'Black smokers' found off Arctic

'Black smokers' found off Arctic

www.theaustralian.news.com.au

JETS of searingly hot water spewing up from the ocean floor have been discovered in a far-northern zone of the Arctic Sea, Swiss-based scientists announced today.

The so-called "black smokers" were found 73 degrees north, on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Greenland and Norway, in the coldest waters yet for a phenomenon first observed around the Galagapos islands in 1977.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Why do people always ignore this when talking about ice loss in the Arctic, especially when the temperature variations are not matched elsewhere. I wonder when the global warmists will start understanding there are other forces at work too.

I keep trying to find more info about this region, I think this is crucial in understanding the loss of ice in the Arctic.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Shere Khaan]

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Why do people always ignore this when talking about ice loss in the Arctic, especially when the temperature variations are not matched elsewhere. I wonder when the global warmists will start understanding there are other forces at work too.

I keep trying to find more info about this region, I think this is crucial in understanding the loss of ice in the Arctic.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Shere Khaan]

Because global warming gets higher ratings and sells more newspapers.

I wonder if this has to do more with volcanoes on the ocean floor than with global warming? It's almost like blaming global warming for the hot springs in Japan.

reply to post by Shere Khaan
Exactly god forbid anyone discover that humans are not directly responsible for global warming. The discovery of these volcanic vents just adds to the controversy about it. I have a thought myself, maybe sub-atmospheric nuclear testing tore some holes in the ozone layer and is helping the planet warm up. It seems like it has become pretty freaking trendy to blame the problem on auto exhaust,spray cans,and neyookuler(lol) power plants. But the proof that the earth has gone through 'warm phases' is incontrovertible. We humans assume that we are the biggest baddest force out there when in actuality the earth will be here after we are long gone. And who knows, maybe like George Carlin said, maybe the earth wants a whole bunch of plastic for something!

The smokers occur (in this case) at a depth of 2400 meters.

I'm no European Scientist, but I'd say that what goes on at 2400 meters below the ice has VERY little effect on the ice.

More likely, the arctic melting has more to do with sunlight warming the water a few degrees over a swath of thousands upon thousands of square miles, as opposed to a volcanic vent warming the water a few thousand degrees in a very small area on the ocean floor.

Sure but a cumulative effect, combined with other naturally occuring phenomena could(this is speculation) raise temeperatures globally,slowly over a period of many many years. There really is a possibilty that the current warming trend is just a cycle that is natural and normal. Theres also the possibilty that this current cycle has been augmented by humans through pollution. Theres also a possibility that pigs will fly out of Dubyas butt. My point is that there is a huge division in the scientific community as to whether it is actually even happening. And if it is, what the cause is.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by spookjr]

Another point you will not see the gloabal warmist talk about is the fact that all that ice only represents 1% of all the Earth's water.

So tell me, how is this extra 1%, if it all melted, going to raise sea levels so as to inundate so much land as they claim.

Only 1 percent,are you sure?I had heard that it was as much as 30 percent of the worlds fresh water.

Good thread thanks for pointing this out.
People always neglect to look at all the facts.
They also neglect to think about the fact that we started recording temperature measurments at one of the coldest points in our modern history.
So any temperature measurment after that will be looking as if it is going steadily up.
This coupled with the ice melting in only specific spots connected with this warming of the sea by volcanic activity.
Would show some different results in blaming human beings for warming the earth.
But then of course it would also put barriers in the way of the globalists new tax on c02.
Which of course means you can breath in for free, but you have to pay to breath out.
These evil filths will clutch at any straw to try and own more of us.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The smokers occur (in this case) at a depth of 2400 meters.

I'm no European Scientist, but I'd say that what goes on at 2400 meters below the ice has VERY little effect on the ice.

More likely, the arctic melting has more to do with sunlight warming the water a few degrees over a swath of thousands upon thousands of square miles, as opposed to a volcanic vent warming the water a few thousand degrees in a very small area on the ocean floor.

I would agree with you except a few things make me keep my mind open.

Firstly the Arctic ocean has warmed significantly more than any other other ocean in the world or the overall warming trend ( source for example). yes it may be man made climate change but might there be other reasons.

Secondly our knowledge of the Arctic ocean is minimal and only recently have we started exploring there. Already they are found a vast chain of active volcanoes on Gakkel ridge. While a bunch of vents might not do much, a 1500km spreading zone of magma with increased activity might well influence not just the temperature but the composition of the water too.

Don't write this off as a crackpot theory just yet, wait and see what comes of the myriad of efforts to explore the arctic happening now.

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Why do people always ignore this when talking about ice loss in the Arctic, especially when the temperature variations are not matched elsewhere. I wonder when the global warmists will start understanding there are other forces at work too.

I keep trying to find more info about this region, I think this is crucial in understanding the loss of ice in the Arctic.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Shere Khaan]

Good thread thanks for pointing this out.
I like to look at all the facts unlike some.
Its good to see someone who can try and think freely without disturbance from the mind control of mass media.
The fact that we started recording temperature measurements, at one of the coldest points in our modern history, doesn't help the human caused global warming debate at all.
In fact it gets the globalists who are planning to tax people for c02 emissions, downright angry.
Because of course they would enjoy people being able to breath in for free, yet have to pay a tax to breath out.
Now this is the uber tax isn't it, even better than the direct un portioned tax on peoples labor.
So anything we say, that gets in the way of the evil filths new uber tax on all human beings will be mocked and ridiculed before its said.
Even these facts that show that oceans warming and ice melting are alot to do with volcanic activity, under the ground and sea.Not whats in the air.
They never speak of the excess temperatures of the oceans as a whole when speaking about the ice melting.
They don't even mention it asif they just expect everyone assumes it must be coming from the sun and air.
Put it this way whats the quickest way to thaw out some frozen chicken?
Put it in hot water.
Try putting it under a sun lamp or blowing on it with a hairdryer and see how long it takes.

To sppokjr,
I don't now if you were being sarcastic but you mentioned only fresh water which is commonly refered to as 'not saltwater'. Freshwater is of a minute significance when explaining all of the earth's water.

To OhZone,
I didn't look up the fact of 1% but it is true that if the ice that is over water were to melt it would not change the overall amount of water in the ocean due to displacement.

My take on the matter is that it is mostly of a natural occurence but that does not imply that we should be irresponsible in continually polluting the lands. Locally it would have an effect on the public such as smog, oil spills, fire, nuclear contaminates, pesticides, leaching of various chemicals into the food supply chain, and harmful microbes, etc.

Sorry off topic

[edit on 4/8/08 by bDaedal4ever]

The article I love about global warming causes is this one. I guess this one is human caused also.

Cleaner Skies Explain Surprise Rate Of Warming

GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.

Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034228). "The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years," says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland's national weather service.

The latest climate models are built on the assumption that aerosols have their biggest influence by seeding natural clouds, which reflect sunlight. However, the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The smokers occur (in this case) at a depth of 2400 meters.

I'm no European Scientist, but I'd say that what goes on at 2400 meters below the ice has VERY little effect on the ice.

More likely, the arctic melting has more to do with sunlight warming the water a few degrees over a swath of thousands upon thousands of square miles, as opposed to a volcanic vent warming the water a few thousand degrees in a very small area on the ocean floor.

couldnt have said it better myself.

all the GW/CC deniers can point to anything they want but the fact of the matter is there point is usually pretty insignificant compared to the totality of the problem, we could be standing on a planet devoid of animal and plant life and they would still have their heads stuck in the ground claiming its just a cycle of the earth, the same line big oil companies were paying scientists to say to protect their interests.

for most people you would think alarm bells would start ringing the minuite you find out oil companies are involved in the dis-info

sorry...
i couldn't resist...

smokers.....black!



[edit on 4-8-2008 by Fathom]

Sub-drivers in the north atlantic have known about the large geothermals in that area since WW2. It was active for a short time in the 50's and now again is active. The rate of activity is yet to be determined but it definatly has alot to do with the ice loss. Talk to a few from Greenland about volcanic and earthquake activity in that area. You'll find that its a large area and could very well explain the ' PANIC' of The Ice is melting- The Ice
is melting' crowd!
Zindo

Global warming used to be a crackpot theory. Right up until the point someone realized that it could be used to generate a lot of money in taxes.

I hope you all enjoy recycling your waste for free (this should be handled by waste disposal plants, but instead you're doing it) And I hope you enjoy paying carbon tax on virtually every product you buy. Even a roast chicken has a "carbon footprint" Once the footprint for each product has been determined, you will be paying a tax on it.

Dont even get me started on co2.

I went through three stages, as a child I was ignorant and carefree. As a teenager I was a lame little eco warrior. And as a tax paying adult I finally see the truth of things. Right now, I would like to see a few more trees around, but this is really getting stupid now with the hollywood endorsements, people with no scientific backgrounds, drumming it into our heads that we have to be productive little eco warriors, just like the government drills it into our heads to be worker ants. Wake up, the matrix has you.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by unnamedninja]

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Why do people always ignore this when talking about ice loss in the Arctic, especially when the temperature variations are not matched elsewhere. I wonder when the global warmists will start understanding there are other forces at work too.

Great point Shere!

In my mind, this could definitely have an effect.

The thing we should be doing is studying the constant climate change with the intent to better understand and predict the changes so we can learn how to adapt so as to leverage or avoid side effects of it.

Only an imbecile ( and after reading some of these reponses, I suspect there are several ) could deny that humans (directly or indirectly) are responsible for global warming.

Need proof? Then try this simple experiment:

1. Go to your garage. (Be sure garage doors are closed.)
2. Start up your car(s). ( Yes Bubba, a pick-up truck will work too.)
3. Stay in garage with engine(s) idling for 4 to 6 hours.
4. Log back on to ATS and report findings.

regards.....kk


[edit on 4-8-2008 by kinda kurious]