No, but it would cause heat deposition into the geosphere. Thus warming. Independent of "radiative forcing".
To cause warming of the atmosphere, heat has to get absorbed by something.
Yeah, I found that same site. Looks to me like it says vulcanism is increasing, but after they "adjust" the data, it says not. Why does that sound vaguely familiar.
The only thing that I see is that they feel that dips in the reported activity were caused by less media attention due to the occurrence of the world wars.
Let me be a bit more precise...by "vulcanism" I do NOT mean "volcanism". What I am referring to is increased geothermal activity, not necessarily volcanic eruptions.
That's hard to prove.
BTW, the Smithsonian is one if the places that says that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current (and NOT the Soon paper).
I'd like to read that. Where'd you see it?
"Now, you can choose not to believe me, or these references. But undersea volcanism, wondrous and amazing as it is (I'm fascinated by it) doesn't affect surface temperatures or melt sea ice."
And I repeat. The only possible legitimate response for the Arctic is "we don't know". The reason is that the subsea is simply too unexplored to allow any other answer.
We do know. We know that heat released on the deep sea floor does not get transported to the ocean surface. It's immutable fact. I try to be lenient on matters of uncertainty. This is not uncertain. Neither is the total amount of heat flow attributable to deep sea volcanism and hydrothermal activity; in fact, it was crustal heat flow measurements by Wolery and Sleep (classic paper in 1976) that indicated that there WAS hydrothermal activity on the sea floor, before any was discovered.
My own bet is that there are more geothermally active areas and that their output is significantly higher than the other oceans. Why? Because the Arctic (and Antarctic) are where there should be maximum interaction of earth's field with the sun's.
Maybe you could ask Norm Sleep.
"Hmmm... my initial reaction is that the adjustments are to make the modern data continuous with the historical data. So the baseline is... when the record begins? So the farther in time we get from the when the record begins, the more the data have to be adjusted to be comparable to when the record begins. That's my off-the-cuff idea for why the adjustments get larger. ??? Regarding the latter, I dug up this fairly large paper (6 MB) which has an entire section on adjustments:
So why are the adjustments always in one direction?? SURELY a few of the instruments would give systematically high numbers that needed to be adjusted down.
I think you've asked a great question. One of the things that the CRU hack has done is foment some statistical examinations of the datasets. Two (linked) discussions are below:
Lots of smoke, hardly any gun. Do climatologists falsify data?
These partly address the next part of this discussion. I spent some time trying to read both threaded posts above -- and it didn't help my understanding any. I can only say some general things. 1) Adjustments are necessary. Simple example: if a station gets moved (and they do), there is going to be a discontinuity. That has to be adjusted for to maintain a long record. 2) Contrary to your perception, if you look at gg's post about a 1/4 way down (second threaded post), you'll see a negatively adjusted station. Search the text with "December 12th, 2009 at 14:12" to find it quickly.
My hope is that some of this will shake out meaningfully and understandably, and get transmitted to the interested public, whatever the results turn out to be.
"Cooking the books" has not been proven; the idea that it's been done has been sold by skeptics abetted by conservative think-tanks, playing on the general public's inability to deal with details."
Yeah, right. It's all just an evil plot by Exxon.
Exxon/Mobil certainly helped, but that's not what I meant. What I meant is that skeptics like McIntyre have found some errors. Many have been corrected (quickly, too). But the discoveries have been amplified by Heartland, CEI, TechCentralStation, etc. into this perception of "cooking the books", as you say. Example: McIntyre discovered the GISTEMP error that, when corrected, reverted 1934 to warmer than 1998 in the continental U.S. The discovery of this error got widely promulgated, many times erroneously, and one of the main errors was that the correction made 1934 the warmest year GLOBALLY (when it wasn't even close!!). But that error proliferated, and I still see it repeated now, years after this happened. Well-meaning people read sources they believe to be authoritative, and they receive the errors that are transmitted, and this establishes multiple erroneous perceptions. Many times it's accidental; sometimes it's deliberate; either way, it creates doubt where there shouldn't be doubt. I used to think I was doing FR a service by correcting some of the obvious errors, but I only have so many fingers and there's just too many holes in the dike.
"A paper using that kind of methodology could not be published in any legitimate climate-research journal unless something was severely wrong or suspicious with the review process," says Virginia's Mr.Mann, lead author of the Eos paper"
So, Soon, et al, publish a paper that disagrees with "Hockey-stick fraud" Mann, Mann and "the Team" crank up the "blacklist generator" and "diss" the journal.
It wasn't just Mann and the "Team". The publication of this paper in Climate Research was widely criticized; that's why Kinne brought van Storch on board in the first place. But he couldn't fix the editorial process that had been exploited by de Freitas, so he quit, along with six other co-editors. The journal's peer-review editing process wasn't fair. That's what the emails were about.
And I would guess that this happened before Mann's own research was shown to be fraudulent.
Soon and Baliunas was 2003. And Mann's research was never shown to be "fraudulent". It was shown to be of questionable accuracy early in the time-series when using limited data. If it had been shown to be truly fraudulent, he wouldn't have a job today.
I hope ex-editor Von Storch felt vindicated after McIntyre caught Mann with his pants down.
Yeah, the emails do show von Storch had a couple other problems with Mann. But the Soon and Baliunas paper wasn't one of them.
It's called "the earth", which then radiates into "the atmosphere".
"The only thing that I see is that they feel that dips in the reported activity were caused by less media attention due to the occurrence of the world wars."
Uh, note that the slope continues upward the entire time, despite those dips. Seems to me that that indicates that the overall geothermal activity of the planet is increasing.
"That's hard to prove."
See graph at your own reference.
"I'd like to read that. Where'd you see it?"
See Smithsonian website. Section on the history of the Vikings. Covers the Greenland settlements and much else.
"We do know. We know that heat released on the deep sea floor does not get transported to the ocean surface. It's immutable fact. I try to be lenient on matters of uncertainty. This is not uncertain. Neither is the total amount of heat flow attributable to deep sea volcanism and hydrothermal activity; in fact, it was crustal heat flow measurements by Wolery and Sleep (classic paper in 1976) that indicated that there WAS hydrothermal activity on the sea floor, before any was discovered."
The amount of heat flow may be known for the well-studied Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. But the Arctic is another matter entirely. Firstly, it has not been deeply studied (though that is changing). And if my hypothesis about a heliomagnetic interaction with the earth is correct, the overall geothermal activity of the Arctic should be higher (and the Antarctic as well, but that's even less well studied). One wonders if the accelerated slippage of the Antarctic ice is geothermally driven.
"Maybe you could ask Norm Sleep."
Thanks, I'll check out his stuff.
"These partly address the next part of this discussion. I spent some time trying to read both threaded posts above -- and it didn't help my understanding any. I can only say some general things. 1) Adjustments are necessary. Simple example: if a station gets moved (and they do), there is going to be a discontinuity. That has to be adjusted for to maintain a long record. 2) Contrary to your perception, if you look at gg's post about a 1/4 way down (second threaded post), you'll see a negatively adjusted station. Search the text with "December 12th, 2009 at 14:12" to find it quickly.
Yeah, I saw ONE tiny dip. Pretty irrelevant next to the huge mass of other adjustments.
"Exxon/Mobil certainly helped, but that's not what I meant. What I meant is that skeptics like McIntyre have found some errors. Many have been corrected (quickly, too). But the discoveries have been amplified by Heartland, CEI, TechCentralStation, etc. into this perception of "cooking the books", as you say. Example: McIntyre discovered the GISTEMP error that, when corrected, reverted 1934 to warmer than 1998 in the continental U.S. The discovery of this error got widely promulgated, many times erroneously, and one of the main errors was that the correction made 1934 the warmest year GLOBALLY (when it wasn't even close!!). But that error proliferated, and I still see it repeated now, years after this happened. Well-meaning people read sources they believe to be authoritative, and they receive the errors that are transmitted, and this establishes multiple erroneous perceptions. Many times it's accidental; sometimes it's deliberate; either way, it creates doubt where there shouldn't be doubt. I used to think I was doing FR a service by correcting some of the obvious errors, but I only have so many fingers and there's just too many holes in the dike.
Sorry, it won't fly. There is just too much evidence coming out, the latest from the Russians.
"It wasn't just Mann and the "Team". The publication of this paper in Climate Research was widely criticized; that's why Kinne brought van Storch on board in the first place. But he couldn't fix the editorial process that had been exploited by de Freitas, so he quit, along with six other co-editors. The journal's peer-review editing process wasn't fair. That's what the emails were about."
Same "circle the wagons"/"damage control" mentality. A distinction without a difference.
"And Mann's research was never shown to be "fraudulent". It was shown to be of questionable accuracy early in the time-series when using limited data. If it had been shown to be truly fraudulent, he wouldn't have a job today.
LOL, if the jerk is that incompetent, he shouldn't have a job anyway. Yet he does. And there seem to be quite a few folks who no longer have jobs because they dared to (or tried to) publish papers that didn't follow the "catastrophic warming gospel".
Frankly, before starting this discussion with you, I really had NO idea what a stinking cess-pit was involved with the warmist crowd. The politicization of science that they have done simply boggles my mind. And IMHO, even if "global warming" turns out to be correct, they should all be drummed out of the practice of any form of science for their bastardization of the scientific process. There is NO justification for doing what they have done. NONE. NICHTS. NADA. And their tactics are precisely what has driven a big part of the "doubt" that has been generated.
If they had a scientific case, none of that bullshit was needed. The science would have stood on its own.