The Impact of "Small" Volcanic Eruptions on Earth's Climate 11

[Maui]

These "small" volcanic eruptions are being viewed by some scientists as potentially having a greater influence on earth's climate than was previously believed:

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/01/s...?et_cid=4359172&et_rid=407330416&location=top

Please do not allow the vitriolic verbal pyrotechnics of your fellow contributors overshadow the points that you are attempting to make in your replies.

Maui

 

[canwesteng]

If you go back to first principles, objects at temperatures that exist on earth emit mostly infrared radiation, and CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. That's the greenhouse effect and basically the only first principle at play here.

 

[GTTofAK]

“If you go back to first principles, objects at temperatures that exist on earth emit mostly infrared radiation, and CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. That's the greenhouse effect and basically the only first principle at play here.”

The stratosphere emits mostly infrared radiation, and CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. However, adding CO2 to the stratosphere causes the stratosphere to cool. Sorry not a first principle. A first principle has to be true in all cases all cases. The effect of CO2 is dependent on the nature of the system.

 

[GTTofAK]

"Furthermore, and arguably more importantly, it works against the consumption-based capitalist zeitgeist. The capitalist structure requires increasing growth and consumption to sustain itself."

Well that didn't take long. But don't worry we are just paranoid knuckle draggers thinking you are you all just a bunch of socialists

 

[GTTofAK]

"Tss = Tsspr + Rnss + K(C - Cnss) + Rp

Tss : The steady state value of the Earths temperature with carbon increment added ( C - Cnss )
Tsspr : The steady state value of the Earths temperature with carbon levels in the preindustrial range.
Rnss : Band limited random process with Gaussian characteristics, sampled when overall temperature values are calculated.
K : THE question around which all this chattering occurs, climate sensitivity.
C : Steady state carbon density in the atmosphere.
Cnss : Steady state carbon density pre industrial.
Rp : A random process with Markov property and a Black Swan type of realization. Unpredictable but rare shocks.:"

The last term is what both the authors of this paper and rconnor seem to be missing. This is the fudge factor. Climate models are tuned models. There is no increase in aerosols due to small volcanic eruptions. There is no trend in small volcanic eruptions. There are simple small perturbations in aerosols due to small volcanic eruptions that we are now able to see due to better instrumentation and coverage. While this might not be explicitly included in the models its there as part of the fudge factor. When the models were tuned this was taken into account. When you add these perturbations that we now see into models you are in effect double counting as you are explicitly adding something that was already there as part of the general fudge factor.

The authors of this paper know this. I fully believe that they had hoped they could get around this by showing a trend in small volcanic eruptions and attempted to do so but failed. As I said professional ethics that fall one step short of fraud. Climate science has well earned reputation of being shady.

 

[canwesteng]

That is a 100% incorrect definition of first principle.

 

[GTTofAK]

For starters "A first principle has to be true in all cases all cases" is not a definition a first principle but a test to determine if something is a first principle. If something is a first principle it has to be true in all cases.

 

[cranky108]

To say this topic is not political then:

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/

This some how looks like ISIS with there montra 'convert or die'.

Maybe we should go back to burning those round earthers.

Believe what you want, but to some people this is a religen. and this needs to be addressed as a war on beliefs.

 

[IRstuff]

"Believe what you want, but to some people this is a religen. and this needs to be addressed as a war on beliefs."

This has been the case since religion was injected into politics in the Reagan presidential campaign. Most of today's political issues have inherited that religious tinge.

The US seems to go through cycles of (religious) extremism; just note the McCarthy era and the hysteria revolving "unamerican activities" and going all the way back to the Salem witch trials. Must be remnants of the Puritan forefathers' legacy.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[cranky108]

Science is only true if people are free to believe different things. To say the science is settled, or we must punish denighers, is kin to believing you are never wrong (god like).

This is a deluded person, and we should be concerned about anyone who is that sure of anything. Science was settled along time ago that the earth was flat, and people were punished for believing it wasen't.

Where does that put us?

 

[GTTofAK]

Please don’t try and blame that on Reagan. Religion has always been injected into politics and vice versa. Or did you forget the charges against Socrates?

Back to tearing down the “capitalist zeitgeist”. Alarmists like to scream that those on the other side see them as a bunch of socialists. Yet they never seem to deny it. Only that its wrong for use to see them as a bunch of socialists. I’ve never quite understood that logic.

The truth is that by its very nature climate science should be a small field. This is a branch of science that in a vacuum shouldn’t appeal to very many people. Yet since the 1970s with the global cooling scare lead by godfather of alarmist science the late Dr. Schneider this field has grown and grown. I seriously doubt this field is attracting people who are actually fascinated by climate or by nature free market libertarians.

Have you ever noticed the start difference between when skeptic climate scientists like a Lindzen or Bastardi are talking about the actually physics of climate science that their eyes light up. They truly enjoy climate science. It’s their passion. Contrast that with alarmists. When it comes to the science they are dry and dull. Their eyes don’t light up when talking about the science. They are not passionate about it. When their eyes do light up is when they start talking about the solutions. Tearing down the “capitalist zeitgeist” that is their true passion. That is the reason they got into climate science in the first place.

Now rconnor will come in saying this is all hyperbole. True enough but ask yourself if your mechanic showed no passion at all when talking about your car but suddenly lit up when talking about your bill would you trust him?

 

[rconnor]

2dye4, I don’t see the advantage of framing the discussion in terms of an overly simplified version of the climate (but I certainly appreciate the effort to focus the discussion). As IRStuff pointed out, the problem is that the equation itself doesn’t capture all the nuances. While this is an interesting discussion in itself, it’s not necessarily helpful in framing the debate as a whole. (What you’ve depicted is (kind of) an energy balance model. So, perhaps a discussion on the use of energy budget models vs. two-box models vs. GCM’s would be of interest?)

To me, the discussion is best served in framing it as a spectrum of agreement with the science. The “spectrum”, to me, works like this:
[ol 1]
[li]The Earth’s climate system has shown an increase in energy over the past century[/li]
[li]The increase in energy is mainly due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (the attribution debate)[/li]
[li]The climate has a sensitivity to CO2 increases somewhere in the IPCC’s range (the sensitivity debate)[/li]
[li]The impacts of increasing the global temperature average become increasingly negative past a certain point (2 deg C is often this point) (the impacts debate)[/li]
[li]A risk assessment of the probabilistic range of impacts suggests that early mitigation efforts are more beneficial than adaptation or a “wait-and-see” attitude (the mitigation vs. adaptation debate)[/li]
[li]Mitigation can and should be achieved through personal changes/taxation/cap-and-trade/regulations/other/a combination thereof (the policy debate)[/li]
[/ol]

Framing the discussion as a spectrum allows us to drop terms like “skeptic” and “conformist”, where “skeptics” are (incorrectly) thought to reject all scientific evidence and “conformists” are (incorrectly) thought to accept, blindly, all scientific evidence. People can state, “I’m in agreement with some aspects but I begin to get skeptical at X”. This way you can see where you have a common understanding and focus the discussion on where people’s disagreement comes in. Furthermore, as each step in the spectrum requires an acceptance of the previous steps, you avoid the circular arguments and illustrate the logical narrative in climate science (and the inappropriateness of having issues with the last point and projecting that onto all the previous points).

One interesting point is that many people argue “we don’t know enough to justify mitigation” and believe this argument lies somewhere in point 2, 3 and 4, when really it might be closer to point 4 or 5. The uncertainty and probabilistic range of each previous point is included in the subsequent point. So, many “lukewarmers”, who believe that sensitivity is likely closer to the lower end of the IPCC’s range (but still in the range), are actually in agreement with everything up to point 4 . This may surprise people that feel the disconnect between skeptics and those that believe mitigation is required is massive and irreconcilable. We are actually much closer than it’s made out to be.

For me, I feel that there is a lot of uncertainty in sensitivity but so does the science. I’d like to say “let’s wait-and-see” but understanding the (probable) impact of slow feedbacks and rate that we’re seeing the fast feedbacks makes me think that the risk of the “wait-and-see” outweighs the gains. I, therefore, advocate for early mitigation but am cautious of some of the suggestions. This puts me in agreement with 5 but with my doubts on the answer to 6.

I don’t agree with cap-and-trade. I also don’t agree that people can just willingly change their life-style enough to make the reductions required on our own; we’ve simply become too comfortable and dependent to do so (myself included) and the normal means of production, which is out of our control, makes it incredibly difficult even if we were willing to (which I referred to early as the consumption-centric capitalist zeitgeist). While personal changes are certainly important, it will require more than that. In additional to personal changes, I agree with incentivizing energy-efficiency products/methods, increasing efficiency standards (and banning certain products/methods that don’t meet those standards) and revenue-neutral taxation initiatives (confusing this with promoting a socialist revolution or “tearing down the “capitalist zeitgeist”” is bafflingly silly).

 

[IRstuff]

I would taking a flying guess that a certain party to this discussion basically claims that all 5 points are incorrect, because there's this huge conspiracy to hide the "truth" by all the socialist-leaning infidels.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[cranky108]

Don't make this about other people who comment here.
However, it's the anti-capitalist that seem to make there money by using capitalist methods, and then attempt to prevent anyone else from doing the same (and maybe skirting the law some). The true capitalist would make there money, and help other people do the same.

So many of the recent protests are from hired mobs, and I believe they truly have dry and dull faces, because this is there job.

My biggest issue is not so much if it exists or not, but that we are attempting to limit peoples freedom based on the assumption that it exists, and the seas will rise 6 feet, and we will have more storms, and death and destruction. I want to see that there really is science, and not just some made up issues. What is the solution other than punish those who do not believe, and tax the hell out of everyone.

Is the problem carbon, or the cutting of trees to make room for people? Two different solutions.

 

[GTTofAK]

I would say that socialists are generally sophists who work they way back from socialism to evidence. They have been this way since even before Marx. It doesn't take some grand conspiracy. To the points.

1. The Earth’s climate system has shown an increase in energy over the past century
Well that is actually false energy in = energy out especially over the time frame of a century. The temperature has probably risen but that isn't the same as energy.

2. The increase in energy is mainly due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (the attribution debate)
Now we start speculating. This is really hard to prove especially when you consider that the natural temperature rise form 1911-1945 was almost identical to the one form 1976-2001.

3. The climate has a sensitivity to CO2 increases somewhere in the IPCC’s range (the sensitivity debate)
Probably wrong, especially given the failure of the high sensitivity models. Most natural systems have a negative feedback. That the IPCC claims that a stable system as old as the earths oxygen and nitrogen atmosphere has a net positive feedback is a very difficult claim to stomach for anyone with a background is systems analysis.

4 .The impacts of increasing the global temperature average become increasingly negative past a certain point (2 deg C is often this point) (the impacts debate)

Net negative impacts being more speculation that IPCC admits that they have very little evidence or confidence linking AGW to negative effects like hurricanes drought, fire etc. And 2C being a number pulled out of thin air.

5. A risk assessment of the probabilistic range of impacts suggests that early mitigation efforts are more beneficial than adaptation or a “wait-and-see” attitude (the mitigation vs. adaptation debate)

Yet the IPCC admits that we are well past the point of mitigation.

6. Mitigation can and should be achieved through personal changes/taxation/cap-and-trade/regulations/other/a combination thereof (the policy debate)

Looking at 1-5 its pretty clear that you started at 6 and worked your way back. True sophist reasoning. This is to be expected from a socialist since socialists are almost always sophists.

 

[rconnor]

IRstuff, well looks like your guess was proven to be quite accurate. Are you psychic or something?

 

[GTTofAK]

"IRstuff, well looks like your guess was proven to be quite accurate. Are you psychic or something? "

I allege human nature and endemic group think. You allege a massive oil industry funded conspiracy to convince people that alarmism is a conspiracy. Who is the conspiracy theorist?

 

[GTTofAK]

Perhaps you were so desperate for an argument that you decided to lay your "capitalist zeitgeist" cards on the table so you could run and yell "conspiracy theory" when someone called you a socialist.

 

[rconnor]

Is the problem carbon, or the cutting of trees to make room for people? Two different solutions.

Cranky, you bring up a good point that I forgot to mention. The problem (if you agree up to point 2 at least) is atmospheric CO2 levels; this is not just caused by increasing carbon emissions but also decreasing carbon sinks. Mitigation efforts include reforestation or, at a minimum, drastic reductions in deforestation.

 

[IRstuff]

"You allege a massive oil industry funded conspiracy to convince people that alarmism is a conspiracy."

Where, in any of my posts have I seriously proffered such an opinion? I've used "conspiracy" exactly once before this post, and it was, "huge conspiracy to hide the "truth" by all the socialist-leaning infidels"

Someone, on the other hand, blatantly repeats claims of a conspiracy of climate scientists, and blatantly throw labels around to denigrate and demean others. Moreover, bandying the "socialist" label is ironic, given that the typical engineer on this site is likely to be the top 25-percentile in salary. If I were to succumb to a conspiracy theory, I might consider it suspicious that an engineer has made no engineering posts or replies outside all the climate-related threads, in this engineering website.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529


Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
There is a homework forum hosted by engineering.com:

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

 

[GTTofAK]

From Marx to present I've never found a socialist who actually practices what they preach. The communist manifesto might as well be a diet book written by a fat man.