Undersea Volcanoes May Be Impacting Climate Change

The proper experiment would be to have a thermometer shielded from the lamp and let it equalize in the jar with just air inside. When it equalizes, record that temperature. Then, add CO2 to the same jar without disturbing the alignments of anything, and record the new equalized temperature.

There probably will be a very minor change, maybe recordable. It just will not be as dramatic as these hoaxer alarmists rig their experiments to show.

 

????????????????

That is just plain weird

BBC presenter is a "hoaxer" showing an experiment so simple a 10 year old could replicate it - and do you not think anyone would notice and post about it??

Or is it part of some vast international conspiracy on the level of Santa Clause "No Johnny there really is a Santa and the BBC is always right".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/

 

oopsy, another volcano has just become active. I suppose that is the fault of conservatives.......

 

Commie Jew lies and propaganda!!!

It's not like glaciers have come and gone from time immemorial. It's not like these volcanoes under the sea and above ground spew tons of particles and gases into the air. It's not like this planet hasn't gone through cycles and patterns of climate change long before man kind could have had any effect on the planet.

 

No but climate like everything else needs an external force to change - change does not happen by itself

 

see, that's a mistruth. This planet has been changing since its birth. It is 4.5 billion years old and will continue to change long after we are gone.
aaaaaaaaaaaand it has done so in the past and will do so in the future, with or without Man.

 

Yes, the sun does have an affect on our climate. There is also internal forces that cause change...we do rest upon moving tectonic plates that rest upon magma/molten material. Our planet and its climate changes, with or without man.

 

it's called the Sun and it's big and bright and causes all kinds of events on earth. Other planets as well. So, wrong again as usual.

 

But the solar output is going down slightly. And the other planets aren't warming. In other words, so much for that kook theory.

The only theory that explains the observed data is AGW theory. That's why it has such credibility. If you've got another theory, present it, along with the evidence backing it up. That is, do some science.

So far, deniers have steadfastly refused to do any science. Instead of presenting evidence, they wave their hands around wildly and declare they must be correct. Since that's not science, everyone ignores them.

 

Where ever these volcanoes are those countries should be charged huge global warming taxes. Problem solved.
Isnt that the progressives answer?
Hell lets do the same with unemployment. Let's tax the unemployed till the get off their butts and find work.
I like this new progressive tax things to fix them idea.

 

So did you replicate it?

 

so tooth, are you trying to tell the class that the sun can only impact earth's climate when the solar output is up? holy crap batman, I think you need another drink.

 

He is saying that NASA (and others) has been staring at the sun for a long time, and so has quite a bit of data, none of which has been shown to be responsible for the increase in global temperatures we are experiencing. Is this in any way unclear?

 

Observation has been otherwise, that planets have warmed with the sun. I would ask you to consider that since we have such a massive ocean mass which moves and circulates, that heat and takes several decades, even according to James Hansen, to equalize to 60%...
Planets without an ocean will respond to solar changes rapidly, perhaps instantaneous compared to decades for the earth.

"The only..."

You cannot be serious.

It is really a stretch to say man's influence is most the changes we see. They still can't keep their models from breaking, and you say that shows sound science?

Have you actually ever read the papers that claim this?

I would love to see one. I never have. They are all full of ambiguity. So much ambiguity that the possibility of all the "ifs," "possiblys," "coulds," etc. multiplied together become statistically improbably.

I agree. Deniers don't. Us skeptics however see the reality that there is no proof from your claims, so we throw the expectation of real evidence back to you.

 

Why should I - you are the one who thinks it is a hoax

Believing in general conspiracy theories is one thing but seeing a conspiracy under every bush is something else

 

I don't think it's a hoax. I know it is, by the setup.

I'm sorry if you don't see what I did. I explained it, but you deny the truth.

What a leap to go to conspiracy theories. have any credible evidence?

I suggest you try to replicate it, and keep changing the position of the lamps slightly and angles of thermometers. See for yourself how dramatic of a change there is, as the focus of the lamp and alignment to the thermometers change.

I have zero doubt of such effect. Before you keep yammering about things you don't understand, maybe you should do a simple experiment with a spot lamp and thermometer. See how dramatic minor alignment changes can be.

 

Any credible evidence that this is a conspiracy theory - yes and I have already stated why
But why should I do your homework for you? This experiment is replicated on the net multiple times using multiple different approaches

The physics underpinning this is well understood and accepted

 

And who would be making this stuff up? The anti volcano people. Wanting to show volcanos in a bad light? Or is it the pro above sea level volcano backers. Just hating on the underway ones?

 

Got an alternative theory - hopefully one that does not rely on accusing high school teachers of hoaxing science to support some fictional conspiracy

 

That's simply not true.

Mercury is not warming.

Venus is not warming.

Earth's moon is not warming.

Mars is not warming. The thought that is was seems to have been erroneous, due to taking initial snapshots after a 1977 dust storm.

Jupiter is not warming. Its equator is warming a bit and its poles are cooling a bit, but there's no overall temperature change.

Pluto has warmed, as it has moved further away from the sun and gotten _less_ solar energy. This indicates the sun is not what's driving the climate on Pluto.

Neptune's moon Triton has warmed, as it moved into a decades-long summer phase, pointing a darker area at the sun.

And Uranus? It's cooling. Oops.

So, by your theory, Mercury and Venus would have to be warming instantly, as they are rocky planets with no oceans. But they're not warming at all. Hence, your theory is disproved.

Please name the alternate theory that predicts stratospheric cooling, decreasing outgoing longwave radiation, and increasing downgoing longwave radiation.

There isn't one. AGW theory is the only theory that explains that observed data. Increased solar activity would cause none of the above.

 

The data shows that the Earth has heated and cooled throughout its history. AGW is bad science.

 

For those who doubt the basic effects of CO2.

Mythbusters did the CO2 experiment too!!

[video]https://youtu.be/pPRd5GT0v0I?t=163[/video]

 

..like, they're the leading scientists.........an American TV show, imagine that, after all the screaming and chest thumping about American TV.....and you're going to use them as a reference?
A comedy show??? hahahahahahahha
That's pure cognitive dissonance ..................

 

Duh!

That was my point - if even mythbusters could perform this experiment then it is highly unlikely it is part of a conspiracy

 

So far, you are the only one to use a non-example to show an example.......
You cannot argue that the earth has been changing since it's birth in the cosmic blast. It will continue to change long after Man has left this world. We, in some circles, call this the natural evolution. the propellants for global change can indeed affect the whole. Volcanoes and earthquakes are a constant reminder of this.
But it just isn't pumping co2 that is doing it. They are stripping ,millions of acres daily of rain forests which convert co2 into breathable air for the planet. If we hadn't given corporations the go ahead and strip land, we would have those natural scrubbers in place. But instead of proposing that we preserve and maintain those forest, you mean to tax man to death to reinforce the corporate right to strip these forest down.
IF one needs an historical lesson, all we need to do is look to the Dust Bowl event in America where land was reformed to produce food without one thought to soil conservation.
We have also allowed corporations to poison our planet and then try to tax us to fix their freakin' mess while they roll in the decadence called carbon credits. It's all about the money to them, and nothing else.. WE are their bottom line. WE are going to support their gains off of our tax dollars.
Want to stop the waste and death? Try going after the ones who caused this, not the taxpayer.
Make them pay.