Ward's look at cause of global warming

[August]

.. . http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...rasp+at+straws

clutch/grasp at straws

1. to try any method, even those that are not likely to succeed, because you are in such a bad situation. "He's hoping that this new treatment will help him but I think he's clutching at straws."
2. to try to find reasons to feel hopeful about a situation when there is no real cause for hope. "She thinks he might still be interested because he calls her now and then but I think she's clutching at straws."

[Patred_Cow]

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.

Now maybe I'm massively out on my knowledge of vulcanism here but I think what I'm about to say is generally accepted. I am under the impression that calderas form either;
When a massive pressure force is built causing a particularly violent eruption. This can be due to either a blockage in a volcanic vent or a high proportion of silica in the magma which triggers the rapid formation and expansion of gases as the magma nears the atmosphere, both of which can build massive pressure forces (much greater than distant transitting planets...). Such powerful eruptions effectively create a big gaping hole...a caldera? This pressure shouldn't require planetary interactions to build up by my thinking just accepted terrestrial processes. It equally need not be the case during every eruption, a vent may not become blocked or a new path may be found before such pressures have built and separate, less spectacular vents can be formed in the vicinity of the previous high energy vents.
OR
When a magma pocket becomes depleted creating a large subterranean cavern, as pressure in this cavern reduces with continued loss of magma through eruptions a point may eventually be reached where the pressure is no longer sufficient to support the rock above it and a collapse occurs. This fills the cavern and leaves a depression at the surface in the form of a caldera.
These are both events associated with vulcanism on various scales and should therefore be expected to be found in association with other volcanic features such as dormant and active volcanic vents. We need not invoke mysterious celestial forces to explain their existence in proximity to one another.

The fact that the particular vent you are speaking of was taller than the rest and still growing means very little. These large-scale events need not have occured very often, regularly or recently to leave long lasting marks on landscapes. The vent in question would appear to be the one/or one of several that is currently active, clearly it has not yet been blocked and/or it formed after the collapse of the main magma chamber and is erupting regularly and tamely to build its cone. This was likely the case with the other vents you could see before they became inactive for whatever reason (exhaustion of magma supply/transit of crust away from supply/blockage and re-routing of magma through a new vent...etc.) once they stopped building through regular eruptions bog standard weathering will have got to work on their benign forms and reduced their stature to the apparent insignificance you now note. Or they could have been involved in high impact events and their previous forms obscured by the creation of calderas and the like.

I really do not feel that planetary forces are needed to explain these phenomena, much as I do not believe they are required to explain the enhanced warming trend we are seeing on Earth.

[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.

[MassDebation.com]

The thing that gets me is how we conveniently create our own mathematical average, and conclude that the whole world is warming. Clearly some places are cooling, others warming, things change for heavens sakes! So we lump all our data together to work out an average, and conclude that the earth is warming.

Surely there are places in the Milky Way itself that are heating up & others that are cooling down. What will we do should we one day be able to gather data of it? We'll work out an average, and conclude that our galaxy is either warming or cooling.

As far as I'm concerned, different areas have their own micro-climates, and there are already more than enough factors that make even localized weather forecasting a guessing-game at best when attempting to predict beyond a few days.

I think this whole thing of averaging things out is ludicrous!

[Patred_Cow]

As far as I'm concerned, different areas have their own micro-climates, and there are already more than enough factors that make even localized weather forecasting a guessing-game at best when attempting to predict beyond a few days.

I think this whole thing of averaging things out is ludicrous!

And most people and more importantly most informed scientists do not. Localised weather forecasting and general trend predictions based on past observation are vastly different things. Of course areas have micro-climates, otherwise the globe would be utterly uniform climatically and nobody here is ignorant enough to contend that this is the case (or so I sincerely hope). Surely based upon your own quaint logic you must accept that what we are seeing is a global warming simply because the vast majority of these 'micro-climates' are warming quite considerably at the same time...?

[Solar]

[quote="Patred_Cow"]

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.

Science is not a popularity contest (For instance, Galileo's hypothesis that the planets orbit the sun was not popular with the Catholic establishment at the time, but he was right). The problem with the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis is that one cannot use it to make consistent predictions about present or past climate events. Until the scientist can formulate the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis in a way that makes accurate predictions, it is impossible to make scientific statements about the effects of green house gases on the climate.

On the other hand, Svensmark's cosmological model for climate change does predict, with surprising accuracy, historical climate events. From a scientific standpoint their model is the most convincing one.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Solar

On the other hand, Svensmark's cosmological model for climate change does predict, with surprising accuracy, historical climate events. From a scientific standpoint their model is the most convincing one.

Precisely.

As for global temperature, we are warming and due to our Earth systems this results in a chaotic global energy transfer. The current trend is one to fear because it could change the face of our planet and reduce our carrying capacity. It already is. If this trend escalates we will all be affected...some more than others. This is why more focus must be put on the work of Svensmark, Milankovich, Thompson and many others bringing viable explanation to the table.

[MassDebation.com]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

And most people and more importantly most informed scientists do not. Localised weather forecasting and general trend predictions based on past observation are vastly different things. Of course areas have micro-climates, otherwise the globe would be utterly uniform climatically and nobody here is ignorant enough to contend that this is the case (or so I sincerely hope). Surely based upon your own quaint logic you must accept that what we are seeing is a global warming simply because the vast majority of these 'micro-climates' are warming quite considerably at the same time...?

Not bothered what most ppl think - consensus means nothing - remember Galileo, etc?
And no, my quaint logic doesn't make me want to jump to averages and certainly not to jump to drastic conclusions to state that a vast majority of places are warming. According to what data? I know, the US and Europe is the whole world. The rest of the planet doesn't count. So your summers are getting hotter in the northern hemisphere, and your winters not quite as cold? Missing your skiing at times when there's supposed to be good slopes? Well guess what, Our summers in the southern hemisphere are not getting any hotter - still waiting patiently for beach weather - nowadays it's really the exception, whereas before it was the rule. Getting snow in winter in places it was unheard of before.

And naturally, "Global" is always "Surface where we want to look". Never hear a peep about what the core & mantle are doing. Increased volcanic activity? Must be caused by lots of methane being released by cows. Certainly can't have anything to do with earth's core temperature fluctuations, eh?

So let's have a look at what the earth's core is doing, shall we? http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

Or are we simply going to brush that aside, as we do the sun or any other factor that's not attributable to man?

[Patred_Cow]

Science is not a popularity contest (For instance, Galileo's hypothesis that the planets orbit the sun was not popular with the Catholic establishment at the time, but he was right). The problem with the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis is that one cannot use it to make consistent predictions about present or past climate events. Until the scientist can formulate the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis in a way that makes accurate predictions, it is impossible to make scientific statements about the effects of green house gases on the climate.

You are inaccurately paraphrasing me. The true anthropogenic GHG hypothesis can be used to make accurate predictions of past climate events as it includes all contributing factors to climate change which when combined with GHG theory predict trends such as those we are seeing.

On the other hand, Svensmark's cosmological model for climate change does predict, with surprising accuracy, historical climate events. From a scientific standpoint their model is the most convincing one.

No, this is the error, from an historical standpoint this argument is the most convincing. It reflects past changes, think for a moment why that might be...it's because those events are what they have calibrated the model on, if it didn't then reflect them the whole endeavour would be even more of a farce.

Consensus amongst people means nothing, true my wording was less than perfect in this situation I hold my hands up to that. Consensus of data means an awful lot though and this is the consensus we have, it has translated into a consensus of people. The galileo point is different, those that disagreed with galileo were basing their arguments on religious teaching not science. Galileo was not a part of our modern scientific community, the world has moved on. When the consensus is withing the scientific community against data from the scientific community consensus is everything. Coorroborating data is the best test of reliability that we have and GHG theory presents us with a lot of it, the alternatives do not.

I know, the US and Europe is the whole world. The rest of the planet doesn't count. So your summers are getting hotter in the northern hemisphere, and your winters not quite as cold? Missing your skiing at times when there's supposed to be good slopes? Well guess what, Our summers in the southern hemisphere are not getting any hotter - still waiting patiently for beach weather

The southern hemisphere is warming, it's not all about summers and you have a much greater expanse of ocean to buffer change not to mention a massive continent of ice... I find your comments regarding skiing wholly inappropriate, very few people in the northern hemisphere can afford such luxuries, I am not one of them, I would not agree with travelling to fragile regions specifically to indulge in this passtime and I find it remarkable that you seem to believe there to be no underprivileged persons in the 'developed' world. The globe is warming, that is a fact, therefore there is a global warming, that is a fact. The rest can be debated to varying degrees but there isn't any reasonable grounds to argue with these statements.

According to what data?

According to the majority of data, the data that corroborates GHG theory and provides us with the scientific consensus that you blithely shrug off.

[Patred_Cow]

And naturally, "Global" is always "Surface where we want to look". Never hear a peep about what the core & mantle are doing. Increased volcanic activity? Must be caused by lots of methane being released by cows. Certainly can't have anything to do with earth's core temperature fluctuations, eh?

No reliable evidence actually exists...

Or are we simply going to brush that aside, as we do the sun or any other factor that's not attributable to man?

You have a very strange view of GHG theory, true scientific GHG theory that is. This takes everything into account, natural variation, mans input etc. What it comes out with is an enhanced global warming trend attributable to mans input of GHG's into the atmosphere. This acts on top of the natural causes and that is why it is called enhanced global warming, the common use abbreviation seems to confuse many people but it should be remembered that the discussion is about and the evidence points to an enhanced global warming. it is man that is enhancing it.