[Patred_Cow]

Wardengineering;

Patred_Cow wrote:
Quote:
My research on the planets had begun on a trip to Guatemala in 1975 when I climbed a live volcano 25 miles from Guatemala City. From the top, I saw seven old vents within a mile of the active one and its current position was on the side of a huge caldera. I concluded then and there to find out what caused this apearance of a cyclic system.


Such things tend to be the case, if you are referring to a linear path it could as easy be put down to the transit of tectonic plates over a magma pocket, a more traditional but no less valid explanation? If however they were simply scattered about a large caldera then I don't see why this would have suprised you? Is it not to be expected that there would be volcanic vents concentrated in a caldera? It being a volcanic feature associated with vents after all.

There were several in the caldera but most were outside and of various sizes. The questions to be answered are, why the difference in size or magnitude and what causes the rhythm? Obviuosly the Mt itself and the large crator, I referred to as caldera because of its size, at the summit were created by greater forces than the smaller vents. The one I was standing on, at the time, rose 1500 feet above the rim of the caldera, and was the considerably taller than all of the rest and still growing.

Quote:
The Danish research should help you see how puny is man's contribution to global warming and cooling.


It doesn't really though, it's a lone, controversial and less than reputable voice. The weight of evidence is still with the anthropogenic forcing theory, a single piece of research saying differently is not going to convince many people that a theory well supported by evidence is wrong. It would take a lot of corroborating evidence and an explanation for results seemingly portraying anthropogenic GHG's as the primary cause of the current trend. Once more I will make the point that it is an enhanced global warming that is under debate. The warming we are seeing outside of the natural range of variability and we are certainly seeing such a thing is attributable to anthropogenic GHG's. Your theory pinpoints a further source of the natural variability it does little to discount GHG's as the source of the unatural variability we are now seeing.

I sincerely hope this post was an oversight on your behalf but I must take pains to point out that much of this quote is not mine. You have added your own response as a part of my quote as well as including your own previous post as my views. I must point out that this is not the case, my actual post is and was as follows;

Quote:
My research on the planets had begun on a trip to Guatemala in 1975 when I climbed a live volcano 25 miles from Guatemala City. From the top, I saw seven old vents within a mile of the active one and its current position was on the side of a huge caldera. I concluded then and there to find out what caused this apearance of a cyclic system.


Such things tend to be the case, if you are referring to a linear path it could as easy be put down to the transit of tectonic plates over a magma pocket, a more traditional but no less valid explanation? If however they were simply scattered about a large caldera then I don't see why this would have suprised you? Is it not to be expected that there would be volcanic vents concentrated in a caldera? It being a volcanic feature associated with vents after all.

Quote:
The Danish research should help you see how puny is man's contribution to global warming and cooling.


It doesn't really though, it's a lone, controversial and less than reputable voice. The weight of evidence is still with the anthropogenic forcing theory, a single piece of research saying differently is not going to convince many people that a theory well supported by evidence is wrong. It would take a lot of corroborating evidence and an explanation for results seemingly portraying anthropogenic GHG's as the primary cause of the current trend. Once more I will make the point that it is an enhanced global warming that is under debate. The warming we are seeing outside of the natural range of variability and we are certainly seeing such a thing is attributable to anthropogenic GHG's. Your theory pinpoints a further source of the natural variability it does little to discount GHG's as the source of the unatural variability we are now seeing.