Friday Flotsam: Kanlaon seismicity, the media loves Yellowstone and none like it hot.

I liked the interactive yellowstone stuff, gave some good info as well as a little bit of doom mongering.

Erik, bonus points for the Scorpio reference.

I was just in Yellowstone and several things stood out:
-Hydrothermal activity is amazingly pervasive. This is especially notable when it rains and steam begins rising from otherwise ordinary looking ground.
-Rhyolite, rhyolite, rhyolite!
-Yellowstone is still trying to overcome the post-war National Parks as Theme Parks mentality. New interpretive centers are fairly decent, but some villages are 50-60s tacky. Then we have the crowds clapping after Old Faithful does it thing - do they realize its not staged?
-Bison rule the park, they wander anywhere they please, even through crowded parking lots.
-There is a disturbing amount of overweight people doing drive-by visits of our parks in oversized trucks that have never been off pavement or hauled anything bigger than their owners.

*laughing* Childish wonder and hand-clapping after Old Faithful erupts is acceptable: think of it as thanking Momma Nature for a breathtaking performance. Overweight people on noisy and dangerous summer/winter ORVs destroying public lands is NOT OK. Federal and State public lands managers are going to have to learn this hard way - fragile ecosystems damaged by this 'modern recreation' doesn't 'repair' itself.

On artificial volcanoes for climate control: Damaging strat ozone and forming acidic aerosols to gain a months of colling for months to a few years is a REALLY DUMB idea.

Once you fully think through the consequences, it ranks up there as a Darwin-award nominee.

I wonder if you know of any publications that link a solar minimum to increased seismic and volcanic activity?

The real data states:

1. Global Warming does not exist.
Temperatures on the Southern Hemisphere are quite constant.
Temperatures on the Northern hemisphere have shown a rise until 1998 and we are cooling now.

2. There is a bias in temperature measurements because urban area's have higher night temperatures.

This causes a rise in the average temperature data.

3. CO2 has nothing to do with the AGW hoax but the idea is pushed for political reasons (a.o.taxation, global governance, population control, power).

4. Oceans levels are not rising, Ice caps are not melting and the Polar Bears are OK.

It's time for people to wake up and speak out before it's too late.

Thank god some people have enough snese to speak the truth. Of coruse no one wil lbelive it because if you don't bleive in global warming you are considred the bad guy.

I don't like the data so it can't be true. Convenient way to pass through life without the bother of acquiring knowledge and shouldering responsibility.

Here is a cool screen grab from AVO webcam for Shishaldin. Very pretty shot. Only one way to discribe this shot WOW!!!

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d166/tie-dyelady383/shishaldin1.jpg

BTW way back yesterdays when my wife and I were at Yellowstone in 1991 we yelled and clapped but we were... (see nick name)... Sorry but all of that clapping and whooping may have been my fault.

"I don't like the data so it can't be true. Convenient way to pass through life without the bother of acquiring knowledge and shouldering responsibility."

Posted by: doug | September 4, 2009 7:24 PM

Doug, that is exactly the problem.
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with our climate, our sea levels, our ice caps, our coral reefs and our air quality.

CO2 is not a "killer" gas and there is no reason what so ever to shut down our economies which is inevitable if we reduce CO2 emissions by 80%. It will send us back into the Stone Age.

This is a political hoax which is used to make a grab for absolute power, install Global Governance aimed at population control.

This is about "death and taxes".

Our sun sends in a single hour the entire energy budget humans use in one year.
From the total CO2 budget in our air, human emissions count for only 3%

The total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is only 385 parts per million (0,0385%) and our politicians believe they can control the earths temperatures by 2 degree Celsius by reducing our Industrial emissions!.

They should be put in straitjackets, locked up behind steel doors in an enclosed mental institution.
The same goes for those who believe this hog wash and love the idea to close down our coal plants.

More info here:

www.icecap.us
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
http://wattsupwiththat.com and www.surfacestations.org
www.climatedepot.com

I forgot to mention this web site:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org

The roachman and Passerby,
I understand that some people may have a spontaneous response of wonder at Old Faithful and no slight intended to those folks, it wasn't the "ooo and awe" that struck me as funny, it was the applause when it ws all done. I just hope that the visitors take in all the rest of the volcanic wonder that is Yellowstone.
The abundance of rhyolite and tuff may only be exciting to us igneous types.

P.S. Remember folks, don't feed the bears...or the trolls!

I don't know why P. Crutzen suggested sulfate aerosols. At the altitudes at which volcanoes inject SO2 the removal processes are too fast and I don't know if sulfur can be mined fast enough (producing CO2 in the mining effort too), converted to SO2 and transported to high altitudes. Not to mention how soil will be modified with all that sulfuric acid raining down on us; as if the LA smog weren't bad enough.

@Ron de Haan: Absolutely wrong on all points - where do you get your information, the back of cereal boxes? Maybe denialist websites; the nonsense you parrot is typical denialist fare. Although I don't like "realclimate.org" I think you're one of those people who might actually learn something from visiting that website.

1. The earth is warming. Temperatures in the southern hemisphere are not constant. There currently is what is expected to be a short-term cooling; 1998 was unusually hot due to a convergence of a number of phenomena. Even if you look at the latest data, the earth is still almost a degree warmer than it was a century ago.

2. Your urban heat island is not a big enough effect to have a significant effect on the global mean calculation; despite it being next to insignificant in the calculations, it has been allowed for and the instrumental record still shows the earth warming.

3. More CO2 = a warmer atmosphere; that is a certitude just as I can say you'll surely feel bad if you drink a cup of battery acid or that you'll get burnt if you put your bare hand into a pot of water boiling at sea level for 10 seconds.

4. The polar ice sheets are melting; some are melting much quicker than the scientists studying them had expected. Measuring sea level rise is not easy given the current magnitude; more instrumentation is needed. You'll have to look for people studying polar bears for any idea of their state; they don't cause global warming and I'm not interested in them.

"I wonder if you know of any publications that link a solar minimum to increased seismic and volcanic activity?"

What - don't the denialist websites already have such a thing? Perhaps you should ask Monckton if he'd care to write such stuff, get his buddies to do a sham review, and self publish? I doubt you'll find much of such nonsense in any reputable journals even though the odd crackpot piece gets through. Suggesting a link between solar cycles and seismicity or volcanic activity only show your ignorance of basic geology.

Mad scientist,

I will provide you with the links where you can find all the data and I will respond to your remarks.
"1. The earth is warming. Temperatures in the southern hemisphere are not constant. There currently is what is expected to be a short-term cooling; 1998 was unusually hot due to a convergence of a number of phenomena. Even if you look at the latest data, the earth is still almost a degree warmer than it was a century ago."

Yes, and thanks God for that, otherwise we would not be able to feed our current population. There is a warming trend since 1850 when we came out of the Little Ice Age.
The big questions on the table right now is
1. if the recent warming that took place between 1979 and 1998 can be attributed to Industrial Emissions of CO2.
2. If the warming is dangerous that it will cause a short term tipping point that will cause ice caps to melt, sea levels to rise etc.

My answer to that question is NO.
Why?

History:
1. There have been periods in time with higher temperatures than today with no catastrophic effects.
We had a warm period in the thirties of the last century (Dust Bowl) when temperatures were higher than the recent warming period.

Facts:
2. There is no connection between CO2 and temperature.
See the graph here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/UAHsince2002.jpg

Here is an up to date graph which makes perfectly clear when
the past warming period was halted, despite increasing CO2 levels:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/uah-global-temperature-down-in-au…

3. If there was a connection we would not have had a cooling period from 1939 to 1978 when our scientist were convinced we were entering a new ice age.

What makes our short term climate:
Our climate is the product of the sun our oceans and volcanic activity, see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/uah-global-temperature-down-in-au….

Our sun provides our earth with an amount of energy in a single hour equal to the total amount of energy humanity is using in an entire year.

The Anthropogenic CO2 emissions represent only 3% of the entire
CO2 budget currently available in our atmosphere.
That is 3% from 385 ppm (Mauna Loa data)
No chance that this tiny contribution will effect our planet in any way whatsoever. But if our populations buy the hoax it will provide our political establishment with unlimited powers to control populations, our resources, our economy and provide them with loads of free money.
Binding legislation to curb CO2 will put us all in "Green Shackles", but that is politics.

(Currently our sun is very quiet and several scientist predict that we will experience Dalton or even a Maunder Minimum conditions
short term with a Minimum by 2030)

4. The science behind the warming effect of CO2 are cooked and crooked and at least overestimated by a factor 6 in the UN IPCC reports.
That is because the IPCC models don't represent reality.

www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com for a collection of all scientific reports written about CO2.

Reality:
5. There is no evidence whatsoever that the alarming reports from the IPCC are effecting our planet today.

1. If our ice caps are melting out of control, we would see a sea level rise.
The facts are that there is no abnormal increase in sea levels.
Sea level rise is stationary at the moment.

Sea level graph: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

This graph shows without any doubt that sea level rise has slowed down. How is that possible with all those melting Ice caps.

Well, the don't. Look here for th facts:
The Arctic Sea ice Extend: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

The Arctic Temperatures with records going back to 1958:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Ice extend of the antarctic region is growing (this explains the stagnation in sea level rise as more water is stored in ice):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Leaves us with one other ice cap, Greenland:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/27/why-the-greenland-and-antarctic-i…

So, nothing wrong with Greenland.

In short, non of the current events have not happened in the past.
Non of the current events are cause for alarm let a lone a shut down of our economies sujecting humanity to draconian measures.

If any measures beside natural adaption should be taken, it should be aimed at securing the world's food production because the onset of a colder period will have a devastating effect on our agricultural output and will cause mass starvation.

Comments on your remarks:

"2. Your urban heat island is not a big enough effect to have a significant effect on the global mean calculation; despite it being next to insignificant in the calculations, it has been allowed for and the instrumental record still shows the earth warming." The Urban Heat Island Effect shows an increase in night temperatures causing the average temperatures to rise.
Because most of the ground stations are situated in locations where the Heat island effect is prominent, we have a huge bias in temperature measurement. See: www.surfacestations.org

"3. More CO2 = a warmer atmosphere; that is a certitude just as I can say you'll surely feel bad if you drink a cup of battery acid or that you'll get burnt if you put your bare hand into a pot of water boiling at sea level for 10 seconds."

You ARE WRONG. Higher temperatures cause a rise in CO2, not the other way around. Do the test yourself. The bubbles in your beer is CO2. Open two bottles of beer.
Leave one in your fridge and another on your living room.

Wait for one our.

The open bottle in your fridge stil contains Co2 and is still drinkable. The bear in the bottle in your living room is "dead"
because all CO2 escaped.

CO2 is NOT A CLIMATE DRIVER.

Our oceans contain a huge amount of CO2.
When they warm they release mor CO2.

When they cool, they absorb more CO2.

It's all natural.

"4. The polar ice sheets are melting; some are melting much quicker than the scientists studying them had expected. Measuring sea level rise is not easy given the current magnitude; more instrumentation is needed. You'll have to look for people studying polar bears for any idea of their state; they don't cause global warming and I'm not interested in them."

This claim is refuted by the facts

"I wonder if you know of any publications that link a solar minimum to increased seismic and volcanic activity?"

"What - don't the denialist websites already have such a thing? Perhaps you should ask Monckton if he'd care to write such stuff, get his buddies to do a sham review, and self publish? I doubt you'll find much of such nonsense in any reputable journals even though the odd crackpot piece gets through. Suggesting a link between solar cycles and seismicity or volcanic activity only show your ignorance of basic geology."

The question was addressed to Eric but there is a good reason to ask this question.

In times of solar minimum, (low solar wind), satellites remain longer in their orbit because solar winds cause drag.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7632331.stm

It is very well possible that the lack of drag due to a lack of solar wind effects the rotation speed of the earth.
Increased rotation speed will cause higher pressures at the earth surface which could increase seismic and volcanic activity.

Besides that we had increased volcanic activity during the Little Ice Age, 5 VEI 6 eruptions per century.

So I think I have a good reason to ask this question.

Of course the earth is wamring up,it cools dow and warms up in cycles. where you connect that to the earth is wamring up and wll keep doing so is beyond me. It could start to coll down tommarow and this would look stupid. Alls'
we abse it on is computer models and we cna't even get todays' weather right so why should we belive them on that?
And since msot records do come form urban areas and they are warming it does mess the data up. ow many reocrds come form the midle of nowehere,not many since here is no one there to tkae the redaings.

The world is well covered with data on temperatures and weather. If you want to see where the data comes from search this site http://www.noaa.gov/ its one of the best sites for science information there is in the world hands down.

So if the world is heating up as, you admit, regardless of who or what is responsible, how do you expect the human population to rise to this crisis. Our whole world is based on a climate model which as left us in a nice comfortable environment for many years (insert biblical 6,000 year joke here). This quiet time between the extremes has allowed our society to grow to the size it is today. Thus even under your, ho hum, its natural approach to the world around you, there is a problem and we need to do something about it.

Here is an ok site with photos showing melt and other evidence

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mega volcano will be on in Denver Tuesday at 7pm. Tonight was a great show on Yellowstone architecture on the same channel. Hmmm? Related?

Did I read that correctly? The guy proposing this geoengineering insanity is called "Caldeira"?

I knew it. This is not reality. I'm actually just trapped in a cheap novel.

@Chance Metz: "And since msot records do come form urban areas and they are warming it does mess the data up."

That's a lie which the denialists love to parrot - and yet simply checking with relevant government agencies shows that it's a lie. Most of the world has been covered by satellites for almost 40 years and the sea surface temperature estimate (which can be made using data going back over 30 years) is quite reliable. Land surface temperatures are more challenging; however, even the temperatures gathered in and around urban areas can be left out and yet the earth is warming. The "urban heat island effect" is much smaller and better characterized than deniers would want to believe. There is not a single published denialist paper which shows that the urban heat island effect is in fact significant, and I'm betting my money that isn't because of the global conspiracy to tell the world that the globe is warming.

As for the natural cycles - if you have evidence that what is happening is all part of the natural cycle, do present it. Otherwise you're just waving your hands screaming "ipse dixit!" and claiming that your ignorance is proof against what other people say.

Oh we know what happens to evidence that disproves global warming. It is elft out and forgteen about. So you admit there is a problem tkaing and surface temps? And notihng on Earth is perfect,no sattlite is since it is only as good as the peope who programed it. And then you ahveto analyze the dat. Dening o nwat you bleive you can spin it either way and you would be right. No one on this side likes what this side says and vice versa. Go tell Al Gore I said hello and Hansen too! You know what will doom Earth,people bent on thnking things that don't need fixed. earth will surive,the question is will WE?? Are we worried aobut the Earth or aobut us? We are selfish so I would ebt it is the latter. Our species wil ldie out one day all species do,it is a part of life.

An interesting way to examine the data, claims and counter claims re. global warming is to reverse the questions, like looking at the negative of a photo print.

The "negative" counterpart for the question on whether sea levels are rising is something along the lines of "where are sea levels going down?" I know of a few places that are adding land due to geologic phenomena (Hawaii for example), but if sea levels are constant on the average around the world (as claimed by some), then there must be as many places where sea levels are lowering as there are places where they are rising.

Same "negative image" for the question on rising temperatures. If the average temperature around the world is constant, then there should be as many places where the temperatures are going down as there are places where its getting hotter. As with the first question, places getting colder is a pretty short list.

Going on with this approach, the counterpart of the more complex question on whether humans affect global climate is to ask "Is climate immune from the effect of human activity?" Since it's clear that local climate can be affected (heat islands and the like) and regional climate can be affected (conversion of forest lands to crop lands, industrial pollution, etc), the answer to that question is "no, climate is not immune to human behavior at the local and regional level". This allows the inquiry to shift gears and ask "is there a mechanism to blocks local and regional climates from affecting larger scale global climate patterns?" So far, observation and science both point towards interelationships between local, regional and global climate patterns. So the next set of questions run along the lines of "how much, where, and when?" which are well suited to scientific inquiry.

My final suggestion on "negative image" inquiry relates to computer modeling. Since computers models are created by people, like people, they tend to come in all sizes with various strengths and weaknesses. So the reverse image question is something like "are all computer models worthless?". From my personal experience in aviation, computer models have enabled commercial aviation to become more safe and less expensive since we started using computer models in design and analysis. The medical treatment I've recieved for various injuries and illnesses (MRIs, CAT scans, various drugs) has also been improved progressively over time by use of computer modeling. Is there some unique feature of climate science that makes it totaly unsuited to computer based analysis and modeling? Not really, but the inherent complexity of climate puts it at the leading edge of our modeling capabilities. So unless you are living a life totally off the net and self sufficient in all regards, your quality of life depends in many ways on computer modeling and our collective abilities to get better at it.

Flipping the questions around in this manner is valid on a logical basis and it's also kind of fun to do. I encourage you to try it out with your friends who are struggling to understand the whole climate change debate. But don't expect it to make of a difference to those people that reject the notion of rational thought and thoughtful analysis.

Exactly when you start to really look at it you see alot of things that are questionable. sadly those who bleive in global warming don't think the same thing and if they are unwilling to admit that then there is a problem. It is not scince anymore since scine changes to data and facts. has anyone tested global wrming i na xpeiment? No then it can't be proven.

Here Chance

These are photos from 2009 fires around the world. Many of them are man made. I do not need an experement to see they have an effect on the rest of the world. Last week here in Denver was one week straight of smoke and ash from the fires from arson fires of LA. We humans do effect the planet. All the proof you need is outside your door.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/quarterly.php?cat_id=8

No one has made a testtube experment out of the solar system. Does it not exist or are you implying that the earth is flat?

opps somehow hit post rather then preview

Here Chance

These are photos from 2009 fires around the world. Many of them are man made. I do not need an experement to see they have an effect on the rest of the world. Last week here in Denver was one week straight of smoke and ash from the arson fires of LA.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/quarterly.php?cat_id=8

No one has made a test tube experment out of the solar system. Does it not exist or are you implying the earth is flat?

We humans do effect the planet. All the proof you need is outside your door.

I stopped cold turkey 3 days ago and it really is starting to affect me right now. My mate says I can't complete it however I am so confident about this I will be successful. This morning I started feeling pains in my abdomen and I genuinely would like a cigarette. I won't give up because I'm doing all of this for our young children. I am blessed to have the electric cigarette. It really has been extremely helpful in my opinion.

I love the way you sound so passionate about what you are writing. Keep up the great work!

You are a very smart individual!