Hud – asking stupid questions without even attempting to think about them or look up answers really is a resounding hallmark of deniers. Here’s another little calculation. The arctic ocean covers an area of about 14 million square kilometres. The depth of the ocean is about a kilometre. So its volume is about 14 million cubic kilometres. The specific heat capacity of water is about 4.2 J/g/K. A cubic kilometre of water weighs about 1e15 g, so the mass of the Arctic ocean is about 1.4e22 g. So an eruption the size of Tambora would heat it up by 0.001°C, if all the energy released went into heating. That is obviously not going to affect ocean circulation or convection in any perceptible way.

Cocksman – your screed contains no science. Analogies between physical systems and literature are hardly enlightening. Noting the weather does not tell us anything about climate change. You are obviously unaware of the excellent agreement between satellite and surface temperature records. And your entirely vacuous statement that humans are not causing Global Warming if it is even happening at all demonstrates that you don’t even have crap between your ears.

Where did anyone ever latch on to the ridiculous claim that surface measurements would be better than satellite measurements? Unless you are knowingly reading from the Hansen script, it is inconceiveable that anyone would represent themselves as knowing anything about science and make such claims. Land mass covers about 30% of the earths surface. Only 30% of land mass is within range of monitoring stations, and many of those have complicated urban temperature biases to resolve. As such surface temperature estimates are extrapolated globally from biased readings of ~10% of the planet. Steinbecks “Cannery Row” is about 100 pages. If I read you the first ten pages, how many of you could finish writing the book word for word? Not even the great Hansen could come close. Meanwhile roving satellites circle the globe collecting a temperature distribution in a matter of minutes, while geosynchronous satellites can instaneously matrix global temperatures, water vapors, infrared radiation, in the troposphere and on the surface even in places few humans have ever been. That anyone should dispute which is the more accurate measure has more to do with the fact that the satellites are making people look bad, than any scientific argument. Even if they were not clearly more accurate, they are definitely more precise and as such all predicted trends are still more trustworthy.

Also, if you cannot read a graph, please go away. The year starts with January and February, typically the coldest months in the NH. You can see that 2008 starts off with a downward trend that cannot be staved off by SH summer because of huge ice growth in Antarctica. Most hilariously as the SH headed to fall and the NH headed to summer you see a temperature plummet. This fact flies in the face of the “catastrophic” warming and ice losses at the north pole. If the North Pole is allegedly heating at an alarming rate, why does the global mean plummet as the NH heads into summer. I tutor 8th graders in pre-algebra who could pick up on this in about 1 second. Yet there are those on here screaming that the opposite is true.

Of course these are the same people who send money to Bono to cure AIDS, have starved people in developing countries because Willie Nelson told them to burn biodiesel, and have put our country’s progress 50 years behind protesting much needed power plants at the urgance of Martin Sheen. Folks, real science doesn’t get you on TV or in the newspaper. It works silently behind the scenes through strict adherence to well founded principles, to keep a balance that most idiots don’t understand and take for granted. No amount of Hero Worship will undo science. No matter who is paid what amount of money to represent what opinion, it really has no relevance on the facts or scientific reality. If you choose to keep your head buried in Algore’s ass because it provides you some feeling of comfort or security that’s fine. But no amount of time spent there, absorbing the juicy remnants of his charmed life is going to change the scientific reality that humans are not causing Global Warming if it is even happening at all. All it will get you is crap on the outside of your ears to match the crap between them.

In addition to the conductive heat transfer which the equation determines, how does adding heat (and gas?) at the ocean floor affect convective heat transfer and global currents? Has it impacted ice melt a lot, a little or not at all? I haven’t the slightest idea, but I know a snow job when I’m seeing one. Based on the available evidence this story’s nothing but good copy right now. No one knows, and given the politicization of science, I’ll be very doubtful when someone claims to know.

It’s the simple-mindedness of such calculations, foisted upon the public’s typical 4th grade scientific education that the Global WARMongers have been using to arrive at today’s hysteria.

http://globalwarming.chemcept.co.uk/index.htm

http://progcontra.blogspot.com/2008/06/dr-james-hansen-speaks-out.html

The CO2 concentrations for the three Hansen et al scenarios are plotted here .

Note the observed CO2 as well. Compare that with your sporty quote “The scenarios are not as you describe. In scenario B, emissions continued to rise, and in the real world, emissions have followed a track closest to that assumed in scenario B. They have been nowhere near the exponential rise assumed in scenario A.”

Hehe, right. This, my friend, is known as talking out of your ass. That doesn’t fall into my version of science, but maybe it does in yours.

The article also states that theoretical work on the debate stagnated for thirty years following Angstrom’s work, and never states that even a rudimentary relationship whereby one could say that x amount of carbon dioxide will cause y amount of an increase in temperature was authoritatively developed. Most of the temperature increases are based upon a doubling of carbon dioxide and estimates of the temperature increase varying from a total of 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F).

Nowhere in the article is there even a mention of a simple experiment such as I describe. All the listings for temperature are based upon the supposition of warming in the atmosphere. The atmosphere in toto might be a closed system, but the number of variables in it is greater than one. A definable experiment based upon the scientific method should only have one variable involved for determining a result where one can definitively state that A causes B.

Most of the article is involved with stating that the early climatologist got everything wrong. It isn’t until Callendar, Suess, Revelle, and Keeling that article even seems to be remotely supportive of any scientific contribution along this line of inquiry. Effectively, this article consigns the first hundred years of climatic atmospheric and gaseous study to the trash heap. The first truly positive note in the article doesn’t come until it cites the Princeton computer models that have been linked to Robert Hansen.

All and all, not a bad article for a history lesson. It does not address any chemical or actual real world relationships. It does reference many of the papers detailing early chemical research into the role carbon dioxide plays in the greenhouse effect. Did you notice that the article I quoted has been cited over 1900 times in scholarly papers, including a few by Hansen?

But it still fails to answer the basic question I asked you: Do you have any hard evidence to show that an increase of 100 parts per million in carbon dioxide, in a closed gas sample comprised of the major atmospheric components and carbon dioxide, produces a significant increase in temperature within that sample? A simple results chart showing increase sample by quantity X produces a temperature increase of Y will do. Said chart must define the experimental criteria that were used to achieve it so that the experiment can be reproduced if desired by a someone of average scientific training and ability, or at least understood by such a person.

Gosh for once you made a reasonable post.

I have seen that article Dicentra posted.I did not believe that all those eruptions could warm up the water sufficiently to melt the ice.It is still very cold.

That is why I have not posted it at my forum.Not a credible attempt to explain why we have had some major artic ice melting.

Besides how do we know how long and how much the eruptions could have been going on for decades before we had the tools to monitor the ocean bottoms?

And do yourself a favour and in future, don’t make yourself look like an idiot by selectively quoting in the most obvious imaginable way, just to try to find backing for your preconceived and mistaken views.”

Translation:

I have run out of counterpoints to make that might be undestandable and reasonable.

Therefore I will just go to plan B and throw out a link that does not answer DK at all.Plus the usual insulting crap we have come to expect from you.

Meanwhile you simply ducked there valid questions:

“Do you have another source showing information from a repeated experiment? Or a source with a quantitative relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide (at atmospheric concentrations)and a rate of temperature increase?”

DK has been civil with you the whole time.You could have returned it in similar fashion.

I think you ran away.

And do yourself a favour and in future, don’t make yourself look like an idiot by selectively quoting in the most obvious imaginable way, just to try to find backing for your preconceived and mistaken views.

dicentra: how about considering the evidence? Since 1979, Arctic sea ice coverage has shrunk by about two million square kilometres. That decline has been fairly smooth. Its rate did not change in 1999.

Now, how about a little calculation? Two million square kilometres of ice has been lost, and let’s assume for convenience that the typical ice thickness is one metre. So, two thousand cubic kilometres of ice has been lost. The density of ice is about 1g/cm³, so the mass of ice lost is 2e18 g. The latent heat of fusion of water is 334 J/g. So, the energy required to melt that much ice is 6.7e20 J. The greatest volcanic eruption in recorded history was that of Mount Tambora in 1815. The energy released in that eruption was 8.4e19 J. The eruptions on the Arctic sea floor are tiny compared with the colossal Tambora eruption, and to melt any ice at all they’d also have to heat up a column of water 4km deep. So, the amount of ice melted by Arctic sea floor activity is completely negligible.