Extreme weather

[Alan Klein]

Not sure what this means for the current issues regarding CO2. Maybe Ray can add his evaluation.

Historic carbon dioxide decline could hold clues for future climate
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-historic-carbon-dioxide-decline-clues.html

Link to original study in above article:
Article
Published: 20 July 2020
Last glacial atmospheric CO2 decline due to widespread Pacific deep-water expansion
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0610-5

[Ray]

Not sure what this means for the current issues regarding CO2. Maybe Ray can add his evaluation.

From the abstract of the nature.com article you linked:

"Ocean circulation critically affects the global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide through redistribution of heat and carbon in the Earth system. Despite intensive research, the nature of past ocean circulation changes remains elusive."

This is obviously another complex issue which climate scientists struggle to understand. As I understand, the oceans store far more heat and carbon than the atmosphere and the biosphere of the land combined.

What I find fascinating is the estimated number of submarine volcanoes on the ocean floors. The estimates vary from 1 million to 3 million, but we don't really know. Because many of the volcanoes are at great depth in the oceans, there could be half a dozen or more erupting at this very moment, but no-one is aware of the eruptions, not even Greta Thunberg. 

"More than 70 percent of all volcanic eruptions occur underwater and scientists are in the dark when it comes to understanding underwater volcanoes because the eruptions are cloaked from view by thousands of feet of water."

https://ocean.si.edu/holding-tank/vents-volcanoes/mystery-underwater-volcano

[Alan Klein]

From the abstract of the nature.com article you linked:

"Ocean circulation critically affects the global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide through redistribution of heat and carbon in the Earth system. Despite intensive research, the nature of past ocean circulation changes remains elusive."

This is obviously another complex issue which climate scientists struggle to understand. As I understand, the oceans store far more heat and carbon than the atmosphere and the biosphere of the land combined.

What I find fascinating is the estimated number of submarine volcanoes on the ocean floors. The estimates vary from 1 million to 3 million, but we don't really know. Because many of the volcanoes are at great depth in the oceans, there could be half a dozen or more erupting at this very moment, but no-one is aware of the eruptions, not even Greta Thunberg. 

"More than 70 percent of all volcanic eruptions occur underwater and scientists are in the dark when it comes to understanding underwater volcanoes because the eruptions are cloaked from view by thousands of feet of water."

https://ocean.si.edu/holding-tank/vents-volcanoes/mystery-underwater-volcano

Hawaii is probably a main example of underseas volcanoes. Each of the islands is another volcano.  Each were formed in sequence with the Big Island of Hawaii still active and the largest.  There's a new one forming east of it now.  The other Hawaiian Islands like Maui, Oahu, Kauai further west went dormant long ago.  Apparently there's a hot spot in the earth's crust.  As the continental plates move, these islands were formed in sequence.  It was fascinating to visit the volcanoes when my wife and I cruised there. 

[Ray]

Hawaii is probably a main example of underseas volcanoes. Each of the islands is another volcano.  Each were formed in sequence with the Big Island of Hawaii still active and the largest.  There's a new one forming east of it now.  The other Hawaiian Islands like Maui, Oahu, Kauai further west went dormant long ago.  Apparently there's a hot spot in the earth's crust.  As the continental plates move, these islands were formed in sequence.  It was fascinating to visit the volcanoes when my wife and I cruised there.

What's also interesting is that even when volcanoes appear inactive, they are usually surrounded by fissures and cracks which are continuously emitting CO2. This tends not to be noticed or measured by scientists in the field.

This is also occurring in the oceans to a greater extent because of the greater area of land covered, which is one reason why the pH of the oceans varies considerably according to location and depth.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What's also interesting is that even when volcanoes appear inactive, they are usually surrounded by fissures and cracks which are continuously emitting CO2. This tends not to be noticed or measured by scientists in the field.

Says you. And since you are suggesting it's an issue, how much of this affects the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration?

[TechTalk]

This tends not to be noticed or measured by scientists in the field.

Says you. And since you are suggesting it's an issue, how much of this affects the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration?

This is what the internet gives us. Spare time web surfing expertise that is believed to be more insightful than that of the actual experts who have invested their lives into work, research, and study.

There are numerous scientists that "notice" and are actively engaged in research. As more is learned, it is incorporated into the body of knowledge created by actual scientists that do real science.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is what the internet gives us. Spare time web surfing expertise that is believed to be more insightful than that of the actual experts who have invested their lives into work, research, and study.

There are numerous scientists that "notice" and are actively engaged in research. As more is learned, it is incorporated into the body of knowledge created by actual scientists that do real science.

Exactly, Real science starts with observations, followed by thorough, peer-reviewed, analysis, AKA "the scientific method". Only too many (anonymous) folks 'observe' (or only read controversial blog posts, or references to those), but real scientists take such clues to do something useful to society,

[Ray]

Exactly, Real science starts with observations,

All human activity starts with observations, as soon as a child is born, and involves learned interpretations of those observations, whether one is a scientist or not.

followed by thorough, peer-reviewed, analysis, AKA "the scientific method".

Try being more precise. Sometimes followed by thorough, peer-reviewed analysis, but not always, would be more correct. Scientists are also human, and can be incompetent, biased, and even corrupt, just as non-scientists sometimes are.

Also, when the subject of scientific investigation is complex, non-linear and chaotic, it might not be possible for the the peer-review process to meet those ideal standards of the 'scientific methodology'. The peer reviewer then has the option of either being scientifically honest, or failing to mention the "ifs, buts, and doubts", as Professor Schneider explained.

An example of what can happen when a scientist truthfully expresses what he really thinks about the quality of the research relating to climate, is what happened to Professor Peter Ridd who used to be a Professor of Physics at James Cook University in North Queensland.

Ridd, having a background in Physics, which is one of the 'Hard Sciences' which requires the most rigorous application of the true 'methodology of science', criticized the quality of the research relating to the effects of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. He claimed that much of the research was not being properly checked, tested or replicated through the peer review process.

He was sacked by the university for not toeing the line. So he took the university to court, and won his case. The university was ordered to pay Ridd A$1.2 million in compensation.

However, the university made an appeal to the higher court, and unfortunately for Ridd, won the appeal (which I'm sure will make 'climate alarmist' like you, Bart, very happy     ).

The following Quadrant site addressed this issue, before the court decision was reversed.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/04/the-ridd-case-much-more-than-just-one-mans-victory/

The following quote represents my own personal view quite well.

"A key factor in the success of science has been the subjection of any important new claims to skepticism and verification. To a large extent in environmental research, such testing has been replaced by claims of authority and consensus. This decidedly anti-scientific perspective has been greatly facilitated by a prevailing acceptance in academia of a postmodern philosophical view which denies the existence of any objective truth.  In its place is the notion of a political correctness deemed self-obvious to all right-thinking persons and which it is “unethical” even to question. From this perspective it is not too difficult to excuse a lie if it supports what is perceived to be a higher truth. To dissent with any of this makes one a “denier” which is seen as intellectually equivalent to believing in a flat Earth and morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust."

Only too many (anonymous) folks 'observe' (or only read controversial blog posts, or references to those), but real scientists take such clues to do something useful to society.

What do you mean by 'real scientists'? Anyone who has a scientific degree and is working in a laboratory, whether commercially funded or government funded, in order to support his family and children, and/or achieve fame?

On the issue of submarine volcanoes, are the following sites associated with 'real scientists'? Or is it all bunkum?
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

"If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans then there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes.

If the global estimate of one million submarine volcanoes is correct perhaps many thousands of these volcanoes are active. In contrast, few submarine volcanoes are caught in the process of erupting. Of the nearly 8,000 known volcanic eruptions in the last 10,000 years only about 300 were submarine. From 1975 to 1985, 160 volcanoes erupted but only 24 of these were submarine. Most of these submarine eruptions were in shallow water."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0603-4

"The majority of Earth’s volcanic eruptions occur beneath the sea, but the limited number of direct observations and samples limits our understanding of these unseen events."

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ray, you seem to be dodging the question: How much of this (submarine volcano eruptions) affects the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration?

[Ray]

Ray, you seem to be dodging the question: How much of this (submarine volcano eruptions) affects the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration?

Dodging?? If it's not known how many volcanoes on the sea floor are erupting, nor how much CO2 is being emitted from vents and fissures on the ocean floor as well as the dry land, how is it possible to determine the effect of such emissions on atmospheric increases in CO2?

One can only speculate, or hypothesize. However, I do understand that in a warmer climate the sea will tend to absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere.

[Robert Roaldi]

Dodging?? If it's not known how many volcanoes on the sea floor are erupting, nor how much CO2 is being emitted from vents and fissures on the ocean floor as well as the dry land, how is it possible to determine the effect of such emissions on atmospheric increases in CO2?

One can only speculate, or hypothesize. However, I do understand that in a warmer climate the sea will tend to absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere.

"One can only speculate..." ?

No, you can study it. I suspect people already have. The fact that a few readers on this particular forum might not be experts in that field is a measure of nothing.

[Ray]

"One can only speculate..." ?

No, you can study it. I suspect people already have.

Don't be silly! One can't study something that hasn't been observed or detected. Read my posts before commenting. Crikey!

[faberryman]

Don't be silly! One can't study something that hasn't been observed or detected. Read my posts before commenting. Crikey!

So are you saying that there are now more volcanoes on the ocean floor emitting CO2 than there were during the Ice Age, and that accounts for the rising temperature of the earth, not mankind's activity? If true, it still seems to me a lot easier to shift from fossil fuels to wind and solar than try to figure out how to stopper up all those volcanoes.

One more thing: you keep saying "estimate". When we were talking about polar bears, Alan told me I had to actually count them, not rely on some algorithm a scientist thought up in his head. It seems to me that what goes for polar bears ought to go for volcanoes. You are just going to have to do the heavy lifting and count them. No one said being a scientist was easy.  I just wanted to give you a heads up that you might get some push-back from Alan on this.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Dodging?? If it's not known how many volcanoes on the sea floor are erupting, nor how much CO2 is being emitted from vents and fissures on the ocean floor as well as the dry land, how is it possible to determine the effect of such emissions on atmospheric increases in CO2?

One can only speculate, or hypothesize. However, I do understand that in a warmer climate the sea will tend to absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere.

Since you brought it up in this "Extreme weather" thread, I had to assume you had something useful to add about the effect from all those underwater volcanoes on Climate change or Extreme Weather. Apparently not, and it looks more like an attempt to cast doubt on the usefulness of science, which is typical for those who think human activity is not the root cause of more Extreme Weather events.

Well, science can give an answer to what causes the rise in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. Clue, it has to do with measuring the Carbon Isotopes (13-C) that are more present in volcanic emissions. The CO2 in the atmosphere contains very little Carbon 13, so the effect of landbased volcanoes is very small (and they do not cause the rising concentrations, their contribution is rather stable), and it is questionable if those deep water volcanoes add even any CO2 to the atmosphere (because it most likely gets absorbed by the water before it reaches the surface).

Here's a short video (I've shared it before) to refresh our memories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE

[Alan Klein]

All human activity starts with observations, as soon as a child is born, and involves learned interpretations of those observations, whether one is a scientist or not.

Try being more precise. Sometimes followed by thorough, peer-reviewed analysis, but not always, would be more correct. Scientists are also human, and can be incompetent, biased, and even corrupt, just as non-scientists sometimes are.

Also, when the subject of scientific investigation is complex, non-linear and chaotic, it might not be possible for the the peer-review process to meet those ideal standards of the 'scientific methodology'. The peer reviewer then has the option of either being scientifically honest, or failing to mention the "ifs, buts, and doubts", as Professor Schneider explained.

An example of what can happen when a scientist truthfully expresses what he really thinks about the quality of the research relating to climate, is what happened to Professor Peter Ridd who used to be a Professor of Physics at James Cook University in North Queensland.

Ridd, having a background in Physics, which is one of the 'Hard Sciences' which requires the most rigorous application of the true 'methodology of science', criticized the quality of the research relating to the effects of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. He claimed that much of the research was not being properly checked, tested or replicated through the peer review process.

He was sacked by the university for not toeing the line. So he took the university to court, and won his case. The university was ordered to pay Ridd A$1.2 million in compensation.

However, the university made an appeal to the higher court, and unfortunately for Ridd, won the appeal (which I'm sure will make 'climate alarmist' like you, Bart, very happy     ).

The following Quadrant site addressed this issue, before the court decision was reversed.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/04/the-ridd-case-much-more-than-just-one-mans-victory/

The following quote represents my own personal view quite well.

"A key factor in the success of science has been the subjection of any important new claims to skepticism and verification. To a large extent in environmental research, such testing has been replaced by claims of authority and consensus. This decidedly anti-scientific perspective has been greatly facilitated by a prevailing acceptance in academia of a postmodern philosophical view which denies the existence of any objective truth.  In its place is the notion of a political correctness deemed self-obvious to all right-thinking persons and which it is “unethical” even to question. From this perspective it is not too difficult to excuse a lie if it supports what is perceived to be a higher truth. To dissent with any of this makes one a “denier” which is seen as intellectually equivalent to believing in a flat Earth and morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust."

What do you mean by 'real scientists'? Anyone who has a scientific degree and is working in a laboratory, whether commercially funded or government funded, in order to support his family and children, and/or achieve fame?

On the issue of submarine volcanoes, are the following sites associated with 'real scientists'? Or is it all bunkum?
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

"If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans then there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes.

If the global estimate of one million submarine volcanoes is correct perhaps many thousands of these volcanoes are active. In contrast, few submarine volcanoes are caught in the process of erupting. Of the nearly 8,000 known volcanic eruptions in the last 10,000 years only about 300 were submarine. From 1975 to 1985, 160 volcanoes erupted but only 24 of these were submarine. Most of these submarine eruptions were in shallow water."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0603-4

"The majority of Earth’s volcanic eruptions occur beneath the sea, but the limited number of direct observations and samples limits our understanding of these unseen events."

If Newton worked at Cook University, they would have sacked him too.

[Alan Klein]

So are you saying that there are now more volcanoes on the ocean floor emitting CO2 than there were during the Ice Age, and that accounts for the rising temperature of the earth, not mankind's activity? If true, it still seems to me a lot easier to shift from fossil fuels to wind and solar than try to figure out how to stopper up all those volcanoes.

One more thing: you keep saying "estimate". When we were talking about polar bears, Alan told me I had to actually count them, not rely on some algorithm a scientist thought up in his head. It seems to me that what goes for polar bears ought to go for volcanoes. You are just going to have to do the heavy lifting and count them. No one said being a scientist was easy.  I just wanted to give you a heads up that you might get some push-back from Alan on this.

Curious?  Does anyone know how the polar bears survived the last warming period before the last Ice Age? If they did it once, maybe multiple times as there were many warming periods and Ice Ages,  why shouldn't they survive the current warming? After all, they're very smart, adaptable, and I'm sure they haven't eaten seal only throughout their histories.  Maybe they'll move south and eat berries, salmon, and people.   

[faberryman]

Curious?  Does anyone know how the polar bears survived the last warming period before the last Ice Age? If they did it once, maybe multiple times as there were many warming periods and Ice Ages,  why shouldn't they survive the current warming? After all, they're very smart, adaptable, and I'm sure they haven't eaten seal only throughout their histories.  Maybe they'll move south and eat berries, salmon, and people.

How hot did it get during the warming periods you are talking about?

[Frans Waterlander]

How hot did it get during the warming periods you are talking about?

Just google and you will know. Here's one result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

[Alan Klein]

How hot did it get during the warming periods you are talking about?

I don't know.  Maybe Ray does.  But I found this study how the Antarctic region warmed up in multiples over the rest of the earth.  The study assumes both polar regions warmed similarly.  If so, how did the bears survive before?  There had to be a lot less Arctic sea ice then than now.  Somehow, I think the bears figured it out and managed.  For all we know, the brown bear might just be a former polar bear or vice versa.

During last warming period, Antarctica heated up two to three times more than planet average
Amplification of warming at poles consistent with today's climate change models
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161206111535.htm

[faberryman]

If so, how did the bears survive before?

Were they even around then? I thought God created the Earth only about 4000 years ago. Which pretty much means this Ice Age and warming period thing is all poppycock. A bunch of left wing scientists. They'll say anything. Certainly the dinosaurs are all fake. There is a whole YouTube channel where it is proved.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYxIsFJNY06h7K7XxK1zDEA

I don't know if Muslims believe in dinosaurs.