More generally however the models for climate change have been through the peer review system where people more knowledgable than us have vetted them and found them to be good solid science.

Your statement is partly true but your insinuation is false.

People with much more knowledge than us have gone over the data. And yes we do have a pretty good model for the past, however there are still unexplained events of global warming and cooling. As time goes on we are developing a more accurate model. Just because we can understand the past fairly well, does not mean that we can predict the future.

We have records that explain the weather back for centuries, yet we cannot accurately predict what happens two weeks from now. It’s the same way with climatology.

Predicting climatology is like predicting whether, you can make a fairly accurate model if you get enough of the variables, however there are some major variables that are still wild cards that cannot be predicted. The predictions and cells are not entirely accurate however throw in a wild-card and the predictions can become completely erroneous.

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) – The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

This is sampling on a timescale. Right now nature is in a period of low CO2 output, which it normally is. If you study history you’ll see that there are long periods of low CO2 output, with rare massive catastrophic events.

The CO2 output from Kilauea is insignificant. Its largest known event hardly even registers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

The Krakatau eruption released much more then the largest eruption on record for Kilauea. Yet the documented Krakatau eruption was minor compared to Mount Tambora. The Mount Tambora event was small compared to Mount Tambora (Year Without a Summer).

And they all were days in the park compared to super volcano eruptions like; La Garita, Caldera, Yellowstone (Lava Creek eruption) (Huckleberry Ridge eruption), Toba, or Taupo (Oruanui eruption).

What you’re doing is an unequal comparison, it’s like comparing a pile of gunpowder to a burning log and saying the log is more flammable because as putting out more heat. Will light a match to the gunpowder, and you might have a slightly different opinion (sarcasm).

The natural CO2 output of the earth is not a constant, it slowly builds up the CO2 and typically releases it in catastrophic events. The Yellowstone eruption could have released more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in a few days then mankind has in the last hundred years.

The Chicxulub impact would have likely made Yellowstone look like a day and a park. The crater is estimated at over 100 miles in diameter. Any petroleum products in the ground or in the sea nearby wooded been released to the atmosphere and probably set on fire, in other words a massive CO2 event, also it likely released CO2 as if it was a super volcano. Also it would have likely triggered the largest known Megatsunami. The direct impact to the sea floor and the Megatsunami would have likely triggered a catastrophic release of methane ice, which in itself would probably be the largest known release of greenhouse gases in history.

Right now there seems to be massive stores of methane ice waiting for a natural events to trigger a sudden release. This methane ice could possibly be used as fuel. If we were to find a way of harvesting and distributing the methane ice, it could possibly replace our oil dependency.

The methane ice and the oil is just stored waiting for a cataclysmic event to release it. If we use the methane ice on the oil we can use/burn/release it at a rate that would much less likely cause of extinction event.

Right now we seem to be in a global warming phase, it is possible could trigger a massive release of methane ice, that would further accelerate the global warming. One of the ways we might be able to prevent this event from being so cataclysmic is from switching from oil to methane ice.

If we can find a way of harvesting and distributing the methane ice, it could be converted to burn in our factories, homes, and automobiles owned by doing so we would be regulating/slowly releasing the greenhouse gases and thusly reducing the impact on life. Otherwise the same amount of greenhouse gases will likely be suddenly released to the atmosphere, and all that useful energy will go to waste and will cause a major extinction event.

It may seem strange but by controlling the way we pollute the world, we might be able to actually reduce the odds of an extinction event.

Let me say it another way, by burning hydrocarbons like oil and methane we may be increasing the global warming but we may be doing it more gently in a way that is less likely to cause catastrophic extinction. Most of the hydrocarbons are going to find their way to the atmosphere whether or not we use them. Coal might be one of the few exceptions. That’s why our long-term goal should be to switch most of our power plants to nuclear, hydroelectric, ect….

The movement to stop CO2 production is not practical and it may actually increase the odds of a global extinction release of greenhouse gases.

In a generation or two; oil is likely to be so expensive that it will not be practical to use for most applications.

If you’re not familiar with methane ice, it is somewhat like how oil is formed. Methane accumulates from dying organisms and other waste products on the bottom of the ocean, sometimes it is cool enough and under enough pressure that it can turn into a solid (ice). Much of this methane ice is trapped under the sentiment in our oceans, just waiting for global warming to warm it enough to release it or for a cataclysmic event like a meteor strike to release it. It is possible that an earthquake could possibly release it.

By the way this information is much more deeper than you’ll find on most online resources. It is based on facts, but the final conclusion is largely my own theory.

You don’t have to agree with me, I suspect most will find it hard to understand or believe.;) :rolleyes:

“Aye… sure what would I know, I only work on computational simulation every day.”

I would imagine you are better at computers that I am, it wouldn’t take much. Just because you are experienced with simulation doesn’t mean you can accurately predict global warming. Like they say in the computer field, junk in, junk out. Like I said before it depends on the variables.

To assume a steady state for the Earth is insane.

If you think that the Earth is inevitably bound for a steady state, then there’s no need to worry about man, a steady state implies man has no influence over global warming..(Which I don’t believe, I’m just pointing out how you are contradicting yourself logically)

I guess no one’s heard about the dust bowls. Ect… I guess people have never heard of land Management.

”Its easier to predict (simulate/model) events over a longer time scale when local fluctuations can be averaged.”

No it’s not, and it can be proved or disproved because we won’t live long enough. It’s also a matter of what time scale you use, as I pointed out depending on what timescale you use depends on whether we are in a period on global warming now or global cooling now.

Like I said all one has to do is look at history and no we are not in a steady state.

Anyone that knows anything about Earth science or cosmology can tell you that expecting the Earth to be in a steady state temperature wise is insane.

The core of Earth is cooling. The iron core is liquid and the spinning induces a magnetic field. Not only is the Earth’s core cooling but the rate of spin is slowing down due to friction, that will definitely change the weather. We are also seem overdue for an Earth magnetic pole reversal, which will inevitably change the Earth’s weather (endearing this pull reversal there will be periods of lower magnetic field which will allow more radiation to the Earth’s surface). Also eventually the Earth’s core will cool to the point that it solidifies, at that point we will lose our magnetic field, thusly we will be bombarded by radiation. Also the lack of magnetic field will all allow our atmosphere to be stripped away at a much higher rate. Eventually earth will become a cold barren planet much like Mars.

On a longer time scale. The sun is a furnace, its fuel is limited. The nuclear reactions that power the sun change as the composition of the sun changes due to nuclear combustion, this process will have periods of warming and cooling. When the sun is near its death it will likely swell (as a red giant) and burn up the Earth, before the sun itself fizzles.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/sundeath.shtml

It’s not exactly known for sure but some people theorize that part of the Earth’s core heat is from nuclear reactions at the core of the Earth, if that is true eventually the nuclear fuel will run out.

Like I said there are too many wildcards, we don’t even understand the Atlantic conveyor belt. It has histories of fluctuating, however we are not exactly sure what triggers the switch. They think in the past there has been large ice dams from melting ice that have suddenly gave away and have allowed a sudden flow of fresh water into the ocean. The density difference between the sudden on surge of fresh water is thought to disrupt ocean conveyor belts.

All you’re doing is spewing rhetoric, you havn’t even demonstrated that you know the proper terminology. The global warming nuts sometimes use the right terminology, but they usually use pseudoscience. The other side seems to use pseudoscience also but much less often.

If you look at it on an even longer time scale our galaxy is going to mix and be consumed by another galaxy and then massively changed.

Hmmmm some of you must be contributing to global warming by wearing your chicken little suits. 😀 :diablo:

Longer term effects are easier to predict than short term ones computationally. Be like CFD – instead of having to run time dependant simulations, you lengthen the timestep alot and let it get a ‘steady-state’ solution.

False. Anyone can make a prediction, its accuracy that counts. There are too many variables and too many unknowns and we are to new to the science to have anyway of accurately predicting global warming and cooling.

It’s also a matter of time frame. Right now we seem to be in a period of global warming, but that is just a minor pinprick on a tick of the clock.

If you look at it from the perspective of Earth’s crust we are in a state of global cooling.

If you look at from the perspective of the solar system, we are in a state of global warming that will destroy all life on Earth as the sun expands and contracts it will eventually swell to the point it could possibly consume the earth.

From the perspective of the universe on a long time scale it is still open for debate, the universe could fizzle it could crunch. If it crunched, there would almost certainly be another Big Bang.

Anyway a meteor or comment could come by at any moment and the impact could raise enough dust and soot to cause a global cooling extinction event. If it was large enough it could even shift our orbit to make our planet warmer or cooler without even hitting us.

Any person that says that they can positively predict the future of global warming or cooling in detail is a fraud.

There are too many unpredictable wildcards that we are just beginning to understand. Just to name a few of the unknown variables; the Atlantic conveyor belt, Global dimming. Methane ice. CO2 in permafrost. . How the sun breathes. The earth’s magnetic field, the earth’s possible nuclear core reaction, ect… any of which could cause global warming or global cooling. How can we predict climate change when we can even predict solar flares, let alone the breathing of the sun.

Al Gore is a shameless fear monger, that is promoting hysteria to grandstand himself for political and financial gain. That is putting it politely.

Your “steady-state” theory is obviously a fraud. Anyone can look at the history of the universe and the laws of nature and see that change is part of natural things on our time scale and location. You were steady state theory is at odds with the laws of nature.

I like how so many self proclaimed experts like Al Gore are so positive that we are headed for an extinction event for mankind in the near future. When meteorologist are educated for years in college and even after years of experience meteorologists cannot predict the weather two weeks away accurately. Yet Al Gore is such a genius he can predict catastrophic global warming decades away. Sometimes I think people like Al Gore have a God complex.

What next is Al Gore going to claim he invented pollution controls for the US? Is Al Gore going to claim he discovered global warming? Just like the Internet, he wants to jump on the bandwagon and grandstand about global warming.

That link seemed broke, it is a good movie.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

This is a modified version that backfired (pun) YMC-130H

Note; the naration seems to be wrong on a major point in the video.

I have seen this video several places, many don’t tell the story behind it, and many seem to have it wrong.

Operation Credible Sport, also known as Operation Honey Badger, was a United States military operation plan in late 1980 to rescue the hostages held in Iran using C-130 cargo planes modified with rocket engines. The Credible Sport operation was to follow the dramatic failure of Operation Eagle Claw in which a C-130 Hercules and a Sea Stallion helicopter collided in the Iranian desert, killing 8 servicemen. Credible Sport was abandoned after the election of Ronald Reagan as President in November, 1980.

The Credible Sport plan called for highly modified C-130 Hercules cargo planes to land in a soccer stadium not far from the American Embassy in Tehran and airlift the hostages out. Three aircraft were modified under a top secret project at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida to YMC-130H configuration with rocket packages blistered onto the forward and aft fuselage, which theoretically enabled the planes to land and take off within the confines of the sports arena.

During a demonstration at Duke Field, Eglin Auxiliary Field 3, on October 29, 1980, one of the modified Hercules fired its braking rockets a few seconds early (this seems to be wrong, see note below). The aircraft suffered an extremely heavy landing, tearing off the starboard wing, setting off a fire, and resulting in the airframe, serial 74-1683, being written off. Despite this, the entire crew survived.

This failure, coupled with the defeat of Jimmy Carter by Ronald Reagan in the presidential election on November 4, 1980, led to the cancellation of this rescue mission plan. The hostages were subsequently released concurrent with Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981.

The other two airframes, serials 74-1686 and 74-2065, were stripped of their rocket modifications and returned to regular airlift duties. In 1988 74-1686 was placed on display at the Robins Air Force Base museum, Georgia. As of 2005, 74-2065 is assigned to the 317th Airlift Group, 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas.

Note
One of the test pilots during the Credible Sport program elaborated on the test failure, the test with the footage now available. The pilot states that during the test the braking rockets did NOT fire prematurely, but right on time. It was the descent-arresting rockets, rockets that were supposed to fire after the braking rockets to slow the drop of the aircraft as the aircraft’s forward velocity was halted and the wings ceased to provide lift that failed to fire. Looking at the video, it would appear that the braking rockets should be fired after the aircraft touched down to quickly stop the landing roll. However, the braking rockets were supposed to be fired while in the air, then the descent arresting rockets would fire to allow a controllable and almost vertical landing. It was these rockets that failed, with the crash landing and aircraft breakup resulting..

http://crediblesport.com/
http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-credible-sport