[Doctor Stochastic]

Of course, if it's being suppressed, how does one find it?

There were lots of NOAA papers claiming that volcanos emit copious quantities of CO2. Rates were given. It doesn't appear that NOAA is suppressing that volcanos emit CO2 and there were even papers showing historical results from ice cores.

[cogitator]

There were lots of NOAA papers claiming that volcanos emit copious quantities of CO2. Rates were given. It doesn't appear that NOAA is suppressing that volcanos emit CO2 and there were even papers showing historical results from ice cores.

Volcanoes aren't significant emitters of CO2.

SO2 and sulfate aerosols, they can be a significant source.

[inPhase]

We ventured off on the work being suppressed. His particular work was more than CO2 etc data. His work show aerosols staying around in a just >12km band.


I know that the CO2 output and other gases grnhse incl, are gigantic volumes dwarfing human activity. Many studies, many data over time. Still, I am not for poisoning ourselves, just against social scientists doing screwed up science eg greenhouse.

This NOAA scientist was actually told by his boss not to give talks anymore on this work (that's how I first heard, at a lecture), but the most interesting part at the last post to me was that
the volcanic aerosols are a "constant" over time. ESA has the same results.

The reason he was suppressed was the ABL proram

was trying to pull off a fly a laser above the clouds with no aberration nonsense. His work was on their way.