…Hillier, J. K., and A. B. Watts (2007)
What would we know?
Underwater seamounts are one to four kilometer high mountains that mostly used to be a volcano. But under a kilometer of water they are hard to see, holy smoke, and we know more about the moon than the bottom of the Mariana, and it’s only 11km “away”.
Most of these undersea volcanoes remain uncharted by sonar, and with only one-quarter of the sea floor mapped, it is impossible to know how many exist. Sometimes we only find out when a nuclear submarine runs into one:
“It’s just mind boggling.” More than 19,000 undersea volcanoes discovered
New seamount maps could aid in studies of ecology, plate tectonics, and ocean mixing
Paul Voosen, Science
In 2005, the nuclear-powered USS San Francisco collided with an underwater volcano, or seamount, at top speed, killing a crew member and injuring most aboard. It happened again in 2021 when the USS Connecticut struck a seamount in the South China Sea, damaging its sonar array.
Despite discovering nearly half the known underwater volcanoes just this week, we already knew 30 years ago that they had no effect on the climate. The climate modelers said so. They explained that all the unexplained warming was due to CO2. Hence, ipso ergo absurdum, underwater volcanoes “equals zero”.
The Pacific Ocean cycles are the largest driver of climate on Earth, but we *know* as only high priests can, that volcanoes we’ve never studied definitely had no role in it.
Thanks to the laws of Government-funded Monopoly Science, the same researchers who would never point that out are now finding reasons that underwater volcanoes might help explain climate change. Now they tell us! Apparently “wake vortices make seamounts the leading contributor to upward ocean mixing, and a central player in climate.” Who knows, they might be right, but where were they twenty years ago when we needed more scientists to point out how inadequate climate models were?
For each seamount example, (left) SRTM15+V2.3 mapped bathymetry, (center) the average Gaussian Model where [omega/h] = 2.4, (right) difference between the average Gaussian model and real data. The gray areas have no soundings.
From Science:
The “upwelling” was once thought to happen evenly across the ocean, driven by turbulent waves at boundaries between deep ocean layers of different densities. Now, researchers believe it is concentrated at seamounts and ridges. “There’s a zoo of interesting things that happen when you have topography,” says Brian Arbic, a physical oceanographer at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
When ocean currents curl around seamounts, they create turbulent “wake vortices” that can provide the energy to push cold water up, says Jonathan Gula, a physical oceanographer at the University of Western Brittany. In unpublished research, Gula and co-authors have found that these wake vortices make seamounts the leading contributor to upward ocean mixing, and a central player in climate. Since the team relied on the old Scripps catalog, not the new one, the effect of the seamounts is probably even larger, Gula adds.
Curiously, it was only two months ago we realized in another study that all the benzene and toluene pollution over the vast Southern Ocean was not caused by humans but by phytoplankton blooms. The aerosols produced by microbes can seed clouds, which in turn cool the planet.
There’s a 10,000 kilometer ball of magma under the sea floor. We don’t even know all the volcanoes on the crust, let alone the changes in temperature that might drive currents, or influence natural cycles.
Even as late as 2018 only 20% of the seafloor had been mapped by ships (Mayer et al., 2018). There’s a lot more to come.
Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/it-s-just-mind-boggling-more-19-000-undersea-volcanoes-discovered
People are constantly discovering new volcanoes, like a 3,000m one off Indonesia that no one realized was there til 2010. It turns out the second largest volcano in the solar system is apparently not on Io, but 1,000 miles east of Japan. It’s the size of the British Isles, but who knew? A few years ago a team found 91 new volcanoes under Antarctica. (This is getting serious, someone should talk to the Minister for Lava!)
For those who are curious, TechTimes has more details on how they found so many volcanoes. It involves radar satellite data and some Gaussian interpretation:
They measured sea surface altitude changes caused by gravitational pull using radar satellite data, a phenomenon known as sea mounding. This method resulted in the discovery of 19,000 previously undiscovered seamounts.
With their research, the team found that seamounts have a base-to-height ratio that is linearly related to their height, which means that their shapes are scale invariant. They used a mathematical model called a Gaussian function to calculate this characteristic shape and found that it can be used to accurately estimate the height of small seamounts.
h/t Eduard
REFERENCE
Hillier, J. K., and A. B. Watts (2007), Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874.
Julie Gevorgian et al, Global Distribution and Morphology of Small Seamounts, Earth and Space Science (2023). DOI: 10.1029/2022EA002331
Earth and Space Science, the new seamount catalog
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.adi3228
That is a loT of “discovered volcanoes” – maybe they can name one after me! Seriously, we knew that there was a lot of volcanoes in the arc that makes up the Marianas and extending up into the Beriing group. An academic friend long deceased was a world authority on the “Pacific Ring of Firee” but I don’t think he’d be surprised at the number found recently – or the further unmapped ones. What they contribute to global emissions is a guess.
141
Even better name it after prominent “Climate Scientists”. NO, that won’t work, they only sprout hot air.
170
Never mind. The politicians will put a tax on the volcanos and any warming will magically disappear!
Or maybe our BOM can homogenise a few thousand of these volcanos!
180
Yes, the dialog has switched from CO2 to ‘emissions‘. Even here. Emissions don’t matter. So you can discover 19,000 more sources of CO2 and it still doesn’t matter.
98% of very soluble, highly compressible CO2 is in the ocean. What is in the air is ONLY what is determined by the rapid equilibrium with the vast CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Emissions could double overnight and it would not matter much to the balance when on average half the CO2 molecules disappear into the ocean every 5 years.
Because CO2 is totally unperturbed by humans, cars, volcanoes, bush fires, anything related to human activity, emissions do not matter. Which is why all legislation, all the scaremongering, all the passion is about ’emissions’.
And no one measures the effect of all this legislation, all these windmills and solar panels on CO2. Because there is no effect.
If people really cared about CO2, they would be measuring it. But no one talks about the fact that $1.5Trillion a year for decades has had no impact at all on CO2. Nor all of China. In fact the graph of CO2 vs time is nearly a straight line. Which is prima facie ridiculous if it is related to any aspect of human development or activity in the 20/21st century.
130
I would say that billions of automobiles stopped driving in the world Wuhan Flu lockdown, from Santiago to Shanghai to San Francisco to Stockholm. And there is no sign of this in the graph of CO2. So why switch to electric cars?
210
No its not. We know exactly how much they contribute. Do you want me to explain to you how we know or are you going to do your ‘own research’?
02
I found the bottom of the Marinara at my local Italian.
200
A typo presumably. It made me smile though.
Food for thought eh?
90
Well, it’s not inappropriate. After all, they are marine seamounts.
30
” … than the bottom of the Marinara … ”
Wondering if that should be ‘Mariana’? The bottom of my marinara usually has breadstick crumbs in it … … …
210
I wonder if Jo did that intentionally…
I certainly missed it first time through. 😉
[True confessions, it’s worse than you think. I cut n pasted the line from a post I did in 2017. Maybe it was intentional then? I can’t remember… – Jo]
161
Maybe so, if not it is auto correct at work.
Gave me a little chuckle!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench
100
Autocorrect is my worst enema…….
240
I think it might have been while I was still at school pre 1960 that the National Geographic Magazine wrote up the story of the bathyscaphe “Trieste” going to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, and how they did it. I do recall that it was a lot deeper than Mt Everest is tall.
Was Jaques Piccard on that job?
10
Technically the modelers say climate change is due to a dozen or so human causes of which CO2 is just the biggest, with methane second. But the point remains that no natural causes are allowed except cyclic ones like ENSO and PDO. Volcanoes are definately not included. Except a few big eruptions that supposedly damp out. Clearly this new finding is important.
372
It is clear from UAH and NOAA Star, that basically all the warming in the satellite era has come from ENSO events.
190
That is the sum of it. Insignificant warming.
130
Exactly:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
80
Crazy – undersea volcanoes – what’ll be next on the list of discoveries: clouds? water vapour? lightning?
The Louisville Seamount Ridge east of here, running NW towards Tonga before disappearing down into the depths of the Kermadec/Tonga Trench, has intrigued me from the day I first saw them on a bathymetrical map. And not too far off the east coast of Aus is a parallel double-ridge of seamounts & guyot(s) lurking beneath the waves…
Thar be monsters here – yet landlubbers tell us to be afraid of a beneficial trace gas?
150
Volcanoes are definately not included
00
As Robert Felix of IceAgeNow.info used to say – “And they wonder what is heating the oceans” !
200
They say the marine heatwave in the north Pacific is caused by stationary atmospheric high pressure, but I have my doubts.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-186.26,23.41,264
40
“Hot air rises”(Ditto hot water.) Anyone else ever encountered that?
How can a warmed atmosphere transfer heat DOWN into an ocean or water?
Think: Boiling water by applying a blowtorch to the surface. It will be a LONG wait for that cup of coffee.
110
The “blowtorch” that is AGW CO2 frequency radiation would have a Wien’s temperature of some -81C (IIRC)
That’s not going to warm anything!
Penetration of atmospheric IR into water is a tiny fraction of a mm, and aids evaporation.
(I vaguely recall a paper where actual cooling was measured in the top 2 or 3 mm because of this.)
It is visible and UV that have the ability to penetrate to any significant depth.
50
While we are at it the Indo Pacific Warm Pool (the heat engine of the world) is a huge CO2 emitter.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31468-0
20
At a dinner at Cambridge university some 10 years ago, a volcanologist told me that it was becoming apparent that there were at 20000 times more underwater volcanoes than had been thought until recently
220
Strange isn’t it.. CO2 “radiation ” at some -80C frequency equivalent, is meant to warm the ocean from above.
But volcanoes under the seas have no warming effect. (according to climate kooks)
There are studies done of under ocean seismic activity done that, with a lag, correspond very well with now verified atmospheric temperature (UAH)
The only “melting” spot in the Antarctic just happens to be above thousands of these sub-ocean volcanoes,
The Big Blob that came with the 2015 El Nino, just happened to be where many of these volcanoes exist and where they are now worried about major quakes occurring.
hmmm.. !
290
Also, the recent rather warm upwelling off the Equador/Chile coast, affecting the ENSO regions, is right above an area of volcanic activity.
https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_currenteruptions.cfm
120
I’ve often wondered whether or not undersea volcanoes contribute to sea level rise. Outflows from these volcanoes must displace the water level upwards and I’d have thought that when other factors are relatively neutral, that displacement would be more or less constant. Of course at some point new basins would be flooded, such as when the Mediterranean formed. But most of the time the contribution should be to a rising sea level. Sure, we’d need a lot of volcanoes, but apparently we are now finding that there are!
150
Would we even notice a crustal bulge forming in the bottom of the Pacific ocean.. say 1000km radius, and grow up and outward?
That would certainly affect the sea levels around the world.
110
But would it? The magma has to come from somewhere…. Isn’t the whole sea floor just lowered by the same amount? The rock is not created from thin air.
Note the quote from TechTimes I put in the post though:
70
We know some sections of the crust are sinking, the magma is always moving (which is why gravitation based measurements over Greenland are very iffy )
The rock is not created from thin air.
Even a slight change in internal temperature could cause expansion or contraction, maybe ?
The crust is thinnest under the oceans, so might be more susceptible to movement.
Point is.. we just don’t know. ! But it certainly should not just be discounted/ignored.
40
“But would it? The magma has to come from somewhere…. Isn’t the whole sea floor just lowered by the same amount? The rock is not created from thin air.”
I can’t really comment on that possibility other than to ask whether we observe surface lowering of the dry land when volcanoes erupt? Of course some volcanoes do collapse, such as St Helens, but others appear to generate large lava flows from magma domes under the surface. When the Bandah Aceh earthquake occurred, it apparently resulted in a very large upward displacement of the crust. The result was a tsunami, but if no collateral downward displacement occurred then the sea level must have become very slightly higher overall. I suppose I am pondering whether or not the sum of all such displacements over a year is positive or negative in terms of sea level.
I’m not sure about the mention of sea level measurements using mounding – all that means, as far as I know, is that the sea surface itself is affected by the gravitational effect of the basin shape. Where larger masses lie, such as subsea mountains etc, the sea surface level will be slightly higher as gravity pulls the water to it.
20
For years I have been writing that there is no proof that the walls and floors of the oceans enclose a constant volume. Nobody knows if the basin volumes are constant enough to attribute sea level changes to temperature.
There is no literature that I can find that gives a measured mathematical relation between temperature of something and sea level change.
It has always been the case that climate research is of a poor standard. But what would I, a mere geochemist, know?
Geoff S
50
Most warmists seem to have an Aristotlean view of the earth and universe as being static and never-changing.
I think most of the warmists would be surprised that the sun is a variable star or that plate tectonics (and how many of the uneducated masses even know about that, these days?) is responsible for most volcanism.
And yes, warmists do believe volcanic activity is influenced by “climate change”.
https://www.sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/how-climate-change-impacts-volcanic-activity/
How climate change impacts volcanic activity
By Jane Marsh on March 1, 2022
SEE LINK FOR REST
180
Much glaciers around volcanoes, just around the ring of fire 😀
The Alps f.e., a glacier region, is full of vulanoes ?
What did these people, publishing that paper, study before ?
80
“What did these people, publishing that paper, study before ?”
Advanced Creative Grant Application Writing”, most likely.
110
I often imagine Green’s angst if they were around when Dinosaurs were wiped out.
100
Might have got rid of the greens too?
30
All that heat being continuously transferred at all tectonic plate boundaries eventually passes into the atmosphere and most heats the oceans.
70
Yet another fascinating article Jo, awesome work. It becomes clear now that the whole climate change fiasco is built on very narrow issues. Our planet is a very complex and amazing place that is now being destroyed by ghastly wind turbines, solar panel farms and tearing the place apart for rare earth minerals. As I have frequently said, the whole mantra of climate change is a gigantic hoax. Recent polls in the USA show the young now see it as a religion. As with most pagan religions there were horrible sacrifices, adults and kids. What is next from the elites who run this? I bet not one of them would read and appreciate the depth of information in the amazing article alone.
290
“…it becomes clear now…”
Now?…lol…I think it’s been clear for at least 20yrs, since Climategate, at least.
“Climate change” is about one thing, and one thing only…moving money. This is the bottom line, single source of power for politicians, too move money, and climate change is a virtual conveyor belt. Whether riots at swiming pools in Germany, or home runs in America’s baseball…we need to move money.
30
Hmmmm do we need a $billion dollars worth of new scientific research funding – To tell us why the $billion dollars worth of old scientific research was wrong? Oops our bad, give us some more money and we’ll explain how we got it wrong.
161
So much for ” The Science is settled”.
100
Never forget that co2 levels were about 348 ppm when Dr Hansen made his DC BS speech in 1988 and today levels are about 420 ppm.
Now according to Hansen and Bill McKibben everything would be okay if we could return to 350 ppm. So reduce our 420 ppm by just 70 ppm and the climate would be perfect again like it was in 1988. SARC.
And ditto SLR, polar bears, penguins, Ice at the poles, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, the coming 6th EXTINCTION event ( just ask silly Tania Plibersek), etc, etc.
But who would’ve thought that there wouldn’t be many thousands of undersea volcanoes that we didn’t know about?
The seas cover about 71% of the earth and land about 29% and yet we ignored those hidden volcanoes and worried about that terrible 70 ppm increase in co2.
IOW the demon is that extra 0.007% increase of co2 in our atmosphere and we should continue to WASTE endless TRILLIONs of dollars for another 30+ years for NOTHING. And for a guaranteed ZERO RETURN on the BS investment (?????)
130
An average CO2 level for the whole planet, has about as much meaning (and accuracy) as the average temperature.
90
More things, Horatio…
That hot, squishy Journey from the Centre of the Earth.
90
Neville! I have always been aware of the increase in CO2 levels since Hanson left the air conditioning off and opened the windows, but I have never seen that increase shown as an additional 0.007% of the atmosphere!
At first I thought “that can’t be right”, but 0.0420% – 0.0348% = 0.0072%.
Described that way – what a trifling amount. It is my new “statistic”.
I can just hear me saying, “Are you aware that in the last 35 years CO2 levels, as a proportion of the atmosphere, has only increased by 0.0072% – next to nothing!” Love it.
100
BTW the barking mad Malthusians are celebrating another Earth day and hoping to attract new BELIEVERs.
Here’s a report from 2022 and note that we’ve added another 4.3 + billion people since 1970 and over 1 billion of that number from poor Africa.
They were very wrong in 1970, just read the link.
And global life expectancy in 1970 about 56.5 yrs and 73 today.
Africans life exp 46 yrs then and 64 today. THINK.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/earth-day-at-52-none-of-the-eco-doomsday-predictions-have-come-true/?mc_cid=5f2c3cea5d&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b
110
One might wonder how a nuclear submarine has an allision (not collision) with an uncharted seamount. And incidentally the allisions occurred at 25-35mph or 40-56kph.
The reason is that they don’t use active sonar because they might give their position away so they rely on established seafloor maps and inertial navigation.
Nevertheless, numerous navigational and other procedural errors were made leading to those submarine allisions Jo mentioned.
They also hope to avoid collisions with other submarines or large marine mammals like whales but there is no way of avoiding them if their passive sonar can’t hear them.
120
sounds like someone needs to devise a scheme to put a giant cork in all these volcanoes.
for the mone… uh, i mean to save the planet.
80
Thoughts:
The science is settled, but the sea bed isn’t.
With all those volcanoes poking up displacing water and all that activity heating the sea there’s no change in sea level. Doom factor: 0
With increased tectonic activity that’s happening comes the potential to form more active underwater volcanoes.
With a lack of eruption data, one can’t factor in their contributions to seismic activity, so my predictions may only be 85% accurate now.😁
No doubt everything will be blamed on humans anyway via some convoluted scientifically false narrative.
More undersea volcanoes?
Well, that’s due to boat propellers causing low frequency vibrations and resonant effects in sea bed strata, so das gubermint will ban fishing and make you eat crickets.
70
“that’s due to boat propellers causing low frequency vibrations “
So we better erect of whole heap of off-shore wind turbines to compensate. ! 😉
80
To map the Earth’s vast sea floor,
Will hold many surprises in store,
With abyssal hills smaller,
And seamounts much taller,
All volcanoes in numbers galore.
210
Here’s a point to consider, in the following video by David Dilley it is claimed that historical CO2 measurements based on ice core data have been underestimated and that there has only been a modest increase in CO2 in recent times.
Not that CO2 (what warmists call “carbon” (sic)) is a problem anyway, the more the better (up to a point), but the atmospheric CO2 level is of academic interest.
What do you think?
https://youtu.be/D_B10L9bV18
90
Most people, present company excepted, are unaware of the history of the making, by hand, of the first map of the sea floor which was not completed until 1977.
SEE LINK FOR REST
170
>”There’s a 10,000 kilometer ball of magma under the sea floor”
Also under the climate crowd’s “Doomsday” Thwaites Glacier.
‘Seismicity and Pn Velocity Structure of Central West Antarctica’ – Lucas et al 2021
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GC009471
Abstract
“We have located 117 previously undetected seismic events mainly occurring between 2015 and 2017 that originated from glacial, tectonic, and volcanic processes in central West Antarctica using data recorded on Polar Earth Observing Network (POLENET/ANET) and UK Antarctic Network (UKANET) seismic stations. The seismic events, with local magnitudes (ML) ranging from 1.1 to 3.5, are predominantly clustered in four geographic regions; the Ellsworth Mountains, Thwaites Glacier, Pine Island Glacier, and Mount Takahe. [Continues]”
But forget all that. Plenty of screeching headlines to choose from; here’s a lengthy one with no mention whatsoever of any seismic influence that I can see from a skim read but does end with the obligatory man-made climate change sermon below:
‘How We Came to Know and Fear the Doomsday Glacier’
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-we-came-to-know-and-fear-the-doomsday-glacier-180981392/
“Holland sees the planet in terms of a simple principle: “play with the atmosphere, expect change.”
Unusually warm ocean currents are melting the ice. Those currents are driven by shifting wind patterns: stronger winds displace cold surface water, allowing deep warmer water to rise up and pour over the continental shelf into the marine basin beneath the glaciers. The winds, in turn, respond to one thing: changes in air temperature. And those changes are caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”
# # #
See? Don’t be misinformed – 1,600 °C magma from mantle plumes has no effect on the surface. It’s all about the “greenhouse gas emissions”
Which, apparently, due to a minor 0.3 W.m-2 per decade change in the 6 – 7 W.m-2 CO2 component of downwelling LWIR (US Std Atm, Wang & Liang 2009) that in total fluctuates around 400 W.m-2 24/7 in the tropics, causes all the surface mayhem.
Not buying it.
90
Smithsonian Mag >”The winds, in turn, respond to one thing: changes in air temperature. And those changes are caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”
Big problem. Thwaites is in the South Polar region – what changes?
RSS: MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Browse Tool.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Select: South Polar, Full
Trend = 0.052 K/decade
I don’t think that’s going to melt any glaciers. Similar at surface:
‘Antarctica has cooled – not warmed up – over the last 40 years’
https://climatesciencenews.com/2021-08-23-antarctica-cooled-in-last-40-years.html
So much for Holland’s “simple principle”: “play with the atmosphere, expect change” previous.
70
“The winds, in turn, respond to one thing: changes in air temperature”
hmmm ???
… they respond to changes in air pressure.
80
am I allowed to ask what causes the Delta P?
and for fun , why does air current flow from High to Low, yet when an area of LOW pressure approaches, the High Pressure falls to Low as Low “moves in” just as when A High approaches an area of Low, then the pressure rises?
20
The Earth rotates.. cycles form, both horizontal and vertical
Air coming downwards causes a high pressure system, air moving upwards causes a low pressure system.
All this, plus landscape, clouds and moisture changes, oceans and their own cycles, gravity-based gradients… etc etc..
The planet strives to equilibrate these pressure differences, but it never can.
21
Thanks for reply: but confused.com reigns here: HOT air expands and rises, COLD air contracts as it shrinks . Either I was taught wrong or thin(k)gs got confused over the years of listening to the bbc. and from my Heat engines, Heating air causes INCREASE in Pressure, Cooling it LOWERS the pressure.
10
I scoured the 3,943 pages of IPCC6 for any reference to geothermal activity under WAIS and found not a single sentence. This is in spite of dozens of papers addressing the basal conditions affecting glacial and ice sheet dynamics. I wonder what the authors of all those papers think about being frozen out of the most turgid 3,943 pages of prose ever created by man.
150
Denny – The IPCC seems to make a special effort to studiously ignore entire bodies of scientific literature that counter their GHG-centric agenda.
Another is Applied Optics. This is the study of radiation-matter interaction and is the basis for laser eye surgery. Relevant to climate because the IPCC speculates that radiative “air-sea fluxes” heat the ocean. They have exactly zero physical evidence for that and don’t defer to Optics.
Seminal paper which determined the penetration of water by EM radiation across the non-ionizing spectrum including solar SW UV-IR and terrestrial LWIR was Hale, G. and Query, M. (1973) Optical Constants of Water in the 200 nm 200 μm Wavelengths Region. Applied Optics, 12, 555-563.
Corroborated thoroughly and now cited 1550 times.
IPCC doesn’t want to know.
40
>”Hale, G. and Query, M. (1973) Optical Constants of Water in the 200 nm 200 μm Wavelengths Region. Applied Optics, 12, 555-563. Corroborated thoroughly and now cited 1550 times.”
Optical Absorption of Water Compendium – omlc.org
https://omlc.org/spectra/water/abs/index.html
Also, should be Querry, not Query.
10
Useful to know. Thanks Denny.
10
Don’t you just want to laugh hard at them: those non-climate deniers, that is, for their settled science nonsense.
30
I have always thought that looking up to explain climate change ( the natural type) always had whiskers on it. We should always have looked down. For goodness sake, the centre of earth is a huge molten ball. The 100,000 year geologically recent cycle of ice age/warm age could be very simple explained by some rotation of that molten ball. These volcanoes then exude more heat via that cycle, warm the Pacific Ocean and we get those lovely interglacial periods like we’re in now.
40
CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas.
30
The very simplest of logic will convince most of the absurdity of the idea of CO2 driven atmospheric warming. There are those, however, that are so blinded by a belief in their rightness that no argument can suffice to change their opinion. Unfortunately many are in positions of power and many more in power that are frightened by this mob mentality.
It is an uphill battle to change the tide but enough that were on the fence have swung to the side of logic that I can see some improvement. The more adamant climate concerned leaders are falling rapidly to be replaced by the more reasonable. Many of these, however, are still fearful of the orthodoxy. We need to support them strongly to stiffen their spines.
20
[…] By Jo Nova […]
00
[…] Read the Full Article […]
00