UK scientist: Sun controls earth's climate

[william the wie]

The available records for sunspots, solar eclipses and lunar eclipses go back thousands of years. The extant Chinese records seem to indicate the use of pinhole cameras in the first century BC. So insolation vs. subsequent weather and agricutural output has about a 2100 year baseline. The technique does seem to work.

 

[westwall]

Well the sun certainly dominates earth's climate.

But it's not the only thing effecting it.

Life has been helping to change earth's atmosphere and climate for billions of years, folks.

Wake up and smell the science

Yes that is true, however it took BILLIONS of years to do it. Not some paltry 200 years. Ask yourself ed, why is it that we are even arguing about the climate if what they say is true? If what they say is true there should be ZERO doubt. The climate should be warm, millions of critters worldwide should not have died last year and this year OF COLD, it should be evident to anyone looking at a thermometer that the world is warming up.

Instead we have every temp record on the planet being falsified by the true believers, and a single volcanic eruption (which shouldn't be able to do ANYTHING because everyone knows man is so much more polluting than a pesky old volcano, yet that volcanic eruption has an immediate, measurable, impact on the weather.

Why is that?

the gases cause the earth temperature to decline because they increase the albedo of the earth. The amount of co2 is tiny.
Volcano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the stratosphere to heights of 16–32 kilometres (10–20 mi) above the Earth's surface. The most significant impacts from these injections come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the Earth's albedo—its reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space – and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years — sulfur dioxide from the eruption of Huaynaputina probably caused the Russian famine of 1601 - 1603.[11]

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

EARTH Magazine: Voices: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

West, temperatures are not going to warm evenly and the arctic is going to warm two to three times as fast as the tropics. The troposphere is going to warm and the stratosphere is going to go down. Volcanoes are going to produce gases that reflect the energy back into space and decline the temperature of the earth. Remember more extremes are caused within a climate pattern that quickly changes until it can balance it self out.

Yes Matthew I am very familiar with volcanos. My question is if the volcanic eruptions are so insignificant compared to what man is placing in the atmosphere why are they so much more effective? You would think that if mans pollution is a billion or more times greater than the volcano there should be some unequivocal proof. No?

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, you are throwing strawmen up by the dozen. But that is typical of a dumb ass that actually pretends to be a scientist. No one ever said a major volcanic event was insignificant. What was said, is that the CO2 from the standard volcanic events is insignificant compared to what Man is putting into the atmosphere. Now if there were presently some Trapp volcanics going on, then one could argue that volcanos put out a significant amount of CO2.

And the article Mathew posted answered the question as to why present volcanic events are significant in the short term. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 had a major effect on the weather in 1816, and virtually no effect by 1825. The CO2 that we are putting into the air now will affect weather for at least the next millenium.

 

[Mini 14]

Walleyes, you are throwing strawmen up by the dozen. But that is typical of a dumb ass that actually pretends to be a scientist. No one ever said a major volcanic event was insignificant. What was said, is that the CO2 from the standard volcanic events is insignificant compared to what Man is putting into the atmosphere. Now if there were presently some Trapp volcanics going on, then one could argue that volcanos put out a significant amount of CO2.

And the article Mathew posted answered the question as to why present volcanic events are significant in the short term. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 had a major effect on the weather in 1816, and virtually no effect by 1825. The CO2 that we are putting into the air now will affect weather for at least the next millenium.

Did you miss this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-sun-controls-earths-climate.html#post3135953

Or are you just ignoring it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Milankovic Cycles.
NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC/STP,Boulder-Total Solar Irradiance Data

Why should I answer questions that can easily be found on the net? If you are too lazy to get that simple information yourself, you are not worth talking to.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes, you are throwing strawmen up by the dozen. But that is typical of a dumb ass that actually pretends to be a scientist. No one ever said a major volcanic event was insignificant. What was said, is that the CO2 from the standard volcanic events is insignificant compared to what Man is putting into the atmosphere. Now if there were presently some Trapp volcanics going on, then one could argue that volcanos put out a significant amount of CO2.

And the article Mathew posted answered the question as to why present volcanic events are significant in the short term. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 had a major effect on the weather in 1816, and virtually no effect by 1825. The CO2 that we are putting into the air now will affect weather for at least the next millenium.

No olfraud it is not a strawman and you know it. The claim made ad-nauseum is that man is blanketing the world with CO2. We put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcanos on the world combined (interesting how they know that considering over 80% of all volcano's are underwater but hey we'll give them their little point) my point is if CO2 is so damned bad why is the effect even arguable?

There should not be a worldwide effort underway to "adjust" the historical temperature records to make the past cooler so the narrative today holds up. And yet, that is the exact fraud that is occuring now. It is well reported in the sceptic media and NIWA has been publicly humiliated in New Zealand for getting blatantly caught doing it.

And yet, a simple little volcano with a minor erruption has unequivocal impact. Measurable by any individual with a good thermometer. And more to the point the effects are measurable worldwide.

A volcano in other words is a test of the overall theory of AGW. And it exposes the fault in the theory very well.

As far as the claim effecting the climate for the next millenium, that is not borne out by the great little study you posted a few months back (why don't you post that one again so we can read it again) which showed quite simply that there is no coupling between CO2 and temperature. Remember the little observation they made where the CO2 level stayed constant at a high level for why it was 1000 years I believe and the temperature rose and fell three times during that elevated CO2 time.

Sounds pretty convincing to me.

 

[Mini 14]

Milankovic Cycles.
NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC/STP,Boulder-Total Solar Irradiance Data

Why should I answer questions that can easily be found on the net? If you are too lazy to get that simple information yourself, you are not worth talking to.

I didn't ask about radiation (which I'm certain you don't understand).

I asked about DISTANCE.

Its one of the simplest of measurable data that exists.

And you can't grasp it, can you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I went us to come to agreement on one thing...And that is the increase of co2 from 315 ppm in 1950s to 390 ppm in 2010. I hope we skeptics and warmers can come to agreement on that. Can we?

 

[Mini 14]

The answer is inevitable, and obvious:

 

[westwall]

The answer is inevitable, and obvious:

Jenny Agutter was cute!

 

[Mini 14]

The answer is inevitable, and obvious:

Jenny Agutter was cute!

Yeah she was!!!

Even though she was pushing 30, and her time to die

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, you are throwing strawmen up by the dozen. But that is typical of a dumb ass that actually pretends to be a scientist. No one ever said a major volcanic event was insignificant. What was said, is that the CO2 from the standard volcanic events is insignificant compared to what Man is putting into the atmosphere. Now if there were presently some Trapp volcanics going on, then one could argue that volcanos put out a significant amount of CO2.

And the article Mathew posted answered the question as to why present volcanic events are significant in the short term. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 had a major effect on the weather in 1816, and virtually no effect by 1825. The CO2 that we are putting into the air now will affect weather for at least the next millenium.

No olfraud it is not a strawman and you know it. The claim made ad-nauseum is that man is blanketing the world with CO2. We put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcanos on the world combined (interesting how they know that considering over 80% of all volcano's are underwater but hey we'll give them their little point) my point is if CO2 is so damned bad why is the effect even arguable?

There should not be a worldwide effort underway to "adjust" the historical temperature records to make the past cooler so the narrative today holds up. And yet, that is the exact fraud that is occuring now. It is well reported in the sceptic media and NIWA has been publicly humiliated in New Zealand for getting blatantly caught doing it.

And yet, a simple little volcano with a minor erruption has unequivocal impact. Measurable by any individual with a good thermometer. And more to the point the effects are measurable worldwide.

A volcano in other words is a test of the overall theory of AGW. And it exposes the fault in the theory very well.

As far as the claim effecting the climate for the next millenium, that is not borne out by the great little study you posted a few months back (why don't you post that one again so we can read it again) which showed quite simply that there is no coupling between CO2 and temperature. Remember the little observation they made where the CO2 level stayed constant at a high level for why it was 1000 years I believe and the temperature rose and fell three times during that elevated CO2 time.

Sounds pretty convincing to me.

I think that the USGS is a bit more to be trusted than a faux geologist.

Hmmm...... How about this video
A23A


Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).

The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001). If estimate medians and author-preferred estimates of these studies are used to lessen the influence of outlier estimates, the range is restricted to about 150-270 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions.

In recent times, about 50-60 volcanoes are normally active on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.

Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.

 

[skookerasbil]

Walleyes, you are throwing strawmen up by the dozen. But that is typical of a dumb ass that actually pretends to be a scientist. No one ever said a major volcanic event was insignificant. What was said, is that the CO2 from the standard volcanic events is insignificant compared to what Man is putting into the atmosphere. Now if there were presently some Trapp volcanics going on, then one could argue that volcanos put out a significant amount of CO2.

And the article Mathew posted answered the question as to why present volcanic events are significant in the short term. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 had a major effect on the weather in 1816, and virtually no effect by 1825. The CO2 that we are putting into the air now will affect weather for at least the next millenium.

In the opinion of the FAITHERS only. Cannot be proven scientifically.

 

[skookerasbil]

Walleyes, you are throwing strawmen up by the dozen. But that is typical of a dumb ass that actually pretends to be a scientist. No one ever said a major volcanic event was insignificant. What was said, is that the CO2 from the standard volcanic events is insignificant compared to what Man is putting into the atmosphere. Now if there were presently some Trapp volcanics going on, then one could argue that volcanos put out a significant amount of CO2.

And the article Mathew posted answered the question as to why present volcanic events are significant in the short term. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 had a major effect on the weather in 1816, and virtually no effect by 1825. The CO2 that we are putting into the air now will affect weather for at least the next millenium.

No olfraud it is not a strawman and you know it. The claim made ad-nauseum is that man is blanketing the world with CO2. We put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcanos on the world combined (interesting how they know that considering over 80% of all volcano's are underwater but hey we'll give them their little point) my point is if CO2 is so damned bad why is the effect even arguable?

There should not be a worldwide effort underway to "adjust" the historical temperature records to make the past cooler so the narrative today holds up. And yet, that is the exact fraud that is occuring now. It is well reported in the sceptic media and NIWA has been publicly humiliated in New Zealand for getting blatantly caught doing it.

And yet, a simple little volcano with a minor erruption has unequivocal impact. Measurable by any individual with a good thermometer. And more to the point the effects are measurable worldwide.

A volcano in other words is a test of the overall theory of AGW. And it exposes the fault in the theory very well.

As far as the claim effecting the climate for the next millenium, that is not borne out by the great little study you posted a few months back (why don't you post that one again so we can read it again) which showed quite simply that there is no coupling between CO2 and temperature. Remember the little observation they made where the CO2 level stayed constant at a high level for why it was 1000 years I believe and the temperature rose and fell three times during that elevated CO2 time.

Sounds pretty convincing to me.

I think that the USGS is a bit more to be trusted than a faux geologist.

Hmmm...... How about this video
A23A


Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).

The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001). If estimate medians and author-preferred estimates of these studies are used to lessen the influence of outlier estimates, the range is restricted to about 150-270 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions.

In recent times, about 50-60 volcanoes are normally active on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.

Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.

A theory................not science.


Sorry s0n.............go check out the vid asshole...........your religion is based upon all kinds of "forged data"!! But you and your FAITHER pals woud happily buy a bag of dog doo if it was packaged up just right..........

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm....... Well, Kooky, you naturally think that you know more about this than does the USGS. Or the AGU. What a pathetic image of a know nothing you present.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No olfraud it is not a strawman and you know it. The claim made ad-nauseum is that man is blanketing the world with CO2. We put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcanos on the world combined (interesting how they know that considering over 80% of all volcano's are underwater but hey we'll give them their little point) my point is if CO2 is so damned bad why is the effect even arguable?

There should not be a worldwide effort underway to "adjust" the historical temperature records to make the past cooler so the narrative today holds up. And yet, that is the exact fraud that is occuring now. It is well reported in the sceptic media and NIWA has been publicly humiliated in New Zealand for getting blatantly caught doing it.

And yet, a simple little volcano with a minor erruption has unequivocal impact. Measurable by any individual with a good thermometer. And more to the point the effects are measurable worldwide.

A volcano in other words is a test of the overall theory of AGW. And it exposes the fault in the theory very well.

As far as the claim effecting the climate for the next millenium, that is not borne out by the great little study you posted a few months back (why don't you post that one again so we can read it again) which showed quite simply that there is no coupling between CO2 and temperature. Remember the little observation they made where the CO2 level stayed constant at a high level for why it was 1000 years I believe and the temperature rose and fell three times during that elevated CO2 time.

Sounds pretty convincing to me.

I think that the USGS is a bit more to be trusted than a faux geologist.

Hmmm...... How about this video
A23A


Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).

The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001). If estimate medians and author-preferred estimates of these studies are used to lessen the influence of outlier estimates, the range is restricted to about 150-270 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions.

In recent times, about 50-60 volcanoes are normally active on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.

Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.

A theory................not science.


Sorry s0n.............go check out the vid asshole...........your religion is based upon all kinds of "forged data"!! But you and your FAITHER pals woud happily buy a bag of dog doo if it was packaged up just right..........

Theory=science. Theory is a very important part of science...The warming of our earth since 1800 is a fact.

 

[liebuster]

If the earth has been warming since 1800 then that proves my point exactly. I don't think humans were driving SUVs and running power plants then.

Like I said. The earth warms and the earth cools regardless of human behavior.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anything other than flapyap to contribute, Busted?

 

[william the wie]

If the earth has been warming since 1800 then that proves my point exactly. I don't think humans were driving SUVs and running power plants then.

Like I said. The earth warms and the earth cools regardless of human behavior.

If more accurate predictions can and have been made based on alternative interpretations of the data and that is not believed by the AGWs then give it up they are not interested in reality testing of their hypothesis.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If the earth has been warming since 1800 then that proves my point exactly. I don't think humans were driving SUVs and running power plants then.

Like I said. The earth warms and the earth cools regardless of human behavior.

If more accurate predictions can and have been made based on alternative interpretations of the data and that is not believed by the AGWs then give it up they are not interested in reality testing of their hypothesis.

if the earth has warmed in the past 12 years then you cant point to the sun because the amount of output has decreased. So what is it? if it is not the sun then we are being screwed over or some other factor is warming or keeping the temp of the earth as it was...