on: September 20, 2015, 01:56:10 PM »
Nice shot Trey, I don't know where that came from. 

Wasn't there a Physicist from Princeton who testified in front of Congress a few years ago that said Earth is actually in CO2 deficit??   Nobel winner to boot. 

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1509 on: September 20, 2015, 02:12:03 PM »
What if underwater volcanoes were not a constant and emit more CO2 than is emitted by the ocean into the atmosphere?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1510 on: September 20, 2015, 02:15:08 PM »
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.

did you know that the light energy from the sun that hits the surface of earth in a single day is enough to power all human activity on the planet for more than 1 year?!? WOW!

Wow! That is really neato!! It's also totally irrelevant. I bet cold fusion power would be super powerful too!!! Let us know when you invent a technology that can efficiently harness the sun or wind that can power the US without sprawling over an area the size of New Mexico.

Trey are you Bill Nye in real life? Oh wait, he's a mechanical engineer.

If the science is settled, go ahead and put your marker down. How much warmer is the earth going to be in 10 years? 20? 30?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1511 on: September 20, 2015, 02:22:55 PM »
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!   

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1512 on: September 20, 2015, 02:26:54 PM »
Nice shot Trey, I don't know where that came from. 

Wasn't there a Physicist from Princeton who testified in front of Congress a few years ago that said Earth is actually in CO2 deficit??   Nobel winner to boot.

William Happer is not a Nobel Prize winner and lies on the fringe of the scientific community.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1513 on: September 20, 2015, 02:29:09 PM »
Oh okay.  No wonder he's hated by warmest propagandists.  Anyone who questions and/or fails to conform is considered to be on the "fringes". 

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1514 on: September 20, 2015, 02:30:50 PM »
What if underwater volcanoes were not a constant and emit more CO2 than is emitted by the ocean into the atmosphere?

Quote
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is K?lauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 K?lauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1515 on: September 20, 2015, 03:04:20 PM »
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!

Always cite your sources, dax, it's the hallmark of a good scientist.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1516 on: September 20, 2015, 03:10:09 PM »
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.

did you know that the light energy from the sun that hits the surface of earth in a single day is enough to power all human activity on the planet for more than 1 year?!? WOW!

Wow! That is really neato!! It's also totally irrelevant. I bet cold fusion power would be super powerful too!!! Let us know when you invent a technology that can efficiently harness the sun or wind that can power the US without sprawling over an area the size of New Mexico.

Trey are you Bill Nye in real life? Oh wait, he's a mechanical engineer.

If the science is settled, go ahead and put your marker down. How much warmer is the earth going to be in 10 years? 20? 30?

The point is that the energy is there. In massive abundance. And practically for free. We just need to ramp up research to explore how to capture it more efficiently. Until the last 20 years or so, the state-of-the-art in solar technology was that little strip on the top of your calculator that allowed it to work without a battery.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1517 on: September 20, 2015, 03:19:07 PM »
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!

Always cite your sources, dax, it's the hallmark of a good scientist.

Also, I don't know what data you're looking at, but I'm going to guess that the carbon dioxide level being that high occurred either before the emergence of photosynthetic bacteria or during a mass extinction event...

:lol:

because, you know, science.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1518 on: September 20, 2015, 03:20:35 PM »
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!

Always cite your sources, dax, it's the hallmark of a good scientist.

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

Speaking of core samples, are there any warnings about taking the findings "literally" Trey?

Back in the Winter when CO2 level broke past 400 the dire warning started that they were there to stay.   They didn't stay.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2015, 03:33:52 PM by sonofdaxjones »

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52960
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1519 on: September 20, 2015, 03:22:26 PM »
Did dinosaurs pre-date photosynthetic bacteria?   Interesting if so.




Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1520 on: September 20, 2015, 03:26:30 PM »
What if underwater volcanoes were not a constant and emit more CO2 than is emitted by the ocean into the atmosphere?

Quote
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is K?lauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 K?lauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

We have no clue how many volcanoes are in the oceans, let alone how much CO2 they are emitting.

Offline wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30237
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1521 on: September 20, 2015, 03:30:24 PM »
I wish I was as optomistic about solar as trey. 
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1522 on: September 20, 2015, 03:42:04 PM »
vague earth cycles
oh natural cooling and warming cycles
sun cycles
earth underwater volcano cycles

Today I learned that deniers have moved on to something else.

It's also really enjoyable that when someone brings the scientific lumber the deniers move to a blended science/economics argument that they also can't back up.  Imagine if we have people around that said stuff like "Let us know when you invent a technology that can efficiently let humanity sail across the ocean with enough food to survive the voyage.  Put a man on the moon and bring them back to the Earth after spending a week in space. or Harness the sun or wind that can power the US without sprawling over an area the size of New Mexico.  Because we could be headed towards a new pax technica built around clean power, clean energy storage, and clean production.  That can only be done if we don't limit ourselves with expectation of what we are capable of with TODAY'S technology for TOMORROW'S possibilities.  Instead of slashing budgets for the NSF, NIH, NASA, etc etc etc we should be funding them like they are a defense sector. 

Some of you are regular old Sen Brandon Smiths around here.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36548
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1523 on: September 20, 2015, 03:48:31 PM »
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.

Commercial buildings are so much worse.  They are far and away worse than cars.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1524 on: September 20, 2015, 03:48:48 PM »
interesting quote from the article you linked, dax - from the authors of the study themselves:

Quote
We [humans] are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation.

Also, just as I suspected, the time period with higher carbon dioxide levels sat on the ass end of a mass extinction event. The fundamental disconnect here is not whether the earth can tolerate much higher carbon dioxide concentrations (it can), but whether our current ecological system can tolerate much higher carbon dioxide concentrations. I don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't too promising. Many biologists have suggested that a 6th mass extinction event is currently underway - starting in the oceans.