tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post1958206440789481439..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Climate Confusion Bugspotter #4Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84854522330864172132010-04-27T05:48:15.996-07:002010-04-27T05:48:15.996-07:00OK, lay person taking a shot at answering the ques...OK, lay person taking a shot at answering the question for what it's worth:<br /><br />Q. Will Ejfjljkl have impact on the climate? <br /><br />A. My understanding is "no" as the the materials are not being ejected sufficiently high enough to cause cooling (ala Pinatubo). There may be some interesting visual effects (dust scattering).<br /><br />Q. Goddard asks: "Should climate modelers start differentiating between man made CO2 and “organic” natural CO2?"<br /><br />If we are talking about CO2 atoms in the atmosphere does it really matter what their source is? The absorption effects would be the same... it's about the concentration (PPM) that should concern us. <br /><br />And have not climate models explored this question - tracking the difference between what we expect to be "natural" climate variability and the increase in temperatures by the release of greenhouse gases via human activity (CO2 emissions, deforestation etc.)? <br /><br />That the climate varies and we experience a natural green house effect is understood. Am I wrong here in supposing his question dismisses climate modelling and research as a whole? <br /><br />(Note: happy to have the fallacies/misunderstandings corrected as I'm engaged in a crash course of understanding a very broad, deep and complex area of science).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com