Science & Technology News

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by GordMay

His removal leaves the documentary with four climate experts: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, and John Christy, all well-known climate contrarians.

Don't know about the others but Roy Spencer now claims he is not a denier and acknowledges the climate is warming due to increased levels of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels. He does go on to argue that a warmer planet might be a better place and more CO2 might be helpful for plants, so he says no need to worry. I would hazard to guess there are very very few scientists that deny the planet is warming or that it is not due to increased CO2 caused by human activity.

[newhaul]

Well it will be a couple weeks till it's officially calculated but looks like a VEI5 This one event could cause a .5°C drop in temperature

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/hun...Indian-Oc.html

And the fun is just beginning.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You don't think that this "egregious propaganda piece" [quoting your source, Dr Wunsch] is one-sided, and cherry picked to support one side of the debate?
Which version should I waste 60 to 75 minutes watching?
There are at least three versions of this discredited “documentary”, currently in circulation.
The first [75-minute] was shown on Channel 4, in the UK, on 8 March 2007.
A revised version was then shown on Channel “More 4”, in the UK, on 12 March, which corrected a number of obvious errors.
A shortened (approximately 60 minute) version was due to air on Australian ABC Channel 2, on 12 July 2007. Much of the documentary’s shortening [about 15 minutes shorter] is a result of heavy editing of Professor Wunsch’s contribution to the original version. His removal leaves the documentary with four climate experts: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, and John Christy, all well-known climate contrarians.

From what biased source did you copy and paste your criticism? Or are you such a skillful trivia buff that you remembered it word for word?

In true science contrarian views are not discredited just because they are contrary. It seems that the documentary producers have caved in to public pressure from the anthropomorphic climate change cultists and made some edits. If you were truly objective, you would watch any version of the documentary. If you are too prejudiced to watch this one, try "Planet of the Humans" by Michael Moore. It can be seen on youtube.


You might also do some digging on the climategate scandal that exposed systematic corruption in climate science.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well it will be a couple weeks till it's officially calculated but looks like a VEI5 This one event could cause a .5°C drop in temperature

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/hun...Indian-Oc.html

And the fun is just beginning.

A very large eruption like Krakatoa could depress temperatures as much as .4C for a year. I don't think you are suggesting this was such an event.

Unfortunately to counteract the already measured temperature increase we might need several Krakatoa events per year. I don't think you should rely on that to save us.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bra...radley1988.pdf

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

A very large eruption like Krakatoa could depress temperatures as much as .4C for a year. I don't think you are suggesting this was such an event.

Unfortunately to counteract the already measured temperature increase we might need several Krakatoa events per year. I don't think you should rely on that to save us.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bra...radley1988.pdf

Of course major vulcanic events are too rare to build into climate predictions. But there is a fairly constant venting of CO2 from ongoing vulcanism, subsea vents, etc. New ones continue to be discovered, figures of released CO2 amounts increase. These figures are substantial and make anthropomorphic abatement efforts look futile.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

From what biased source did you copy and paste your criticism? Or are you such a skillful trivia buff that you remembered it word for word? ...

It's precisely because I don't know everything, nor remember what I did know, that I must research subjects, under discussion.
Was there any inaccuracies, in what I wrote?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's precisely because I don't know everything, nor remember what I did know, that I must research subjects, under discussion.
Was there any inaccuracies, in what I wrote?

Maybe I'll answer that after I've had time to examine the material. But for now, I have more to do than explore rabbit holes.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Of course major vulcanic events are too rare to build into climate predictions. But there is a fairly constant venting of CO2 from ongoing vulcanism, subsea vents, etc. New ones continue to be discovered, figures of released CO2 amounts increase. These figures are substantial and make anthropomorphic anthropogenic abatement efforts look futile.

According to NASA, CO2 emissions from human activities dwarf those of volcanoes.
"Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in relation to climate change because they release CO2 (and other gases) into our atmosphere. However, human contributions to the carbon cycle are more than 100 times those from all the volcanoes in the world - combined.
In comparison, while volcanic eruptions do cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, human activities emit a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption of CO2 every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo-sized eruption of CO2 twice daily."
➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/42/what...limate-change/

“Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do."
➥ https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

A very large eruption like Krakatoa could depress temperatures as much as .4C for a year. I don't think you are suggesting this was such an event.

Unfortunately to counteract the already measured temperature increase we might need several Krakatoa events per year. I don't think you should rely on that to save us.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bra...radley1988.pdf

Perhaps you should review some volcanic eruption effects data again you are way off base . https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...39;s%20surface

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to NASA, CO2 emissions from human activities dwarf those of volcanoes.
"Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in relation to climate change because they release CO2 (and other gases) into our atmosphere. However, human contributions to the carbon cycle are more than 100 times those from all the volcanoes in the world - combined.
In comparison, while volcanic eruptions do cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, human activities emit a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption of CO2 every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo-sized eruption of CO2 twice daily."
➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/42/what...limate-change/

“Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do."
➥ https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

You are not considering that natural venting of CO2 has been ongoing for millennia, so has had a long cumulative effect. Anthropomorphic CO2 is only a blip in history, so quite insignificant. New sources of natural venting continue to be discovered, so it is quite possible that annual figures are much greater than current estimates.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Perhaps you should review some volcanic eruption effects data again you are way off base . https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...39;s%20surface

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

You are not considering that natural venting of CO2 has been ongoing for millennia, so has had a long cumulative effect. Anthropomorphic CO2 is only a blip in history, so quite insignificant. New sources of natural venting continue to be discovered, so it is quite possible that annual figures are much greater than current estimates.

You are both ignoring volcanos and other natural CO2 events are all part of the CO2 balance on earth. They have been going on for millennia (just as Dieseldude said). Looking at CO2 at ice cores, there are small variations but basically CO2 concentrations have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years until the last 150 years when humans put their finger on the scale. That lead to a dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which lead to heating of the atmosphere by the well understood mechanism.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/image...historical.jpg
https://youtu.be/gH6fQh9eAQE

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

You are both ignoring volcanos and other natural CO2 events are all part of the CO2 balance on earth. They have been going on for millennia (just as Dieseldude said). Looking at CO2 at ice cores, there are small variations but basically CO2 concentrations have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years until the last 150 years when humans put their finger on the scale. That lead to a dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which lead to heating of the atmosphere by the well understood mechanism.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/image...historical.jpg
https://youtu.be/gH6fQh9eAQE

WTH ? Where did I mention carbon dioxide in my posting ?
I merely pointed out that your statement was incorrect considering the size of volcanic eruption needed to affect the global temperature in a significant way. BTW co2 is also called plant food . And if you recall "fossil fuels" are actually ancient plant matter that originally absorbed the said carbon out of the atmosphere to nearly kill the planet biological life. ( Minimum is 150 ppm iirc)

Perhaps you need to do a refresher on the entire subject .

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

You are both ignoring volcanos and other natural CO2 events are all part of the CO2 balance on earth. They have been going on for millennia (just as Dieseldude said). Looking at CO2 at ice cores, there are small variations but basically CO2 concentrations have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years until the last 150 years when humans put their finger on the scale. That lead to a dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which lead to heating of the atmosphere by the well understood mechanism.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/image...historical.jpg
https://youtu.be/gH6fQh9eAQE

Atmospheric CO2 is a red herring. How can CO2, a trace green house gas at about .04 % possibly compare to the effects of water vapor whose concentration is orders of magnatude higher ?

NASA's CO2 measurement as of Feb. 2021
416 ppm = .0416
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/


Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV


North Carolina Climate Office:
"Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0 - 4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition


Jeff Haby B.Sc, M.Sc holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in meteorology:
"Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules."
https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/


Facts from credible science provides for conclusion that water vapor far out ranks CO2 as a green house gas by about 3/.0416 = 72.11. So how can CO2 at .0416 % have any significant climate effect compared to water vapor at 72 time higher content ?


The climate cultists would do well to review their grade 3 arithmetic, renounce their misinformation, and leave the rest of us alone.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Atmospheric CO2 is a red herring. How can CO2, a trace green house gas at about .04 % possibly compare to the effects of water vapor whose concentration is orders of magnatude higher ?

NASA's CO2 measurement as of Feb. 2021
416 ppm = .0416
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/


Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV


North Carolina Climate Office:
"Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0 - 4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition


Jeff Haby B.Sc, M.Sc holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in meteorology:
"Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules."
https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/


Facts from credible science provides for conclusion that water vapor far out ranks CO2 as a green house gas by about 3/.0416 = 72.11. So how can CO2 at .0416 % have any significant climate effect compared to water vapor at 72 time higher content ?


The climate cultists would do well to review their grade 3 arithmetic, renounce their misinformation, and leave the rest of us alone.

Answer is simple they can't charge water vapor but they can charge us for using ancient solar energy .

It's all about control and money.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by newhaul

WTH ? Where did I mention carbon dioxide in my posting ?
I merely pointed out that your statement was incorrect considering the size of volcanic eruption needed to affect the global temperature in a significant way. BTW cow is also called plant food . And if you recall "fossil fuels" are actually ancient plant matter that originally absorbed the said carbon out of the atmosphere to nearly kill the planet biological life. ( Minimum is 150 ppm iirc)

Perhaps you need to do a refresher on the entire subject .

If origin theory of hydrocarbon deposits is correct, then all that CO2 that they contain, originated in the atmosphere. So burning them only returns CO2 back to its natural place in the atmosphere. So what is the harm?