Undersea Volcanoes May Be Impacting Climate Change

you know that they are adding 7% CO2 to the chamber right? and it only went up one degree. so 70k PPM in the chamber and only 1 degree move. Hmmmm, doesn't sound too threatening at 400 PPM to me. Nice try.

Got any other mythical examples of the dreaded CO2 at .04% of the air?

 

Mybusters did not use 7% CO2. They stated in their experiment that they reproduced the atmosphere. A screenshot of a calibration test does not mean otherwise, and anyone who says the calibration is the real test is just flat out lying.

So why do the deniers lie always lie about the Mythbusters experiment? Because it's a direct example of the experiment they say doesn't exist. They have to lie about the Mythbusters experiment to keep their overall big lie going.

 

Natural cycles do not explain stratospheric cooling, outgoing longwave radiation decreasing or backradiation increasing. AGW theory is the only theory that does explain such directly observed data.

That is, the data says you're babbling crank pseudoscience.

When you're willing to do some actual science and come up with a theory that explains the observed data, the world will stop laughing at your conspiracy cult. Waving your hands around wildly and screaming "Natural cycles!" is a religious invocation, not science.

 

OK, I have to ask.

Why do you claim it's a conspiracy theory?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Yes, 1 degree higher. At what levels of CH4 and CO2. they did a much better experiment, and shielded the thermometers from direct light.

How much higher was the bottle experiment?

Don't you comprehend the important details?

 

naw, folks like him don't understand the basic science. None of it.

BTW, Dr. Gupta's equipment showed 7% CO2 added. 70k times the .04% we live in. Now that's funny, one degree.

 

They had two control chambers at atmospheric standard. They don't say what the chambers with CH4 and CO2 levels were, but you can bet they were much higher, and 7% is probably correct for the CO2, and probably CH4 also.

They are the only ones that did a reliable experiment.

It is such a joke to use a heal lamp where the spectrum does not match the CO2 absorption bands as a black body radiator. That is why mythbusters had the black target. This now produces IR at the right wavelengths. Their light heats up the black surface to radiate the same way the earth does.

That is really why the others are such a joke. they only prove a greenhouse works. Not the greenhouse effect.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe these assumptions are wrong as well as most of the AGW theory...

 

I looked at the clip again.

They did use over 7% CO2 and over 8 ppm of CH4. This is over 4,000 the atmospheric CH4, and almost 200 time the atmospheric CO2. And only see a 1 degree increase...

 

In the discussion about CO2 and global climate change, there is no 'them', no 'they', only 'us'...only people. Every single person is guilty of contributing to Earth's pollution! Whether they burn fossil fuels, buy services from others who burn fossil fuels, demand products which the manufacturing pollutes, litter, use synthetic chemicals, etc. etc. all are caused by PEOPLE...

Not 'millions of acres daily'?? How about 50,000 to 80,000 acres per day?

You can twist your diatribe in all directions but there are no conspiracies within industry or governments. None of your evil corporations would exist if it did not have consumers = PEOPLE.

Every one of us, all PEOPLE, make 100% of our decisions each day. If we on average truly cared more, we could make a difference. But the collective we, which includes 7+ billion people on Earth, are not generally interested in doing better. The collective we on average are driven by personal greed, in many cases arrogance, but all self-serving.

It's laughable to read these forums, and other articles, about the potential of global climate change, as most people are either arrogant and political and refuse to listen, or are self-serving and want to blame everyone but themselves. All the BS talk over the years and in parallel global climate change is becoming a reality. People, at least IMO, are not going to rise to the cause...they are going to do little to nothing, expect others to solve 'their' problems, do it for free, and go about their daily self-serving behavior. When the (*)(*)(*)(*) does hit the fan, these same people will do what you are doing and blame everyone else for the problems and demand others fix the problems.

PEOPLE are not going to slow or stop global climate change, therefore, they better start thinking how to cope with what is presented them...or question their survivability...

 

here's a good read....this on top of natural occurrences

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

So what's your theory, and why did you bring up the planets?

Since you're rather reluctant to actually state a theory, I'll probably have to help. I think you're saying that that something close to a step increase in TSI around 1958 is causing warming still happening today, much like a linear system responding to a step input.

However, the results here on earth don't match standard controls theory. Response to a step input is of the form [1-exp(-kt)]. We're not seeing that. The warming on earth is linear, not asymptotic.

Moreover, it doesn't explain the observed data. Your theory does not explain the stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave IR, or the decrease in downgoing backradiation.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

(((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))))))))

It was the scientific principle they were establishing - to get precise measurements you need research like this

 

The only thing they established was deception.

Mythbusters were the only ones who did a proper experiment.

1) No direct heating of the thermometers.

2) Light warming a surface to provide the proper spectrum of peak IR around 10 microns. The direct heat lamp provides peak IR at about 1 micron.

3) carefully matching the intensity of the lamps.

None of this is done in any of your pet experiments. They are absolute jokes. All your pet experiments did was show how a greenhouse works. Not the greenhouse effect, which is not quite like a greenhouse. Itis poorly named, but the name stuck.

Please...

Brush up on your science and understand what is happening.

 

with as many ELE that has happened in the past, what makes you think man will survive to see the end of this planet?

 

I am sorry but I thought you understood the difference between a backyard experiment that establishes a scientific principle and a fully controlled scientific experiment

I simply wanted to show that the basic principle establishing that the presence of CO2 will alter the thermal response in a contained situation, It is the same as most mythbusters "experiments" not true "science" but they use basic scientific principles to entertain and show we do not have to use the precision and care scientists use to demonstrate that the principle works.

(((((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

You do not have to perform micro measurements to demonstrate the principle of inertia - all you have to do is ask someone to try a push a large heavy box. You can demonstrate the principle of gravity by dropping an apple - and at this point I am dreaming of doing so on top of someone's head

The actual properties of greenhouse gases have been measured in micro amounts through spectroscopy - this much I know because the US air force had to determine the effects of CO2 on red lasers I know there is a database that gives precise measurements I have seen it and been shown how it is used but as a nurse not a climate scientist I did not keep that information

Here is a text about spectroscopy and greenhouse gas behaviours
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/00218502/1997/00000028/00000006/art88119

And here is more showing that science has exhaustively examined the greenhouse gases to identify exactly the properties in relation to radiative forcing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

 

Wow...

The point I'm making really flies high over your head.

You claim it shows what the greenhouse effect is. No it doesn't.

Again, I suggest you brush up on the sciences that apply.

 

Why don't you tell me what science applies - this should be entertaining considering what has been rejected so far

 

How about this.

Do you understand the difference in how a greenhouse works, and the greenhouse effect? I don't think you do since you defend the experiments.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining something in such detail that I have complete faith you will not understand. You haven't shown any indication whatsoever, that you are competent in the level of science needed to debate global warming. When you step up your game to real debate, I will consider spending more time with you.

 

But.... if that money was paid in a way that was logical.....
and addressed the problem in a way that all of us could comprehend.....

we might not mind so much?!

If a volcano were to erupt somewhere beneath or near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet..... or GReenland.....
or in certain parts of Antarctica.......
we could be hit with rising ocean levels rather quickly.......

We should begin to discuss ways to get prepared......


http://www.politicalforum.com/asia/477773-demographic-changes-bengal-sitting-volcano.html

 

Humans be proactive??

We always wait until our asses are on fire before we do anything!

We choose to live on volcanoes, in the path of tornadoes, along hurricane coasts, and when there is an 'event' most people won't evacuate...IMO this is the reality that exists when trying to get people to comprehend the potential of geological events...it's a big yawn for most of them...