### Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Re:Don't speculate, calculate [Re:Thermal calculat (580 comments)

Yes it is.

It's not, and one point that needs to be clarified is that *AGW proponents must supply the burden of proof*. The null hypothesis is that climate and weather are determined by natural processes, and human effects on that must be proven.

I would note that your post didn't address the relative orders of magnitude of CO2.

Calculations, please. Making stuff up isn't science. Calculating effects is. If you think that relative magnitude of CO2 is relevant, give me a back of the envelope showing plausibility. You can use as a starting point the fact all the volcanoes worldwide emit, on average, an estimated 130 to 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year. (Sounds like a lot, doesn't it?)

I'm not talking about the CO2 from the volcanoes, it's the heat and acidity. Simple order of magnitude won't work, but to give it a sniff test if you take the total mass of oceans at 1.37e21 kg and the potential variation of volcanic heat at 52,000 TW-h, converting that to Joules 1.872e20 J, then you get the rough dT of 0.13K, or about 0.2 deg F. That assumes uniform energy distribution throughout the ocean.

The argument is the heat and acid from volcanoes disrupts the CO2 equilibrium. Start with the data, and note the data do not have error bars (which is my main point): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Every number in this figure is calculated on an average, and if you want to calculate it effectively, you'd need to use Navier-Stokes, heat convection/diffusion, combined convection/diffusion mass transfer equations with reactions , and thermal radiation integrated simultaneously with known time dependent, boundary conditions. These equations aren't solvable.

and any changes we induce to the overall temperature are overshadowed by natural variations.

Nope. They *add to* the natural variations... but the natural variations tend to average out with time, while the anthropogenic CO2 is monotonic upward.

Ahem, calculations please.

In particular, the variations in chemistry and temperature of the ocean dominate the chemical equilibrium.

My two minutes of work showed the lower limit is 0.12 Kelvins, that is significant enough. As for the chemistry, I can direct you to Smith and Van Ness and a physical chemistry text, it takes a little bit of work but I can't put it on a slashdot post (I do numerical chemistry for a living).

Now you're talking effects that aren't even close to being relevant. Don't speculate, **calculate.**

It is relevant, remember, AGW needs to prove that it isn't.

Sorry, but your numbers fail a check of units. The units needed are warming in degrees K. Any other numbers need to, eventually, be turned into warming in K by a calculation.

See above.

You have stopped being a denier when you started doing calculations with actual numbers. You may be wrong... but you have now demonstrated that you are not a denier.

It could be dismissed if all volcanoes were identified and their activity cataloged.

Unnecessary. If the effect is many orders of magnitude too small to think about, no need to pay further attention.

Denier is being applied to skilled scientists. That is my objection.

Gotta go to bed, nice chat.