Our Oceans are Under Attack

or a fruit.

 

An interesting and sobering article about the global results of the largest volcanic eruption in modern times (Tambora, 1815). Hundreds of thousands of people died during its main eruption, but over the next few years millions of people died globally due to disease and starvation. If we had another volcanic eruption of this size it could create real havoc, at least for a few years.

A Volcanic Eruption That Reverberates 200 Years Later | New York Times


The Mount Tambora eruption's profound aftermath influenced the skies of
19th-century paintings like “Chichester Canal,” above, by J.M.W. Turner.


An early rendering of Frankenstein. In the cold and stormy summer of 1816,
while on holiday in Switzerland, Mary Shelley came up with her lurid tale.

 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/

As a leading climatologist who spent many years studying the Arctic at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center at Ohio State, Box knew that this breezy scientific detachment described one of the nightmare long-shot climate scenarios: a feedback loop where warming seas release methane that causes warming that releases more methane that causes more warming, on and on until the planet is incompatible with human life. And he knew there were similar methane releases occurring in the area.

On impulse, he sent out a tweet

"If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we're f..ckd."

Box had ventured into two particularly dangerous areas. First, the dirty secret of climate science and government climate policies is that they're all based on probabilities, which means that the effects of standard CO2 targets like an 80 percent reduction by 2050 are based on the middle of the probability curve. Box had ventured to the darker possibilities on the curve's tail, where few scientists and zero politicians are willing to go.

Worse, he showed emotion, a subject ringed with taboos in all science but especially in climate science. As a recent study from the University of Bristol documented, climate scientists have been so distracted and intimidated by the relentless campaign against them that they tend to avoid any statements that might get them labeled "alarmists," retreating into a world of charts and data. But Box had been able to resist all that. He even chased the media splash in interviews with the Danish press, where they translated "we're f..ked" into its more decorous Danish equivalent, "on our ***," plastering those dispiriting words in large-type headlines all across the country.

 

Do feed back loops exist? Sure.
Is methane a dangerous greenhouse gas? Yes, about 50 times more potent than co2 per equal parts per million.
Considering co2 is a minor greenhouse gas in potency, and a miniscule part of the atmosphere (400 parts per million) and most of that natural (human emission 4% or less of total co2), then how is the initial warming to trigger the feed back warming likely to be human produced?
Probabilities? Probability near zero. An absurdity!
And no science to support the conjecture that it does.
Nor is there any evidence co2 has ever been a climate driver.
Cause and effect doesn't work as start with "cause celebre" and then we'll assign an effect to it. Pseudo-science with a political agenda.
"All that co2 man pumps into the air MUST be bad, so what bad thing can we blame on it? Climate change! It's always occurring naturally anyway. We can make political hay out of it.
No you can't, because your elitist attitude has confused you. The rest of us are not nearly as stupid as you want to believe!

 

Don't confuse the terms common sense, wisdom, craft, intelligence, perception, and intuition.
We have these different words because they mean different things.
Lot's of education and a high IQ doesn't mean the someone so blessed possesses either wisdom, common sense or ethics.
Some are actually foolish, and some criminal.
Congress comes to mind.
Many believe they possess reliable intuition and invariably intuit wrong.
Also, higher education seems to stamp out confidence in common sense. "Things are not what they seem, but what WE tell you!"
And many who score well on IQ tests are neither wise nor extremely intelligent. Test wise isn't wisdom. It's an acquired skill or craft.

 

Interesting! Same area.

"KRAKATOA
http://www.livescience.com/28186-krakatoa.html

At 12:53 p.m. on Sunday the 26th, the initial blast of the eruption sent a cloud of gas and debris an estimated 15 miles (24 km) into the air above Perboewatan. It is thought that debris from the earlier eruptive activity must have plugged the neck of the cone, allowing pressure to build in the magma chamber. On the morning of the 27th, four tremendous explosions, heard as far away as Perth, Australia, some 2,800 miles (4,500 km) distant, plunged both Perboewatan and Danan into the caldera below the sea.

The initial explosion ruptured the magma chamber and allowed sea water to contact the hot lava. The result is known as a phreatomagmatic event. The water flash-boiled, creating a cushion of superheated steam that carried the pyroclastic flows up to 25 miles (40 km) at speeds in excess of 62 mph (100 kph). The eruption has been assigned a rating of 6 on the Volcanic Explosion Index and is estimated to have had the explosive force of 200 megatons of TNT. (For purposes of comparison, the bomb that devastated Hiroshima had a force of 20 kilotons. The Mount St. Helens explosion of 1980 had a VEI of 5.)

Tephra and hot volcanic gases overcame many of the victims in western Java and Sumatra, but thousands more were killed by the devastating tsunami. The wall of water, nearly 120 feet tall, was created by the volcanoes’ collapse into the sea. It completely overwhelmed small nearby islands. Inhabitants of the coastal towns on Java and Sumatra fled toward higher ground, fighting their neighbors for toeholds on the cliffs. The steamship Berouw was carried nearly a mile inland on Sumatra; all 28 crewmembers were killed. Another ship, the Loudon, had been anchored nearby. The ship's captain Lindemann succeeded in turning its bow to face the wave and the ship was able to ride over the crest. Looking back, the crew and passengers saw that nothing was left of the pretty town where they had been anchored.

The explosions hurled an estimated 11 cubic miles (45 cubic km) of debris into the atmosphere darkening skies up to 275 miles (442 km) from the volcano. In the immediate vicinity, the dawn did not return for three days. Barographs around the globe documented that the shock waves in the atmosphere circled the planet at least seven times. Within 13 days, a layer of sulfur dioxide and other gases began to filter the amount of sunlight able to reach Earth. The atmospheric effects made for spectacular sunsets all over Europe and the United States. Average global temperatures were up to 1.2 degrees cooler for the next five years.

Mount Tambora & the year without a summer

While justifiably rated as one of the most destructive volcanic eruptions of modern times, Krakatoa was not the largest eruption in the recent history of Indonesia. That “honor” belongs to the eruption of Mount Tambora on April 10, 1815.
Tambora is the only eruption in modern history to rate a VEI of 7. Global temperatures were an average of five degrees cooler because of this eruption; even in the United States, 1816 was known as the “year without a summer.” Crops failed worldwide, and in Europe and the United States an unexpected outcome was the invention of the bicycle as horses became too expensive to feed.

Maybe climate change will inspire new technologies too!

 

Both volcanos on one map
As a tactic, constructive use of some aging Abombs to trigger volcanos to compensate for warming.

 

From chickens pumped with antibiotics to the environmental devastation caused by production, we need to realise we are not fed with happy farm animals

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ood-meat-production-environmental-devastation

What can you say about a society whose food production must be hidden from public view? In which the factory farms and slaughterhouses supplying much of our diet must be guarded like arsenals to prevent us from seeing what happens there? We conspire in this concealment: we don’t want to know. We deceive ourselves so effectively that much of the time we barely notice that we are eating animals.

It begins with the stories we tell. Many of the books written for very young children are about farms, but these jolly places in which animals wander freely, as if they belong to the farmer’s family, bear no relationship to the realities of production. The petting farms to which we take our children are reifications of these fantasies. This is just one instance of the sanitisation of childhood, in which none of the three little pigs gets eaten.
All children should be taken by their schools to visit a factory pig or chicken farm, and to an abattoir, where they should be able to witness every stage of slaughter and butchery. Does this suggestion outrage you? If so, ask yourself what you are objecting to: informed choice, or what it reveals? If we cannot bear to see what we eat, it is not the seeing that’s wrong, it’s the eating.


The growth rate of broiler chickens has quadrupled in 50 years: they are now killed at seven weeks. By then they are often crippled by their own weight. Animals selected for obesity cause obesity. Bred to bulge, scarcely able to move, overfed, factory-farmed chickens now contain almost three times as much fat as chickens did in 1970, and just two thirds of the protein. Stalled pigs and feedlot cattle have undergone a similar transformation. Meat production? No, this is fat production.

Sustaining unhealthy animals in crowded sheds requires lashings of antibiotics. These drugs also promote growth, a use that remains legal in the United States and widespread in the European Union, under the guise of disease control. In 1953, Lymbery notes, some MPs warned in the House of Commons that this could cause the emergence of disease-resistant pathogens. They were drowned out by laughter.

Meat is bad news, in almost all circumstances.

So why don’t we stop? Because we don’t know the facts, and because we find it difficult even if we do. A survey by the US Humane Research Council discovered that only 2% of Americans are vegetarians or vegans, and more than half give up within a year. Eventually, 84% lapse. One of the main reasons, the survey found, is that people want to fit in. We might know it’s wrong, but we block our ears and carry on.

 

The Mt Pinatubo eruption in the Phillippines in 1991 put more particulates into the stratosphere than any other eruption sice Krakatoa, and dropped global temps by around 0.5 degrees C for a couple of years.

 

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

"Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth's climate changes—and Earth's current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun's irradiance.

Patterson says he learned of the 1,500-year climate cycle while studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada's West Coast. Since the Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson's research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get 5,000-year climate profiles from the mud. The mud showed the past climate conditions: Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled fossils and fish scales. Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments, mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land. Patterson's fishing profiles clearly revealed the sun's 87 and 210-year solar cycles—and the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the 1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen.

"Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate changes. Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered," says Patterson.

"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2000, Vizer, Shaviv, Carslaw and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies ... varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system... These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."

"When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools... This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere ... was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age."

The Canadian expert concludes, "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index."
So what does this all mean? It means, in the simplest of terms, that it is the Sun which is warming the oceans, not an increased "Greenhouse Effect" caused by human activity."

 

"Atomic Absorption Spectrometry.
It is a scientific method by which we can measure precisely which wavelengths of radiation a particular gas is capable of absorbing."

"a radiation source is beamed through a glass container containing a gas sample. As the radiation passes through, a portion of it is absorbed at particular narrow bandwidths (often more than one ) so the end result are some "missing" sections of the whole spectrum coming from the source, which show up as dark lines. They're missing because they were absorbed by the sample in the chamber. They are called absorption lines, or absorption spectra, and when analyzed by a knowledgeable person, can tell one what the gas or gas mixture is in the sample chamber based on a catalog of known spectra. It's a wonderful tool for analyzing unknown gas samples."

"carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth."

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


"When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."

insignificant
roughly 1/400th of warming is mans fault. A quarter of one percent.

co2 is an insignificant trace gas. 400 parts per million of atmosphere.

"Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases"

 

From the 3 above posts, scientifically, we know the sun is the driver of climate change. Which we have always known as earth's heat source. Shouldn't be surprising that differences in the source result in differences in the temperature here on earth.

We know that co2 simply doesn't have the capability of driving climate or warming the planet.. Physics proves that. Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

And that man's contribution to co2 and greenhouse effect is insignificant.

Attempting to reduce co2 is ridiculous and wasted time, effort, money, and pain!

We know what IS real, and what is fiction!


NOW! Where is YOUR science?

 

How do you explain the fact that overnight minimum temperatures have increased by more than daytime maxima have increased ? The sun-only explanation does not fit with that too well.

 

The sun heats the oceans, covering the majority of the earth's surface. Air currents and ocean currents spread the energy around. Typically along shore, as the land heats during the day, a land breeze blowing offshore springs up, and at night a sea breeze blows onshore as the land cools. Perhaps that might have something to do with the differences in day and night temps.
Decreasing daytime maximums and increasing nighttime minimums.