i would assume all valcanos that are outgasing and the only ones that don't outgas are the dead ones


and i have no idea where the super volcano that we call yellowstone stands but it is outgasing

the one on Hawaii has been erupting for almost 20 years off and on

That settles it, we need to stop the volcanos!!!! Put a cap on those mfers!!!

Had a (very smart) friend who worked as a geek (sysad type) for NOAA for a few years. He told me that the most advanced developers in this field were shooting for ~80% accuracy for a particular locale/city (25 mile radius) 5-6 days out...5-10 years from now.

Seems that the kind of chaos mathmatics involved has very steep approach to limit, that sends the amount of processing power required up by an immense factor for each 6 hours or so that you try to push the "acceptible accuracy" limit, for particular locales. And thats not even counting the logistics problems associated with collecting the extreme detail of required input data in weather generation and modification zones for many "less than critical locales" (i.e. places smaller than Cleveland.) The brain guys he supported didn't think that it was EVER possible, within the limits of the math, to achieve a +80% accurate 7-day forecast, for a defined 25-mile radius locale.

On the other hand, apparently the climate models for very large systems, where many of the butterfly variables disappear into the background noise, have gotten better by orders of magnitiude over the last 20+ years. Results in things like pretty good prediction of what something like La Nina will do to rainfall in Africa over the next 6 months, and how bad the hurricane season will be.

Apparently the NOAA scientists are also quite proud of recent evidence that shows accuracy of 4-day local forecasts now are in the 70% range, where 2-day forecasts were 20-30 years ago.

Biggest amount of effort, however, goes into the very short range forecasting of very extreme events, i.e. tornado development, hurricane tracks, etc, for obvious reasons. 5 minutes more warning of a probable tornado touchdown zone, or 3 hours more warning of a hurricane landfall point are generally worth more to them, and us, than whether next Saturday's ballgame will get rained out.

drrider

a single volcano in a single day puts more CO2 than all of mankind in one year or at least in a month vs the year. so tell me how much are we affecting the CO2 lvls

this is not true, vulcanism does not contribute more than human industry to atmoshperic CO2

i don't disagree with your points. my post was in response to the claim catwhowalksbyhimself made, that the majority of scientists agreed global warming is not caused by humans. my point was that he was wrong based on what i knew, that the opposite was the case (the majority do agree it is caused by people). i never said that makes them right.



like republicans!

seriously though, it might be true that the majority really don't agree and that it's only an apperance. the only way to know for sure is to conduct an anonymous questionaire to get their actual opinions, which AFAIK hasn't been done.

however, there are other examples of scientific debates where there's a loud and stubborn minority opinion, but you don't see the minority-opinion researchers cowering in fear of their jobs/funding. one example includes the debate between Out of Africa theorists and the Parallel Evolution theorists - the latter could probably be called racists by someone merely looking at the fact that their theories are predicated on biological "races" of human beings. the Parallel Evolution theory is by far less popular, but archaeologists and evolutionary biologists don't worry about ruining their entire careers simply for taking a particular side.

but this is a different debate, so who know's what's really going on.

Hmmm....This stuff is very interesting.



The reason one of those hasn't been performed is the appearance of the minority to be the majority and for some reason, be capable of not letting people notice in order to conduct one.

I have three words.

It is natural.

Your quoting a source that once claimed Harry potter lived at the same address as the Prime minister of england. Not exactly the most reliable. it's assertions could be right or wrong. Some of what was written in this post and others is misinformation that I will attempt to correct.


Reading a bit farther on this same page will lead you to a sticky concerning sulfuric aerosols released by the biurning of certain fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. Not surprisingly data shows that this global cooldown came right after a sharp increase by tenfold of these items useage especially in Africa and America.


The person who wrote that in wiki should be burned at the stake as a heretic...No really. Ok maybe just pummeled. This statement should read tropospheric rates of satellite imagery taken from the tropopause demonstrate a more than 5%dissimilarity between ground troposphere temperature commonly and mistakenly referred to as surface temperature and upper elevation tropospheric temperature." And reading NASA's first paper on this in the ninties you learn that they could not account for the discrepancy. reading the paper written in two thousand shows that they figured it out but couldn't correct the problem because it involved weather balloons, and then their newest paper essentially says that they didn't realize that satellites were just that good. Now they use a combination of several different types of measuring devices to account for temperatures. Did I mention that surface temperature is measured at three different levels? Satellite, weather balloon, and sea level. All of which are measuring the tropospheric temperature.



I'll agree that old data is uncertain because of poor collection, discrepancies in accounting, and also lack of understanding of some of the physics, but satellite technology, photos and qualified research represent the backbone and an integral part of global atmospheric change research. in fact much of the current debate relates to several thousand global pictures taken as the result of research done concerning global warming trends. These photos show shrinkage of glaciers, desertification, the melting of Canadian carbon sinks, a decrease in fertile lands. Gore's movie was based on primary source material collected by thousands of scientists, all of whom use more modern techniques to study these trends.



I'm unimpressed by this list. Nearly seventy per cent of this list is retired or emiritus professors who have not touched a research table in nearly twenty years. Most of them don't even have available data and are basing their arguements on conjecture and untested theories. A few of them are dead, one of them, simon from IU his most recent articles suggest he believes Anthropogenic Global Warming exists and effects the planet more than other forms but that that other forms also play a role. he never oncesided with the anti warming group.



Completely untrue. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
That's just fallacious info.



Also untrue.. the only planet with a possibly similar rate is neptune. http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html Although not primary source he does a good job of explaining. Especially about the general temperature difference between us and venus. If we were warming like Venus we'd burn up in a year



Yeah I hate it when my weather balloon gets caught in my air conditioner. Did I mention that general temperature curves at near surface are measured by ships weather balloons, satellite and specialized thermometers that sit high in the air. Not a very likely spot for AC



Very true. Well technically we are still in the mini Ice age from what I understand. of course tempratures have never changed so radically at any time in the past, at least not so fast. Well except when the dinosaurs were all wiped out. Speed of change is very important in this discussion.



Actually they disagreed in principle about the weakness of the report. They felt that china was purposefully using political clout to weaken the reports power and therefore protested their names being placed upon what they considered a bubble gum resolution. That was in the news. No one person other than Allegre whose name was on the original report but got it removed because he changed his mind, has disagreed with the idea of GW. Allegre is an interesting problem. he voiced his active change from full support to complete antithesis only after he left the Institute and right when he got his million dollar grant from an oil company. i might be reading into this too much though

I am not someone who fully supports the theory of global warming but I am a trained geologist and chemist with a background in anthropology theatre, geology, chemistry and mathematics. Everything I have said on here is open and all of it can be documented if necessary. I encourage people to continue discussing global warming but encourage them to consider both sides especially when what someone says does not make sense. Not every person who speaks about thias subject is honest, but many of them use data disingenuously. When considering offered info please look for source but if you can't find source documentation look for these main things

1. Pertinence of info.
2. Relation to actual data/relation to data collection
3. Who is making the statement? Chances are if they are not working geologists geophysicicsts etc they may not be up with currecnt science. Which is why anne coulter can never be considered primary source.
4. Timeliness.
5. Corporate or governmental relations
6. Impact in the scientific community. (especially look for repeat offenders who come up with a new junk theory once a week.
7. compare any data listed with available NASA data chances are they either miscalculated or msstated.
8. Never believe any book automatically unless written by jk rowling. Themn you should know it's all real.


O

Mars doesn't even have an atmosphere to pollute.

Are you sure? I know there are dust storms on Mars. Can you have a dust storm without an atmosphere?

they are planning on robot aircraft for mars

I'm just trying to keep my carbon-monoxide production down to a minimum. LOL

Back top the game if I may. I don't think we need to have global warming, its seems that should be kept to the Civilization series. But This idea did give me one for one of those pesky Megaevents. Not so much global warming but something that causes all farms to die. Populations would decrease etc.Maybe you'd need the alreday-in-the-game second barren world tech to be able to rebuild them.

It could be caused bu whatever the devs want really. passing asteroids (in the whole galaxy???) na. Maybe the radiation from all the ships that have been flying around.

Mars has an atmosphere. it's thinner than ours and is mostly C02.

WWW Link

OK.

That really doesn't need answering, but what the heck. Its the exploding one.

Bah, warming shwarming. I look out my window at the chavvy kids sitting outside, drinking, swearing, and discarding their trash in my front garden while they poke fun at passers by, and I wonder why I should do anything to make the world a better place for their generation.

You can't save the planet forever, because one day the sun's going to eat it anyway. Might as well admit defeat and enjoy ourselves while we can. Besides, we could get hit by an asteroid or invaded by lizard people or something, and global warming will be the least of worries then.

Who cares?

That kind of thinking is just defeatist.

As for those saying the dino had more CO2, it is absolutely false. The records shows (I mean geological records) that record peaks were acheived in the glacial era (which actually put an end to it). By the way, we knocked those records out since early 1970s and by now, we have about trice that amount in the atmosphere.

As for the solar influence. A group of scientists backed by the U.N.'s group, have shown factual evidence (form 3 independents sources in space and on earth), all of them saying that the solar output is going down and has done so since it hit his peak in the mid-1980 and that global temperature has risen by 0.4 degrees since then.

Also, volcanoes does produce extreme amount of CO2, it's true, but it happens only if it's in eruption/explosion, most of the time, volcanoes will put out mostly water vapor and other minor gases like sulfur and thus. Real volcanoes eruptions (Hawaii doesn't count), happens rather sparsely.

The point is not just the actual production of CO2, but our destruction of the earth ability to neutralize it. (i.e.: burning the amazon).

It's important to note that decreasing the amount of production of CO2 drastically is just but the first step, then, we will have to help the earth absorb the excess and thus actually reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere instead of just slowing it increase. All of this because there's something that people don't seem to get: Temperature increase with CO2, it's true, but while CO2 stays, the temperature will continue to increase, no matter what we do since CO2 is like a giant cover, acting as isolation between the earth surface and the space absolute zero just like the Ozone act as a isolation between the earth and the sun radioactive rays. Thing is, the heat keep coming in (the sun), but it doesn't go out.

Is Global warming happening? Indisputably yes - the evidence is overwhelming - ice fields the size of Manhattan island are breaking off the Ice Pack in the Artic daily, the clear indisputable evidence that is occurring in the ice pack is without doubt overwhelming. Other aspects to the evidence of Global Warming of course, but once its accepted its happening, endless rounds of further evidence - at least initially - are not really relevant. The question is Why is it Happening?

In any scenario of such cataclysmic emotional content, out from the woodwork cometh many - wannabe scientists groping to make a name, individuals wanting to be seen to be notable and bolster their self-worth - and so on - some genuine and just plain wrong, and the inevitable minority who initially called it out and were right. How to separate fact from fiction and personal self grandisement is always the problem.

Initially we all need to sing off the same page and agree on what global warming actually is - else how on earth can we agree on how to tackle it (if indeed its happening - which I do believe ). Such confusion can disastrously mask the real problem and therefore what to do - even cause mass confusion when individuals assume one thing, and have no real understanding of what is actually being discussed. Its kind of silly when two people realise one was describing the merits of a Gm pickup truck, and the other a Chrysler Compact - hardly surprising they disagree.

Recently I saw a post on a Board where the OP was furious, incandescent with anger. It was clear he was not being silly, and passionately believed what he said. To para phrase :

"This is nuts, how the hell can so called eminent scientists tell me we are suffering Global Warming when the US has just been through, in Winter 2006/2007, one the worst ever in many areas - Gales, bitter low temperatures, snow storms etc. They want me to believe we are suffering Global Warming? They are crazy."

That was not an isolated person or rare, I have come across it a lot. The last major aspect is we must step back from the Trees and see the Wood. There are Macro Global Weather patterns/cycles that last centuries - even thousands of years - these start and end and some point. Increasingly being heard above the "me too" clamor of man made CO2 Armageddon, is the reasoned facts of these weather patterns, we are at the change point in one of those cycles.

Does it mean we should ignore the CO2 etc saga - no of course not, life is never simple. I believe there is little doubt we have made it worse, and brought forward the weather pattern change by (ugghh pick your figure at this point in time) say 50 years (who knows). However, that weather pattern change will happen and we will never change that. What we can do is try to delay its effect, mitigate its initial impact and buy time to adjust, adapt, evolve and refocus to what will be a new environment.

We are not about to all freeze to death for ever more - or fry in the equatorial zones etc. We just have to learn over the next few decades to adapt to what is about to inevitably happen, and not arrogantly believe we can change the weather pattern of a whole planet ( In 2526 maybe, but right now in 2007, not a chance). To do that, we must as a Race focus on the reality, agree what that reality is, and move forward with a common purpose - yelling and bickering at each other as is happening today doesn’t cut it, that just confuses those who don’t really don’t know the facts or implications, and by such inaction makes matters worse.

Eventually from amongst the "Noise" of such scenarios throughout History, a "Leader" emerges, and seems to "connect" with most, bangs some heads together, orchestrates what future Historians will say was obvious in the first place(whatever that maybe) and we move forward

I just wish He or She would hurry up and stand up - we are running out of time

Regards
Zy

the norm for planet earth is no glaciers. except maybe antartica.

the glaciers represent the ice age. ie we are still in the ice age.

danielost:

that may be true, but we are not only affecting the CO2 levels by producing it trough polution but also trough cutting down the forrests that keep those levels down.


also: there is a balance on the planet. volcano produced CD2 is counted towards that balance, industrialization produced CO2 is not. we are affecting the ballance, which can be disruptive....

I don't care if the norm. for Earth is no glaciers (which I still think isn't right). Change is bad, and I kinda like watchin' the snow in December. And the coasts not being flooded. Its also a bit nice that I don't get heat stroke in September. Global warming is bad and it is happening. No goverment cover up can change that.

how and why do you stop a natural happening of the planet.


and if humans are the only couse of global warming.

then explain mars and pluto which are also going through global warming and remember we haven't been to pluto yet

Global warming is good on Mars. A warmer Mars is a better place for us to explore and maybe, colonize. And pluto, who cares. its just a little rock in the Kuiper belt. Its not even the biggest of the little hunks of ice.

Why stop global warming if it's a natural phenomanon (which it isn't). As I sayed before, if ya like snow and non rotting penquins. Also, if computer models are right, weather patterns will shift and the rain forest will become more like the Sahara desert. Winter ice sheets will disappear, forcing many islanders to evacuate. Extreme weather will become more common. Water levels will increase flooding the coast. Wildfires will roar through forests. And the easy one, temps around the world will rise.

How, in Popular Sience magazine I recently read an article about reicing the artic.
Sounds like a porly concevied fantasy. Not very pratical. The oil will run out soon so we need to find a new fuel sourse. Gas hydrates found in deep water. There's more of them in the oceans of the world than all the other fuel sourses put together. But it releases harmful methane gas when burned. For car fuel I think hydrogen is are best option. It's everywhere. And when you seperate water to get your hydrogen, it releases a small amount of energy. Power and fuel. And best of all, no green house gases. Since fusion is to far off (at least 50 years) solar, wind, submerged hydroturbins, nuclear, geothermal, and a daring Australian progect involving the sun, hot air, and a 600 foot tall tower, will have to do. Until fusion, or someother ultra-eficient power source is found.

now we not only have to stop the unnatural global warming on earth but also on mars, and pluto