> You asked how can we determine if the claim is "remotely true" well  we can't because we are missing the decade savings/reduced emissions values.  If I recall correctly not even the discredited IPCC can make an estimate of the actual foregone CO2 liberation.  If anyone can come up with them I am al ears.
Yes, we are missing the data, which is my complaint against Plimer, not against anything you said. That isn't to say it doesn't exist
> One caution to your volcano contribution disclaimer.  Modern times have not seen the volcanism of the Southwest US and Middle East  20Kybp, Nor the Deccan and Siberian Traps.  That could quickly change the whole game.
It certainly would. We would be toast. From what I have read, that takes a while to get to full swing - thousands of years, so is not an immediate concern and as far as I know there are not any signs of it beginning now.
Only in the past 10 years have we started inventorying underwater volcanoes and black smokers. Â I believe your data only addresses aerial volcanoes and some volcanic major eruptions can't even be dated by historical accounts and research goes on as to estimating eruptive volumes. Â I would argue that we still don't know all the sources and contributions. Â The IPCC nor any other body can state with scientific certainty a ball park number on human CO2 liberation. Â But I laud attempts to actually measure those emissions!Â
I don't have any data on emissions. I was referring to the information in the citation from Skeptical Science and something contained in the Plimer interview saying that it came from a recent USGS study, and that it included undersea emissions.
>
> I do stand corrected regarding my assessment that it "seems about right" Â and may I suggest that you'll wade through the several 10s of millions of articles on the net and decide which ones you believe or do not believe. Â
I didn't challenge your statement. There is nothing wrong with saying "it seems about right", I do it all the time. If we can't make off the cuff WAGs during conversation what a bore it would be. But if I were writing an article making as controversial and argumentative a statement as Plimer did I would realize, as any reputable scientist does, that it should depend on facts that are presented at the time.
> I was commenting from memory regarding CO2 output and I recalled incorrectly that the Eyjafjallajokull volcano eruption produced 150-300 MILLION tons in total but that figure was 150-300 THOUSAND per day so around 1 million tons in 4 days give or take. I think it went on for several weeks but regardless it was not the 4 day volume tauted in the article in question.  Where as the aviation/air travel reduction was about 300±K ton per day(?)  so there was an almost even offset it seems.
> You certainly know more about the nubers than I do.
> One problem is that no one -not even the IPCC, can estimate the actual CO2 savings actually achieved by the Koyoto Protochol.  All those billions spent and not a shred of quantitative measurement?( Cheating and double counting especially by China makes an estimate a paper exercise bearing no relation to the real world).  Not that I would place any confidence in anyone's climate model, as so far there have been what 78(?) attempted Climate Prediction models and NONE of them has proved accurate when past climatological data was run back through them to check for validation.  Some one pointed out that climate is not uniform and extreme highs and extreme lows of whatever is being measured make the scene look "average".  Super computers coming on line each day will help isolate regional climates forcing on adjacent and ultimately world climate.  Part of that will be identifying the true heat budget of the globe and how it moves about the environment.
Good info. I'm wondering what you mean when you say none of the climate models has proved accurate. Accuracy is a matter of degee. I've seen a graph comparing several model predictions with observed temperatures where they matched pretty well. Can you give us a rundown on that?
I've no inclination to debate the un-debatable-- true unbiased research is buried in millions of pages of uninformed/parroted opinions so underpinning comments with "references" is futile more or less but I understand the obligation to do so If I were taking sides. Â I do know from my climate studies that CO2 in the environment doesn't behave simplistically like it does in the lab owing to unaccounted for feed backs/forcers. Â I've said before that we are only now getting the computing power to model the atmosphere GHGs--Of which water vapor and methane are far larger players than CO2. Â Once again is the issue stabilizing CO2 or is it stabilizing global temperatures and therefore climate specifically sea levels? Â Suppose we cut Atmospheric CO2 in half and we find ourselves under ice caps in 30 years or we find all the ice caps have still melted and Kansas is beachfront property--whomever was "right" has a hollow victory.
> Water and methane have been more or less in balance because we are not adding them directly to the atmosphere in significant quantities, so they aren't causing much temperature change. It is the CO2 that is going up and as it increases it forces increases in these other gases which are multiplyers of the CO2 increases. If we stabilize the CO2 we stabilize the temperature.
> Human selfish interests and skepticism over bad science have tainted the "effort" and nothing effective will be developed in the next 50 years which will control "CO2 levels". period.  While plants are "greener" and temperate regions are greening more (pro) ocean acidification is endangering coral reef communities( some of us think)( con).  I think the biggest threat finding solutions is the "tunnel vision focus"- on CO2 for it stifles finding out how it really behaves in the environment--not simply the atmosphere -or lab or in the computer etc.  Take a simple survey with all the pro or con AGW proponents by asking them just what is the mechanism of the "green house effect" and 99% of them will give you a wrong answer.  ( Hint 99% of CO2's heat conversion contribution is within 3 -4 meters of the ground).  Oceanic CO2 is an almost entirely different player but owing to the exchange of gas to and from the hydrosphere it has to be factored in.  This is one of the reasons one cannot make a one on one calculation of a heat gradient attributable to atmospheric CO2.
> Why does the fact that heat conversion is within 3-4 meters of the gound mean it is not a problem? That process happens continually during the day and the hot air rises so there is a continual circulation of that heat through the atmosphere.
What is the correct answer to the question of what it the mechanism for the greehouse effect?
> My next to final thought is do your own research on research--that after you give up your day job, pay $10's of thousands for journal subscriptions and devote 24/7 to sorting through the noise-- pro or con and then you can speak with bona fide authority.
I can't speak with "bona fide" authority, on climate change but I know a little about it and can ask about things that don't make sense to me and point out the problems that I see. I'm trying to learn something. If you are going to take every question I have on what you say to be a challenge to your authority then we are going to have a rough time becuase I'm not going to stop. I don't have to agree with you - you are only one voice and there are many others with your credentials who have different opinions than yours. That is the nature of science.
> I have background in simulation and modeling and am probably the only person on this list that has helped count fossil tree rings. Â Ergo I have some insight into the limitations to modeling. Be it remembered that there are about 4(?) "standard" weather models in use in the US alone but no one is concerned that they have major failures--we just accept that weather forecasts are have a margin of inaccuracy, yet the public buys hook, line, and sinker invalidated climate models which forecast climate 100 years in advance.
>
> I have my opinions as to which surrogate measurements are probably more accurate indicators of paleoclimate globally and locally but none are integrated. Â One of the problems I see in research pollution is researchers who make drastic inferences from localized data. Â Then there are those who commit outright fraud by the destruction of their "database" so that no other researcher can try to replicate their data. Â But the East Anglican University malfeasance is another topic.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment