Ice shelf about to break away from Antarctic coast

Nice, yeah. Volcanoes. They exist.

So any evidence that their activity is increasing, and that if they are the energy is sufficient to warm like we are seeing, or is it just more scattergun denialism?

It's just the sun, or cosmic rays, or volcanoes, or fairy dust. Can't be influenced by human activity, no sir, lol.

Originally posted by melatonin

You're showing your age. This discussion has been going on for decades. Can even be traced back to the 19th century.

ad hominem.

since when has GW been a widely publicised issue? your statement is false at face value, because we had lots of other (much more tangible) issues at hand like acid rain in the 80s and secondly global warming didn't really take off in the public realm until the 1990s. the Rio de Janeiro summit wasn't exclusively about it, for example, but Kyoto was. therefore, it was called GW from inception, which must have been 1980 or so, but only got media attention later around 1990 - until a few years ago when a few months were too cold or yet another Gore mess got snowed in. from then on it was called climate change and became a religion, because it could no longer be falsified. warmer ? told ya so! colder? are you too simple minded? *wink*nudge* good bet i'm sure, but very telling, too.

i think it's safe to say that regurgitation of your 'OMG it's melting' drill and my repetitive posting of snippets that the situation was seen differently in 2002 won't benefit anyone. you did not adress why ice flow should follow your preferred schedule and your notion that i'm inferring continuous increases on a global scale is a strawman, this thread is about Antarctic melting glaciers, which is widely used as 'proof' for GW /climate change.

Eh? So you think that because the word global warming has been used that every single part of the globe must show montonic increases?

the trick is when it's finally accepted as fact, at which point discussion about it becomes heresy. it can then be used in conjunction with any other new issue, real or imagined and discussing said issue becomes more complicated due to 'previous experience'. in other words, if the old data and the new data fit together, then there should be a trend reversal in between...

will future compliated data show this or will it be another hockey stick? i know the answer already btw. as your approach clearly shows.

Perhaps if you're interested in that issue you can resurrect Indy's thread. I doubt I'll bother contributing, as it's just another pathetic ASS thread.

so, the simple fact that, in 1990, a substantial number of sensor stations was shut down, effectively resulting in the creating of two different data sets, which coincides nicely with a warming trend and the beginning of a largers public scare are just pathetic?

if anything you cannot remain level headed when you see something you do not like to see on the internet - of all places. your condescending tone and your casual cussing are clear for everyone to see. btw, no i will not revive an old thread which speaks for itself and in which i already posted. i have a hunch you're just mad at the thought that someone might just click on that link.


PS: again how many Antarctic melting threads do we actually need? try long enough until you can post your PR unopposed? is that what you people want? is there a real reason why every two weeks, we get the same old litany. why not resurrect these threads?

[edit on 2009.4.8 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
ad hominem.

lol

since when has GW been a widely publicised issue?

Originally posted by Long Lance
let's not forget that what we are talking about was at least for a decade called global warming...

Your goalpost is shifting, I see. You never said anything about public realm and publicising.

'Twas really publically noted around 1988. The same year the IPCC was formed.

your statement is false at face value, because we had lots of other (much more tangible) issues at hand like acid rain in the 80s and secondly global warming didn't really take off in the public realm until the 1990s. the Rio de Janeiro summit wasn't exclusively about it, for example, but Kyoto was. therefore, it was called GW from inception, which must have been 1980 or so, but only got media attention later around 1990 - until a few years ago when a few months were too cold or yet another Gore mess got snowed in. from then on it was called climate change and became a religion, because it could no longer be falsified. warmer ? told ya so! colder? are you too simple minded? *wink*nudge* good bet i'm sure, but very telling, too.

lol

As noted the IPCC was set up in 1988, what do you think the 'CC' stands for? Indeed, climate change has been used for decades (going back to at least the 70s, and even earlier IIRC). Global warming has just become the more common term and is used interchangeably - silly really, but the long term trend will be warming. However, that misses other aspects of the issue.

Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189. no. 4201, pp. 460 - 463

Articles

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker 1
1 Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and Department of Geological Sciences, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

..................................

ABE: back to 1956...

Plass, Gilbert N., 1956. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change. Tellus 8, 140–154.

ABE2: and even Tyndall (1861; p. 277) noted the potential 'changes in climate' from variations in CO2.

................................

I have seen one attempt to motivate the use of 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' for little but framing the issue - and that was the republican Luntz memo - apparently some people thought 'climate change' sounded like going on holiday.

So, moi simple-minded? No, not really, perhaps just better read and less ideologically motivated than thou.

i think it's safe to say that regurgitation of your 'OMG it's melting' drill and my repetitive posting of snippets that the situation was seen differently in 2002 won't benefit anyone. you did not adress why ice flow should follow your preferred schedule and your notion that i'm inferring continuous increases on a global scale is a strawman, this thread is about Antarctic melting glaciers, which is widely used as 'proof' for GW /climate change.

And so if the thread is about glaciers, the sea ice is just a diversion. They are different issues.

the trick is when it's finally accepted as fact, at which point discussion about it becomes heresy. it can then be used in conjunction with any other new issue, real or imagined and discussing said issue becomes more complicated due to 'previous experience'. in other words, if the old data and the new data fit together, then there should be a trend reversal in between...

will future compliated data show this or will it be another hockey stick? i know the answer already btw. as your approach clearly shows.

That reads like word salad. I have no idea what you're on about. Good to see you got 'hockey stick' in there, though.

your condescending tone and your casual cussing are clear for everyone to see.

So what?

Style over substance. When you have nothing but misrepresentation, obfuscation, and disinformation, it appears the common route - oh noes, they were cussing to me - is it still the 1950s or something? lol

PS: again how many Antarctic melting threads do we actually need? try long enough until you can post your PR unopposed? is that what you people want? is there a real reason why every two weeks, we get the same old litany. why not resurrect these threads?

Why whine at me? I never posted the threads.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Nice, yeah. Volcanoes. They exist.

So any evidence that their activity is increasing, and that if they are the energy is sufficient to warm like we are seeing, or is it just more scattergun denialism?

It's just the sun, or cosmic rays, or volcanoes, or fairy dust. Can't be influenced by human activity, no sir, lol.

Wow, so i guess according to you only one thing must happen at a time?

Stop giving excuses as you try to dismiss anything, and everything that doesn't support your claim.

And of course the only "fairy dust" is the claim that CO2 is the cause for the warming claimed by the Global Warming camp.

In reality, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below melting point. The accumulation of kilometers of undisturbed ice in cores in Greenland and Antarctica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base and depend on geothermal heat, not the climate at the surface. It is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to “collapse.”

Greenland and Antartic in Danger of Collapse

In the above a Geologist is clearly stating why it is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ise sheets to collaps "due to any warming in the air". He is also stating that ice sheet flow depends on geothermal heat, and not on any warming in the air contrary to the claims of Hansen, who is no Geologist, and his entourage.

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
[email protected]
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

Antarctic glaciers surge to ocean
By Martin Redfern
Rothera Research Station, Antarctica

...........

"The measurements from last season seem to show an incredible acceleration, a rate of up to 7%. That is far greater than the accelerations they were getting excited about in the 1990s."

The reason does not seem to be warming in the surrounding air.

One possible culprit could be a deep ocean current that is channelled onto the continental shelf close to the mouth of the glacier. There is not much sea ice to protect it from the warm water, which seems to be undercutting the ice and lubricating its flow.

Ongoing monitoring

Julian Scott, however, thinks there may be other forces at work as well.

Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Despite you apparently claiming that events must be separate, several natural factors can, and are occurring which affect the climate, and affect Earth and it's inhabitants.


[edit on 9-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Rearranged for coherence...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wow, so i guess according to you only one thing must happen at a time?

Not sure I said that.

Stop giving excuses as you try to dismiss anything, and everything that doesn't support your claim.

If you want to posit a geothermal cause for the glacial melting in antarctica (and elsewhere?), then support it. Otherwise it's just another denier's scattergun with bollax for ammo.

Julian Scott, however, thinks there may be other forces at work as well.

Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea.

Great, he 'thinks' geothermal heat has an influence. I'm sure volcanoes under ice would melt it. There's a volcano. Whoopie-woo, lol. So no evidence that it is a major influence and that it is an increasing one?

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming

...The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

At least read your own evidence.

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santera,b, C. Mearsc, F. J. Wentzc, K. E. Taylora, P. J. Glecklera, T. M. L. Wigleyd, T. P. Barnette, J. S. Boylea, W. Brüggemannf, N. P. Gillettg, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehld, T. Nozawah, D. W. Piercee, P. A. Stotti, W. M. Washingtond, and M. F. Wehnerj
+Author Affiliations

aProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550;
cRemote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA 95401;
dNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307;
eScripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92037;
fInstitut für Unternehmensforschung, Universität Hamburg, 20146 Hamburg, Germany;
gClimatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;
hNational Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba 305-8506, Japan;
iHadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, United Kingdom Meteorological Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, United Kingdom; and
jLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720
Edited by Inez Y. Fung, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved July 27, 2007 (received for review March 27, 2007)

Abstract
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

Originally published in Science Express on 2 June 2005
Science 8 July 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5732, pp. 284 - 287
DOI: 10.1126/science.1112418
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans

Tim P. Barnett,1* David W. Pierce,1 Krishna M. AchutaRao,2 Peter J. Gleckler,2 Benjamin D. Santer,2 Jonathan M. Gregory,3 Warren M. Washington4

A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change.

Despite you apparently claiming that events must be separate, several natural factors can, and are occurring which affect the climate, and affect Earth and it's inhabitants.

Never said that was the case. Indeed, it is likely that natural variability has been an influence. But just asserting any old BS isn't any help. For example, it's well-accepted already that solar variations have likely been influential. It's also just as well-supported that human influences are more important currently.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Rearranged for coherence...

It is coherent, you just want to try to find any excuse to dismiss what you don't want to accept.

Originally posted by melatonin
Not sure I said that.

Refer to your comment on the several factors which do affect the climate on Earth, except your "fairy dust" which is anthropogenic CO2.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you want to posit a geothermal cause for the glacial melting in antarctica (and elsewhere?), then support it. Otherwise it's just another denier's scattergun with bollax for ammo.

I did, twice, you apparently just want to ignore the facts presented to you.

Originally posted by melatonin
Great, he 'thinks' geothermal heat has an influence. I'm sure volcanoes under ice would melt it. There's a volcano. Whoopie-woo, lol. So no evidence that it is a major influence and that it is an increasing one?

Yeah thinking, you should try it sometime, it does wonders to the mind, and makes you see the complex picture that Climate change is and how the "several' natural factors influence it.

At least read your own evidence.

I read that part too, but you obviously dismiss the fact that they say their findings indicate warming due to underwater volcanoes, meanwhile anthropogenic warming "might" be occurring, but present no evidence for this.

Again show us just one evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by your camp. Again, "claims" and computer models are not facts.

Originally published in Science Express on 2 June 2005
Science 8 July 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5732, pp. 284 - 287
DOI: 10.1126/science.1112418
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans

I gave more than one research work that disprove the claim in the research paper you just gave from 2005.

One claim doesn't disprove facts.

Originally posted by melatonin
Never said that was the case. Indeed, it is likely that natural variability has been an influence. But just asserting any old BS isn't any help. For example, it's well-accepted already that solar variations have likely been influential. It's also just as well-supported that human influences are more important currently.

That's the BS, there is no supporting evidence that shows anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming. Giving the "same old claims" is no proof, they are just "unproven claims".

The natural factors which "do affect the climate on Earth" have been showing dramatic increases which do increase the temperature on Earth during the time that there was warming. Now the Sun's activity has even slowed down more, yet seismic and magmatic activity around the Earth has increased, and these are more important than anthropogenic CO2 would ever be.

You can't claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of warming, because Earth has gone through changes in temperature, and atmospheric CO2 levels did not change much.

There have also been times throughout the geological record of Earth in which we find periods of cold, and periods of warm temperatures with the same, or similar amounts of atmospheric CO2.

We also find throughout the geological record of Earth times when atmospheric CO2 were much higher than now yet temperatures were not different than now.

You can't have it both ways, either CO2 is the main driver of climate or it is not, which the history of Earth shows it is not a main driver, nor an influential driver in temperatures, and either CO2 causes warming, or it causes cooling, but it can't do both.


[edit on 9-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
It is coherent, you just want to try to find any excuse to dismiss what you don't want to accept.

lol, I just changed the order of your post in my response to make it flow better. I noted it to ensure it was clear.

Refer to your comment on the several factors which do affect the climate on Earth, except your "fairy dust" which is anthropogenic CO2.

I think you misunderstood my comment. It was in reference to the common deniers claims that it all due to 'the sun'; 'cosmic rays'; 'volcanoes'; 'anything else that isn't anthropogenic' (delete as appropriate).

Which is essentially what you did:

Of course, to find out more or less how many underwater volcanoes could be causing all this, there is the following story.

Causing all this? lol

I did, twice, you apparently just want to ignore the facts presented to you.

No, you didn't.

You provided lots of evidence that volcanoes exist. No crap, Sherlock.

Yeah thinking, you should try it sometime, it does wonders to the mind, and makes you see the complex picture that Climate change is and how the "several' natural factors influence it.

No, it doesn't. All it shows is that a volcano exists. The evidence shows that glacial melting has been rapidly increasing and that ice shelves are disintegrating.

Just showing a volcano exists means little. You would firstly need to show that said volcanoes are increasing in activity; secondly, that said volcanoes are emitting sufficient energy to result in the observations. And then to link them to climate change.

You have demonstrated neither.

I read that part too, but you obviously dismiss the fact that they say their findings indicate warming due to underwater volcanoes, meanwhile anthropogenic warming "might" be occurring, but present no evidence for this.

They are completely different articles. The ff.org article is from some libertarian think-tank, I take my science from proper sources. Cliff Ollier is part of an Aussie deniers clique.

Again show us just one evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by your camp. Again, "claims" and computer models are not facts.

Without a shadow of a doubt? lol

I can show evidence. What's the matter with models?

I gave more than one research work that disprove the claim in the research paper you just gave from 2005.

One claim doesn't disprove facts.

What facts? None of the other articles you have even come close to that claim. The paper you presented suggested that GHG may well have had no direct influence on land temps, but the evidence suggests they likely have via the oceans.

You are just posting stuff you don't really understand.

That's the BS, there is no supporting evidence that shows anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming. Giving the "same old claims" is no proof, they are just "unproven claims".

Nope, there is. You see it's based on research which has been gathered for over 100 years. CO2 is a GHG and it alters radiative balance, leading to an increased greenhouse effect.

The natural factors which "do affect the climate on Earth" have been showing dramatic increases which do increase the temperature on Earth during the time that there was warming.

Like what?

You can't claim that anthropogenic is the main cause of warming because Earth has gone through changes in temperature, and atmospheric CO2 did not change much.

And? That's a bad fallacy dude.

There have also been times throughout the geological record of Earth in which we find periods of cold, and periods of warm temperatures with the same, or similar amounts of atmospheric CO2.

Fallacy.

We also find throughout the geological record of Earth times when atmospheric CO2 were much higher than now yet temperatures were not different than now.

Fallacy.

You can't have it both ways, either CO2 is the main driver of climate or it is not, which the history of Earth shows it is not a main driver, or an influential driver in temperatures, and either CO2 causes warming, or it causes cooling, but it can do both.

No, the evidence does show it to be a 'driver'. Again, that is more rubbish.

Royer et al. (2004)

CO2 is a GHG. It does exactly what GHGs do. However, it is not the only factor. You are now exhibiting the same problem you falsely accused me of - failing to understand that there is more than one influence on climate and they act alongside each other.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by melatonin]

Apparenlty you think that having a smug attitude, and dismissing facts presented to you is enough evidence to disprove them.

Again, read the research papers I gave, I even excerpted in bold and large letters, for those having reading comprehension problems, that in fact underwater volcanoes are a main factor melting glaciers, and increasing ocean temperatures.

Even in the face of facts you continue trying to deny them. This is typical of people who have a "belief" they don't want to see die in the face of facts.

At least since 1999 underwater volcanoes have been very active in the Arctic, and the Antarctic.

Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study

by Staff Writers
Paris (AFP) June 25, 2008

Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

www.terradaily.com...

Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice

ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2007) — Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice.

They have found at least one “hotspot” in the northeast corner of Greenland -- just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered.

The researchers don't yet know how warm the hotspot is. But if it is warm enough to melt the ice above it even a little, it could be lubricating the base of the ice sheet and enabling the ice to slide more rapidly out to sea.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Melting Glacier Shows Heat Under Alaskan Volcano
Dan Joling, Associated Press

Feb. 2, 2009 -- Geologists monitoring Mount Redoubt for signs of a possible eruption noticed that a hole in the glacier clinging to the north side of the volcano had doubled in size overnight -- and now spans the length of two football fields.

Scientists with the Alaska Volcano Observatory on Friday flew close to Drift Glacier and spotted vigorous steam emitted from a hole on the mountain. By Saturday, they had confirmed the area was a fumarole, an opening in the earth that emits gases and steam, that was increasing in size at an alarming rate.

They also saw water streaming down the glacier, indicating heat from magma is reaching higher elevations of the mountain.

"The glacier is sort of falling apart in the upper part," research geologist Kristi Wallace said.

dsc.discovery.com...

BTW, your signature is right, and it is obvious by now it applies to you.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Lets go through them one by one...

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming

Sorted already. A paper you obviously didn't read properly, as it does not support your position.

Hansen’s Glacier Model is Wrong!

So says some think-tank associated emeritus ex-scientist who now publishes on websites. lol

Ocean Floor Geysers Warm Flowing Sea Water

ScienceDaily (Sep. 25, 2008) — An international team of earth scientists report movement of warmed sea water through the flat, Pacific Ocean floor off Costa Rica. The movement is greater than that off midocean volcanic ridges. The finding suggests possible marine life in a part of the ocean once considered barren.

Makes no claims about climate. A geyser exists, warms surrounding water, potentially allows life to exist. So?

Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

Arctic seabed is geologically active. So?

Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic SeaBy LiveScience Staff

posted: 24 July 2008 04:51 pm ET

Many miles inside the Arctic Circle, scientists have found elusive vents of scalding liquid rising out of the seafloor at temperatures that are more than twice the boiling point of water.

The cluster of five hydrothermal vents, also called black smokers.

Yes, we know. The arctic seabed is geologically active. So?

Giant Undersea Volcano Found Off Iceland
Richard A. Lovett
for National Geographic News

April 22, 2008

A giant and unusual underwater volcano lies just offshore of Iceland on the Reykjanes Ridge, volcanologists have announced.

Yes, an undersea volcano exists near Iceland, which is just outside the arctic circle. So?

Volcanic Eruptions, Not Meteor, May Have Killed The Dinosaurs

So?

Sea die-out blamed on volcanoes

So?

Antarctic glaciers surge to ocean

We know. One dude says there's a volcano that might help melt the underside of the glacier and help it flow. So?

Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
10:04 09 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic

The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.

And there's more...

Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study

by Staff Writers
Paris (AFP) June 25, 2008

Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor

Yes, volcanoes do that. So?

Melting Glacier Shows Heat Under Alaskan Volcano
Dan Joling, Associated Press

Feb. 2, 2009 -- Geologists monitoring Mount Redoubt for signs of a possible eruption noticed that a hole in the glacier clinging to the north side of the volcano had doubled in size overnight -- and now spans the length of two football fields.

One glacier on a volcano has a hole as it is showing signs of eruption, lol. So?

Yes, the ocean floor is geologically active in places. So? Yes, glaciers exist in the same places as volcanoes? So? That is the most inane collection of BS I've seen for a while. And the obvious question is...

So?

Volcanoes exist. They even exist on the seabed. They exist on land. No crap, sherlock. Not even a shred of evidence to link them to current climate change or this:

that in fact underwater volcanoes are a main factor melting glaciers, and increasing ocean temperatures.

That is just a wild assertion.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Even in the face of facts you continue trying to deny them. This is typical of people who have a "belief" they don't want to see die in the face of facts.

Lets try it out then...

That's the BS, there is no supporting evidence that shows anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming. Giving the "same old claims" is no proof, they are just "unproven claims".

Now, I've seen you make this claim numerous times elsewhere. I usually just chuckle. Not the cause of warming, but a cause of warming is the real claim.

So, isn't there? No supporting evidence?

Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Took me a moment to find that one, and not a model in sight.

Although, not sure why you're so bothered by models, you used a study based on one quick enough. Would suggest hypocrisy if you think they are useless.

ABE:

and you just made the same claim in another thread...

The CO2 that is released by mankind has always existed on Earth and will always exist, and there is no proof whatsoever, apart from claims and computer models which are flawed there is no evidence to support the claim of Global Warming.

lol

So evidence from models is good for you to use, but they are too flawed for others. Hypocrite.


[edit on 9-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Took me a moment to find that one, and not a model in sight.

Although, not sure why you're so bothered by models, you used a study based on one quick enough. Would suggest hypocrisy if you think they are useless.

This is what I mean. Just because they "claim" there is a strong link without showing evidence does not make it true.

Also, in fact, showing that models come up with contradictory evidence against the "claim" of Global Warming shows that Global Warming is only a claim with no corroborating "evidence" whatsoever.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by melatonin

So says some think-tank associated emeritus ex-scientist who now publishes on websites. lol

And who are you exactly to dismiss what a Geologist has to say about this?...

You are just someone posting on a site making just "claims" with no corroborating evidence to support your claims except to show more...claims.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This is what I mean. Just because they "claim" there is a strong link without showing evidence does not make it true.

lol

What are you on about?

That was a scientific study based on direct observations. That is part of the evidence. Jeez, dude, the evidence of the effect of GHGs is over a hundred years old. It goes all the way back to some of the scientific greats - Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius. The radiative effects of CO2 is well-established, and the study I posted shows its effects in the real-world.

You made a statement about how true believers have difficulty when challenged by evidence, and you justified it - you were projecting. Although, you're no more than teaching me to suck eggs on the psychology of beliefs, as they say.

Also, in fact, me showing that with models contradictory evidence exists against the "claim" of Global Warming shows that this is only a claim with no corroborating "evidence" whatsoever.

The evidence was not contradictory. And you can dance and shift to represent it as wanting to make some grand gesture, but it was just you not undertstanding the article you posted.

All that model showed was that the warming on land appears to be more influenced by ocean warming than direct GHG effects. The ocean warming itself and the hydrological influences do have a direct anthropogenic input.

You're showing some great confirmation bias here.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
And who are you exactly to dismiss what a Geologist has to say about this?...

Someone who has little respect for arguments from authority?

I'd rather see him publish his claims in the literature, rather than on some ideologically questionable website.

ABE: but with arguments like this...

'Ice sheets do not melt from the surface down -- only at the edges,' Prof. Ollier explains. The modellers' mechanism that has 'meltwater lakes on the surface finding their way down through cracks in the ice and lubricating the bottom of the glacier is not compatible with accumulation of undisturbed snow layers.'

www.financialpost.com...

when in the real-world...

A report in today's Science describes how researchers recorded the drainage of one such lake in Greenland. The lake was roughly 5.6 km2, but drained completely in less than an hour and a half. The lake's contents rapidly made their way down to the bottom of the ice sheet, 980 m below the surface. During this period, the average drainage rate was 8700 m3/s. For reference, the average flow rate for Niagara Falls is only 5700 m3/s.

arstechnica.com...

...I doubt he'll publish again.

He's just become another moron pawning his PhD and past career for ideology.

You are just someone posting on a site making just "claims" with no corroborating evidence to support your claims except to show more...claims.

lol

And the circle is complete. Have a nice day.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Your goalpost is shifting, I see. You never said anything about public realm and publicising.

'Twas really publically noted around 1988. The same year the IPCC was formed.

called by whom? to clarify there needs to be an audience. who would that be?

it should be obvious that whatever went on in relative obscurity is immaterial in the context. it was called GW in the beginning and no amount of distraction will change that. i will most certainly not take each and every real or non existant option into account in my writing because a language similar to legalese would be the result.


as for strategy, i believe that people who were capable of planning this particular criminal enterprise were more than adept at creating a lot of backup plans, not doing so would have been foolish.

next in line: ocean acidification

after that algae bloom threat diminishing biodiversity.

and so on. isolated events and isolated factors being the doom of us all. for a while at least.

Why whine at me? I never posted the threads.

if you were the only person reading this thread i wouldn't have bothered to begin with.

[edit on 2009.4.9 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
called by whom?

it should be obvious that whatever went on in relative obscurity is immaterial in the context. it was called GW in the beginning and no amount of distraction will change that. i will most certainly not take each and every real or non existant option into account in my writing because a language similar to legalese would be the result.

In the beginning of what? Again, the term 'climate change' has a long history. Global warming is climate change, but climate change is not always or just global warming.

Lance, this was just BS:

until a few years ago when a few months were too cold or yet another Gore mess got snowed in. from then on it was called climate change and became a religion, because it could no longer be falsified. warmer ? told ya so! colder? are you too simple minded? *wink*nudge* good bet i'm sure, but very telling, too.

Both terms have been around for decades. Again, if you have evidence of people preferring one term over the other for nefarious framing means rather than accuracy, spit it.

I do. But it's not the way you would want to paint it.

as for strategy, i believe that people who were capable of planning this particular criminal enterprise were more than adept at creating a lot of backup plans, not doing so would have been foolish.

lol

if you were the only person reading this thread i wouldn't have bothered to begin with.

Hmm, OK.

reply to post by melatonin

Again, the term 'climate change' has a long history. Global warming is climate change, but climate change is not always or just global warming.

I just have to point out that this argument is one of those strawmen arguments you like to rail on. Sure, someone used the term 'climate change' a century or so ago; that is itself irrelevant. Leonardo DaVinci drew a helicopter; that does not mean helicopters existed in his lifetime.

The point Lance is making is not that no one talked about climate change until recently, but that the public did not take it seriously until recently. In that respect, he is completely accurate. Propaganda based (loosely) on science has been used to sway public opinion in the Global Warming debate. The pattern is very clear, for anyone who wishes to see it:

1970s: concerns about the coming "New Ice Age" are propagandized and spoon-fed to the public. The result is that certain chemicals are outlawed, among them the refrigerant used in air conditioning units. Coincidentally, the patent held by DuPont on said refrigerant is about to expire. A new refrigerant that is deemed harmless to the atmosphere is then patented by DuPont, extending their patent protection over refrigerants for two patent life-spans.

1980s: the concern then moves to acid rain. News stories and 'documentaries' are published on a regular basis showcasing how terrible the destruction of the forests via sulfuric acid in rainwater is, and warning of a day when standing in a rain shower could be deadly to human life. This was abandoned shortly after some chemists stood up and announced that the largest contributor to acid rain was the use of the catalytic converter, mandated by government.

1988: the public is again shocked to learn that we are heading for the exact reverse of the "New Ice Age", a period of warmer temperatures. The average person's response is "Good! Less of this &^*%^ snow!" so future scenarios mentioning sea level rise and catastrophic weather changes have to be introduced to make the coming predictions dire enough to ignite public furor. Scenarios of drastic sea level rises covering major cities are spoon fed to the public, along with concerns over more frequent and stronger hurricanes.

Sea level has not risen substantially since those stories first aired, and since Katrina/Rita, hurricanes are actually becoming somewhat rarer. So now more terrible predictions are needed. One of these is the logical ridiculousness of Global Warming causing Global Cooling. That is the purpose of using the term "Climate Change"; to allow the powers behind this agenda to use whichever scenario appears at the time to be more catastrophic to the people and will therefore produce the desired results. I personally refuse to use Climate Change; I will continue to refer to the propaganda by it's initial name: GLOBAL WARMING. My apologies if that is inconvenient to the propaganda du jour.

The purpose is easy enough to understand. Since fuels from oil can be processed to remove impurities, any attempt to demonize oil use must concentrate on an inherent byproduct that cannot be filtered out. Oil products (gasoline, diesel, heating oil, propane, natural gas, etc.) are hydrocarbons, molecular combinations of two elements, hydrogen and carbon. Hydrogen when burned gives water; carbon when burned gives carbon dioxide. One of these two substances must be demonized. Since everyone knows water is necessary for life and no one would take a claim they were being poisoned by too much water seriously, carbon dioxide is used as the fall guy.

So yeah, carbon dioxide levels have been increasing slightly in the last few decades. At the same time plant growth and agricultural production has increased in response, maintaining a new balance. Yeah, we have experienced a period of warming temperatures since the beginning of the Industrial Age (discounting the minor cooling trend in the early 1970s). That trend is now slowing (or stopped according to some scientific analysis) despite no deceleration in carbon dioxide production. Proposals are being pushed in political circles that do absolutely nothing to combat these CO2 emissions, despite their claims otherwise. Example: Carbon credits are in essence a tax on energy production and use, yet not one word has been spoken about how this extra income by governmental bodies will be used to decrease CO2 levels in the atmosphere. At the same time, CO2 scrubbers, whose purpose is specifically to remove excess CO2 from the air, have been dismissed as 'ineffective', despite successful demonstrations of their effectiveness. Kyoto specifically excludes China and India from its restrictions, despite both countries' economies growing at an exponential rate based on older technology that tends to introduce known pollutants (nitrates and sulfates) into the atmosphere along with copious amounts of the so-called poison CO2. Any complaint based on this exclusion is met with the excuse that we 'must take the lead'. How is us taking a lead going to help? Do we not all share the same atmosphere? That is a serious and completely relevant question, yet it is ignored by policy makers.

I have lived through and witnessed all this mentioned above first-hand. I'm an old fart. I could go on for volumes showing obvious uses of propaganda and manipulation tactics, but you've heard them all before.

Now I know this is not going to bring more than a 'lol' from you, Mel, along with a quick dismissal that someone who is sooooo dumb and soooo unscientific as to be from Alabama ( ) actually thinks they know something more than the great omniscient Melatonin. That's fine; I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to those same people you are talking to, the readers, who are able to see through the fallacies and understand what is real and what is fabricated.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I just have to point out that this argument is one of those strawmen arguments you like to rail on. Sure, someone used the term 'climate change' a century or so ago; that is itself irrelevant. Leonardo DaVinci drew a helicopter; that does not mean helicopters existed in his lifetime.

Nope, a strawman means misrepresenting anothers argument to beat senseless. Also, your analogy is really bad.

The point Lance is making is not that no one talked about climate change until recently, but that the public did not take it seriously until recently. In that respect, he is completely accurate. Propaganda based (loosely) on science has been used to sway public opinion in the Global Warming debate. The pattern is very clear, for anyone who wishes to see it:

Suppose you speak for the average Lance as well...

Originally posted by Long Lance
let's not forget that what we are talking about was at least for a decade called global warming...

Originally posted by Long Lance
your statement is false at face value, because we had lots of other (much more tangible) issues at hand like acid rain in the 80s and secondly global warming didn't really take off in the public realm until the 1990s. the Rio de Janeiro summit wasn't exclusively about it, for example, but Kyoto was. therefore, it was called GW from inception, which must have been 1980 or so, but only got media attention later around 1990 - until a few years ago when a few months were too cold or yet another Gore mess got snowed in. from then on it was called climate change and became a religion, because it could no longer be falsified. warmer ? told ya so! colder? are you too simple minded? *wink*nudge* good bet i'm sure, but very telling, too.

His words are clear enough. Climate change is a well-established term. Indeed, the IPCC is not the IPGW.

1970s: concerns about the coming "New Ice Age" are propagandized and spoon-fed to the public. The result is that certain chemicals are outlawed, among them the refrigerant used in air conditioning units. Coincidentally, the patent held by DuPont on said refrigerant is about to expire. A new refrigerant that is deemed harmless to the atmosphere is then patented by DuPont, extending their patent protection over refrigerants for two patent life-spans.

lol

So because of a handful of scientists suggested global cooling, Dupont had a patented chemical outlawed (Freon?) in the 1970s?

Really?

1980s: the concern then moves to acid rain. News stories and 'documentaries' are published on a regular basis showcasing how terrible the destruction of the forests via sulfuric acid in rainwater is, and warning of a day when standing in a rain shower could be deadly to human life. This was abandoned shortly after some chemists stood up and announced that the largest contributor to acid rain was the use of the catalytic converter, mandated by government.

So the contribution of SO2 to acid rain was abandoned because catalytic converters also emit oxides that lead to acid rain?

Really?

1988: the public is again shocked to learn that we are heading for the exact reverse of the "New Ice Age", a period of warmer temperatures. The average person's response is "Good! Less of this &^*%^ snow!" so future scenarios mentioning sea level rise and catastrophic weather changes have to be introduced to make the coming predictions dire enough to ignite public furor. Scenarios of drastic sea level rises covering major cities are spoon fed to the public, along with concerns over more frequent and stronger hurricanes.

It's a great story. But it's just that - a myth. There was absolutely no firm certainty on warming or cooling during the 1970s. Indeed, I posted a study earlier from 1975 which shows this, and studies even then supported predominance of GHG-induced warming. So no reverse. It was a handful of scientists pushing the notion of aerosol effects outweighing GHG effects in the long-term - they wuz wrong. Their minority views were picked up in a few media outlets, but it never had any great support.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5fb3589512d8.jpg[/atsimg]

And it's good to see you could speak for the average person in 1988, lol.

Now I know this is not going to bring more than a 'lol' from you, Mel, along with a quick dismissal that someone who is sooooo dumb and soooo unscientific as to be from Alabama (

) actually thinks they know something more than the great omniscient Melatonin. That's fine; I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to those same people you are talking to, the readers, who are able to see through the fallacies and understand what is real and what is fabricated.

I'm not sure you do fabricate. If you're being serious, you're just a great example of Dunning-Kruger in action, and your last post is no exception.


[edit on 10-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

His words are clear enough. Climate change is a well-established term. Indeed, the IPCC is not the IPGW.

so, how many people even knew about the 'IPCC' before Kyoto?

is it really that hard to understand? the media sold it as GW, Gore used GW a lot as recently as in his Inconvenient Truth heck even today people are using it and i'm not just talking about opponents of the air tax, like me. i think not but i've seen it often enough, when in doubt, try to goad people.... i'll leave it at that.

there were exeptions. right. everyone still called it GW and climate change is relatively recent, which anyone with a memory ranging back several years will readily know. i really do not understand why you would debate my (alledged) age and an issue as clear as the GW/CC transition which everyone who is even remotely interested in such topics will simply remember.

iow you're doing a lot of shadow boxing as far as i can see.


PS: i will from now on only adress posts negatively and simply omit everything else, otherwise i'll be suspected of talking for that person - -extremely uncorrect i presume. (no that's not a word)

reply to post by melatonin

So because of a handful of scientists suggested global cooling, Dupont had a patented chemical outlawed (Freon?) in the 1970s?

Really?

No, not really. DuPont got freon outlawed so their new refrigerant would still be patent-protected via propaganda about the dangers of freon and the concern implemented in the public arena by the "New Ice Age". But at least you're close, if the reasoning is backwards.

I was there.

So the contribution of SO2 to acid rain was abandoned because catalytic converters also emit oxides that lead to acid rain?

Really?

It appears so. Amazing is the fact that acid rain is still extant in the areas that were once splattered across the news. Just as amazing is the fact that the media coverage declined to present levels concerning acid rain (in other words minimal if at all) about the same time it was 'revealed' that catalytic converters were a major cause of it.

Again, I was there.

It's a great story. But it's just that - a myth. There was absolutely no firm certainty on warming or cooling during the 1970s. Indeed, I posted a study earlier from 1975 which shows this, and studies even then supported predominance of GHG-induced warming.

Post all the stories and papers you want. They are irrelevant and only serve to prove to me that you will ignore even immutable history to make your case.

Because, once again, I was there. I trust my memory and direct observation more than I will ever trust an Internet source, or a faceless person arguing that what I saw wasn't real.

And it's good to see you could speak for the average person in 1988, lol.

If I cannot, who can? I am an 'average person', and I was there.

You might as well try to tell me that the house I grew up in didn't exist until I was 30, or perhaps that 'Gilligan's Island' never aired on broadcast TV. Those arguments are no different than the one you are proposing about the 1970s, Mel. I was there.

Apparently you were not.

TheRedneck