Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

What really puzzles me is that I still haven't heard from the scientists what caused their static climate model to turn active when 'manmade global warming' started. From what I've been reading from the 'global warming' proponents glaciers have never calved or shrank up until this 'manmade global warming' came about, which to me is really puzzling. Supposedly they found signs of dinosaurs in Antarctica, didn't they? So, that means there were dinosaurs that lived on glaciers, right? Seeing as the ice on the Antarctica continent has been static up until 'manmade global warming, right? Very puzzling.

[edit on 4/12/09 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

reply to post by v3_exceed


An interesting post. I think what alot of folks don't understand (myself included) is just how sensitive our warm ocean currents really are and how drastically they directly and indirectly affect the global climate. I don't think most scientists really know either. That's the big problem with alot of this climatology stuff too. Alot of it is hypothetical or theoretical based on current data (data which may not even be accurate or account for all contributing factors). We are a long way from really understanding how our global climate works even with all we DO know. Its just way too complex. And to think modern scientists have all the answers would be kidding yourself too.

What I think is important to consider in all this though is what we do know.
CO2 levels are RAPIDLY increasing.. And from what we can tell scientifically what we are witnessing in our lifetimes is an extremely significant climatological event when compared to documented CO2 levels in both the near and distant past. Bubbles trapped in ice cores can give us a window into what the climate was like at specific times in earth's history. So far, everything points to this drastic CO2 increase as being an important part of the puzzle. We just don't have a big enough grasp on how significant all the contributing factors really are to understand the extent to which WE are having an impact. We can estimate man-made CO2 levels but that is just one small part of the puzzle. We have no idea the extent to which our emissions of greenhouse gases affect earth's climate. All we really know is that man-made greenhouse gases DO contribute to warmer temperatures and that man-made CO2 accounts for a "significant" amount of current CO2 levels even if it does only account for a small percentage of them.

We know that climate patterns are cyclical because of all the ice ages. We also know that Ice ages, themselves, have almost a predictable, cyclical patterns that consist of warmer periods and cooler periods (relatively speaking). As I've stated before, scientists believe we are currently in a warming period referred to as "Quaternary Glaciation" or "The current Ice Age".

We also know that solar activity is usually cyclical even though Solar Variations don't just account for the sun's 11 year cycle. The sun's 11 year cycle is barely understood other than, perhaps, acknowledging that it exists. We also know that we are currently in a "solar minimum" right now. And, again, since we just don't have a good enough understanding of the causes of the sun's 11 year cycle we still have a lack of certainty with regards to how solar storms, sunspots, and other solar activity plays a role in global temperatures.

From the afformentioned "Solar variation" wikipedia link:

Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 W/m² peak-to-trough during the 11 year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere averages 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m²). There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. On the low side North et. al. report results suggesting ~ 0.1% variation over the last 2,000 years. Others suggest the change has been ~ 0.2% increase in solar irradiance just since the 17th century. The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects are likely to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. Apart from solar brightness variations, more subtle solar magnetic activity influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded although confirmation is not at hand since physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.

We can always tell what the data "seems to imply" but that's a far cry from really understanding what it all means. All the charts and graphs of solar activity, proxies, and correlations all seem to show that even though we are in an extremely inactive solar minimum we are in an ever-increasing cycle of solar variation. This means that the sun has been getting hotter and seems to be continuing that trend (this particular increase in solar activity is referred to as the "Modern Maximum"). The Modern Maximum refers to the substantial increase in solar radiation just since around 1950.

See some of these charts below that illustrate it nicely..

400 years of sunspot observations

Solar Activity Proxies - last 600 years

Atmospheric Carbon 14 concentrations and Solar Activity Events 900-2000 AD
(see the source data HERE )

It's at least a start to understanding how solar activity really affects climate change on our planet.

As far as ocean levels are concerned, it's important to realize that melting sea ice isn't the only cause. Glaciers around the globe are also melting and contributing to a slow (but geologically fast) increase in ocean level. They are also releasing an immense amount of cold, fresh water into the ocean. Greenland is a prime example of how Cold fresh water could potentially directly affect the warm ocean currents. There are not only warm ocean currents but also cold ocean currents that feed cold water from higher latitudes to the equator. Without density and salinity variations in the oceans some ocean currents wouldn't exist in the first place.

Ocean Circulation description from a Geog101 textbook

Animation of ocean currents constructed using 2 years worth of satellite data from the Topex/Poseidon Mission

Source and more information about the clip are HERE

We really have no idea how dumping immense amounts of cold fresh water into the mix will affect this complex system but it will undoubtedly alter salinity levels. The big question at this point (since global temperatures are rising) is more of WHEN the ocean currents will be affected by this change in salinity and to what extent. We know that if the currents shut down completely it would drastically alter life on this planet for every human being because it would drastically affect weather patterns and global climate. The ocean currents are basically ways of the ocean to keep tabs on the warmer ocean currents through a release of energy. The cycle depends on both warm and cold ocean currents to function normally. If any one shuts down it could throw a wrench into how the whole system works. It could happen quite suddenly too and that would wreak quite a bit of havoc on weather and overall climate. It is such a complex, fragile system that we just don't know if or when such a shutdown of the currents would occur.

All we can really go off of to get any idea of what might happen with relation to all of these factors is existing data. And that does not come without a level of uncertainty. There is just too much we don't understand and global climate is too complex a creature to know what will happen and when. We can't build the puzzle if we don't have all the pieces. The scientific community is doing what it can to find some of these answers. But your guess is as good as theirs as to what will happen and when. Alot of progress HAS been made on the scientific front but so much more needs to be done. The fact though is that we are up against the clock here and noone knows how much time we have left before the earth's climate really starts going South.

-ChriS

[edit on 13-4-2009 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


Thanks for your information Blaster. I do agree that climate is changing. Even over the past 40 years we can see that overall the planet has had milder winters than prior, my position, is that humans are a contributory factor, but probably not the sole cause.

I have read up on the carbon argument, and it seems that historically temperature variations are followed by an increase in carbon by about 800 years. This in itself makes the carbon argument suspect. Now carbon isn't the only greenhouse gas, and I agree that there are many other green house gasses that are being injected into the environment by humans besides carbon. 6+ billion of us are going to have an effect even if it's just body mass and temperature that does it.

The general argument presented by the "melter's" centers around the floating ice shelf. Which is where my comment regarding 'ice in a glass of water' comes from. It is true that glaciers are entering and contributing to the inflow of fresh water to the oceans. I think there may be additional factors that are contributing to the ocean situation that many are forgetting. Besides fresh water, the amount of radioactive waste that is being allowed to enter the ecosystem is criminal. With a half life of 125,000 years or more the radioactive waste has got to be giving off some heat of it's own.

The solar minimum is also very disturbing. As our planet relies heavily on the suns heliosphere to protect us from the rest of the solar systems radiation, a reduction in that protection it must be considered when examining causes for global temperature variations. The magnetosphere of the earth also helps, but it's being pretty weird these days.

Since the information we are getting from the powers that be is slanted in favor of carbon being the evil that will kill us all, without regard to the polluting of the oceans or the suns effect or even the 800 years lag in increased carbon vs temp change I have a very hard time agreeing that humans are the sole cause of the current dilemma as stated.

I hope that one day, the powers that be actually consider that we are all on this rock, breathing the same air and drinking the same water. Their pursuit of power and money will not help them when the planet is no longer livable. All of this, so that our society can remain dependent on oil, is just so far beyond insane, I just cant express it.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex

reply to post by BlasteR

And to think modern scientists have all the answers would be kidding yourself too.

STAR for this point alone!

We know very little in reality, about anything. Our science works (rockets, cars, aircraft), but we don't understand why the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth and not towards it as you might think it would, or how the ends of galaxies keep swirling around instead of flying off into space.

What will tomorrows weather be like? Nope - weather forcasters don't know, either. It is an educated guess, that they get wrong more frequently than they get it right.

Yet strangely...... when it comes to global warming (ot global climate change if you prefer that), and the impact of man upon the planet, we know it all with absolute certainty. This is IMPOSSIBLE.

reply to post by pause4thought


Of course there is global warming but it is a NATURAL process not a man made one . This process is cyclical and has happened before and will happen many many times more (well unless earth blows up or something) , but advertising it as a man made phenomenon is BS.

Climate change is a natural phenomena. It can be very violent, but hey its natures way. Humans always want to control everything and now the weather with geoengineering. Combined with a nice carbon tax to profit Al Gore's company and our greedy bankers.

Even if we wanted to do something to slow down the process of change it will not work. We could do our share by consuming less and be aware of our actions. In any case nature will balance eventually. Earth will be still here after 2012 and humans will forever be destructive. All things come to a end one day.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Stranded]

reply to post by v3_exceed


No problem Ex.

Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by BlasteR

 

disturbing. As our planet relies heavily on the suns heliosphere to protect us from the rest of the solar systems radiation, a reduction in that protection it must be considered when examining causes for global temperature variations. The magnetosphere of the earth also helps, but it's being pretty weird these days.

This list makes you really start to wonder what is really going on.. We have:

-A pole-shift thousands of years overdue for our planet (along with a weakening magnetic field)
-The unexplained weakening of the heliosphere which partially sheilds the solar system from lethal cosmic radiation, as you pointed out (decent ATS thread about that HERE )
-The odd lull in recent solar activity, you already mentioned (much less than has been observed during past "solar minimums").
-(DARE I MENTION?) Bizarre objects/UFO's being photographed and/or imaged by satellites and other spacecraft in the vicinity if the sun. One really interesting link on this is HERE .

-ChriS

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by SourGrapes

 

We are at solar minimum now. Have been for a while. In fact it has been longer than expected. My country saw some of the most extreme heat waves this summer, in solar minimum? Wonder what it would have been like if we were at normal solar activity.
...........

You do know that the oceans store all the extra heat/energy that the Sun was emitting during all that time that it was at it's highest activity, and hence the world does not suddenly cools because the activity of the Sun has slowed down right?.....

This is part of the problem why people keep believing in the myth of Global Warming. Yes, Global Warming is a myth because it is the claim that Climate Change is being caused because of anthropogenic CO2, which there is no real evidence to back this up.

The climate on Earth is a complex issue, and it is affected by many natural factors which are more powerful than CO2 will ever be.

Why is it that during the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, and even the LIA (Little Ice Age) CO2 did not change much at all yet temperatures accross the world fluctuated dramatically?

The geological record in fact shows that CO2 is not a driver, or a cause of climate change, but rather an effect of Climate Change.

Why is it that the die-hard defenders of Global Warming keep trying to claim "The Sun is not important, neither are the other natural factors" yet we know for a fact that during the early 20th century, and the beginning of the 21st century the Sun's activity had been at the highest for at least 1,000 years.

We know for a fact that the Sun's magnetic storms had been increasing since 1868, which made the smallest magnetic storm in the Sun actually higher than the highest magnetic storms prior to the 1900s.

We know for a fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since at least 1845, and it has been getting weaker to the point that on average it is about 10% weaker now than it has been for a very long time, and in some sections of the world there have been the largest magnetic breaches which perplexed scientists since all they knew about the physics of Earth's magnetic field should not allow for this to happen.

Yet the die-hards who want to keep claiming "it is all the fault of anthropogenic CO2" without any proof to show this want to dismiss all of these natural factors and more?...

I will be reposting some information i gave in another thread about this very topic, and about another natural factor which affects the melting of glaciers.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

[SNIP]

No scientist on the planet is saying that there are not natural temperature fluctuations - NONE.

Nor that there are global temperature fluctuations, ice ages, hot periods etc. NOT ONE.

No scientist is saying we are not effected by the suns fluctuations - NONE.

No scientist is saying that there are not natural fluctuations within the the earth's own biosphere, that weather in one area can impact another -NONE.

And finally NO scientist is saying that they have all the answers .......

What is being said is that within the normal temperature fluctuations of the Earth's cycles going back hundreds of thousands (and in some records millions) of years we are able to create a very definitive picture of the earth's temperatures, glacial mass, polar mass, water levels, the fluctuations of these indicators and build a very clear picture of the "norms" of these fluctuations.

Yes the scientists HAVE ALREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS OF THE SUN< THE CYCLES OF COOLING AND WARMING ETC - yes they are smart enough to consider these things.

What is concerning is that temperature levels are heading to a state which are well outside of where they should be, in fact we should be heading into a cooling phase (this is why so many scientists claimed we were heading into a new ice age in the 60's ) - because the earth SHOULD be trying to cool itself at this point as we are at the APEX of the hot cycle. Unfortunately we are continuing to get hotter and this is completely outside the bounds of the normal cyclical nature of warming and cooling.

The erruption of volcanoes, the natural HIGH Co2 content of the early earth atmosphere have all ALSO been taken into consideration and we are also seeing levels of this beyond any normal state - it is measurable - and the effects have been predicted for well over 50 years and they are now definitively proving that global warming as a man man condition outside the bounds of normal fluctuations is an absolute fact.

NOW GET OVER IT - there is no why, there is no but, and if you think there is then read one of the 300 books on the issue explaining it rather than constantly relying on any ridiculous piece of far fetched clap trap dragged up by scientific deviants.

Questioning global warming was a practice devised by the Lavoisier group who hired senator Inhoffe and the marketing agency behind the Big Tobacco idea that smoking causes cancer is up for debate when in fact it was a known fact for 40 years. If you think that global warming is a myth then you are a stooge of the big oil companies -

Please read "The Republican War On Science" to understand this.

I challenge ANYONE to present to me a single piece of CREDIBLE evidence which has not already been thoroughly dis-proven. I have laid this challenge down repeatedly on every Global Warming Thread and have not ONCE received a single piece of CREDIBLE evidence beyond clap trap regarding solar warming, galactic planetary temperature fluctuations, seasonal or even regional variations, and worst of all an EMAIL campaign....

Now a single piece of evidence by a recognised authority which has been received in a peer reviewed scientific journal - there is none. NOT ONE.

Now for all of those who ask WHY ? or who question this GO READ SOME BOOKS - seriously you are embarrassing yourselves.

Mod Edit: Removed insult

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by SourGrapes
reply to post by Kryties

 

I was about to post something similar, but you beat me to it!

I think that most of us agree on the Global Warming, it's the cause that is up for debate.

I may not be a scientist, but I am a skeptic. I'm intrigued by very word: WHY. I probably use that word 328 times a day (I drove my parents nuts when I was a kid - often times referred to as the 'why' I'm an only child). Why is Global warming such a huge movement? Why spend so much energy (pun) and resources (yet another pun) on an inevitable event that we have little, if any, control over?

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Global warming on other planets in the solar system


What's next? Global carbon credits for the sun? I don't think I want to see a green sun.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by SourGrapes]

Just for you - a repeat - you ask WHY - read some books and stop being so thoroughly disingenuous.

[SNIP] No scientist on the planet is saying that there are not natural temperature fluctuations - NONE. Nor that there are global temperature fluctuations, ice ages, hot periods etc. NOT ONE. No scientist is saying we are not effected by the suns fluctuations - NONE. No scientist is saying that there are not natural fluctuations within the the earth's own biosphere, that weather in one area can impact another -NONE. And finally NO scientist is saying that they have all the answers ....... What is being said is that within the normal temperature fluctuations of the Earth's cycles going back hundreds of thousands (and in some records millions) of years we are able to create a very definitive picture of the earth's temperatures, glacial mass, polar mass, water levels, the fluctuations of these indicators and build a very clear picture of the "norms" of these fluctuations. Yes the scientists HAVE ALREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS OF THE SUN< THE CYCLES OF COOLING AND WARMING ETC - yes they are smart enough to consider these things. What is concerning is that temperature levels are heading to a state which are well outside of where they should be, in fact we should be heading into a cooling phase (this is why so many scientists claimed we were heading into a new ice age in the 60's ) - because the earth SHOULD be trying to cool itself at this point as we are at the APEX of the hot cycle. Unfortunately we are continuing to get hotter and this is completely outside the bounds of the normal cyclical nature of warming and cooling. The erruption of volcanoes, the natural HIGH Co2 content of the early earth atmosphere have all ALSO been taken into consideration and we are also seeing levels of this beyond any normal state - it is measurable - and the effects have been predicted for well over 50 years and they are now definitively proving that global warming as a man man condition outside the bounds of normal fluctuations is an absolute fact. NOW GET OVER IT - there is no why, there is no but, and if you think there is then read one of the 300 books on the issue explaining it rather than constantly relying on any ridiculous piece of far fetched clap trap dragged up by scientific deviants. Questioning global warming was a practice devised by the Lavoisier group who hired senator Inhoffe and the marketing agency behind the Big Tobacco idea that smoking causes cancer is up for debate when in fact it was a known fact for 40 years. If you think that global warming is a myth then you are a stooge of the big oil companies - Please read "The Republican War On Science" to understand this. I challenge ANYONE to present to me a single piece of CREDIBLE evidence which has not already been thoroughly dis-proven. I have laid this challenge down repeatedly on every Global Warming Thread and have not ONCE received a single piece of CREDIBLE evidence beyond clap trap regarding solar warming, galactic planetary temperature fluctuations, seasonal or even regional variations, and worst of all an EMAIL campaign.... Now a single piece of evidence by a recognised authority which has been received in a peer reviewed scientific journal - there is none. NOT ONE. Now for all of those who ask WHY ? or who question this GO READ SOME BOOKS - seriously you are embarrassing yourselves.

Mod Edit: Removed quoted insult.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by BlasteR

 

And to think modern scientists have all the answers would be kidding yourself too.

STAR for this point alone!

We know very little in reality, about anything. Our science works (rockets, cars, aircraft), but we don't understand why the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth and not towards it as you might think it would, or how the ends of galaxies keep swirling around instead of flying off into space.

Thanks for that, Mirage. I completely agree with you! I don't want to stray too far off-topic here but wanted to give the lay-people some info on the moon-receding statement.

Like you said, we know the moon is receding from earth at a pretty constant/steady rate (about 35mm/year). Not exactly fast by human standards, but pretty fast by geologic standards. We have confirmed this with the LLRE (Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment) put in place on the moon during Apollo 11 and the two LRRR (Lunar Ranging Retro Reflectors) arrays put in place by Apollo 14 and 15. There are also arrays positioned on the moon by old Russian spacecraft.
en.wikipedia.org...

Scientists, working in conjunction with NASA, fire a laser at the arrays every day to take measurements. A couple years ago on the National Geographic Channel they showed how it was all done (It was actually on an "Is it Real" television show based around the question of whether or not the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed).

On the bigger point you were making though, you are absolutely right. I have been saying this for years. Science is not so straight forward. How you view the certainty of all scientific data sometimes depends on how you, personally, define the word "Science" too.. I don't think the average Joe really even knows what science really represents (not just what it means). Here is my shpeel on "Science"..

Science is an always on-going pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the world around us. It is a search for facts and truth about the universe and our place in it. Our current scientific understanding consists of both what we have confirmed to be true and what we have not. With many different phenomenon, the result of scientific endeavours is a theoretical "Best guess". Mainstream scientists within areas of acadamea, public and private institutions seem to have a biases (hunches) which causes them to lean towards these "Best guess" theories for a variety of different reasons. Sometimes, just depending on the topic, scientists commit professional and academic suicide by going against the scientific majority. This makes no sense..

The "paranormal" is a great example of this. The scientific best guess is that the paranormal can't be real. But, yet, mainstream scientific professionals laugh at the idea without really having any answers themselves. Therefore, a negative stigma is associated with any scientist that goes against the collective concensus of what phenomenon is real and what isn't. The scientists will claim the paranormal can't exist because there isn't enough evidence. But why is that? The real reason is because none of the scientists will do the research in the first place in fear of losing research grants, their jobs, public support, social status, and the respect of their peers. When this has nothing to do with the phenomenon being real or not real in the first place..

Then, due to the lack of scientific support, normal every-day people are forced to investigate the paranormal because, in most cases, noone else will. But when they catch evidence of something they see as substantial, the scientists can claim that it is irrelevant since the research wasn't conducted by actual scientists using the scientific process. Then writers and investigators get slammed by mainstream scientists like Michio Kaku because, as per his view, "they have to advocate the paranormal". But if the scientific community was paying attention in the first place, they would know why that is. It is because, despite whatever they might say, sometimes the facts really do contradict the majority consensus of scientific understanding. Yet they still continue to defend their positions on the issue based around their "Best Guess" conclusions without having all the facts. Scientists hate to admit when they might be wrong!

It is the human factor that prevents science from being a true, honest, open search for truth about the universe and our place within it. Many times in the past, the scientific consensus has been disproven completely, but only because brave people have decided to challenge the majority only to risk their jobs, professional careers and credibility among their peers. Sometimes it even involves direct personal threats and attacks. Yet, time and time again the truth seems to be more bizarre than we could have ever predicted. It is ironic how forbidden it seems to go against the mainstream scientific consensus when alot of times that's the only way we can really discover anything.

-ChriS

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...

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.

“Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process,” according to an international team that sent unmanned probes to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.

They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. “Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water,” says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.

www.canada.com...

Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic Sea
By 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, were discovered farther north than any others previously identified. The vents, one of which towers four stories high, are located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Greenland and Norway, more than 120 miles farther north than other known vents.

Remotely operated vehicles photographed the scene as part of an expedition led by Rolf Pedersen, a geologist at the University of Bergen in Norway.

Black smokers have been found in many deep-sea locations, including on the Juan de Fuca Ridge off Washington and British Columbia. Despite the lack of sunlight to power life in the abyss, the vents often support unique communities of creatures that live off their warmth and chemicals. Some scientists think the vents would have been great locales for the origin of life on Earth.

www.livescience.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...

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...

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...

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...

Last, but not least.

Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
10:04 09 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic
For similar stories, visit the Mysteries of the Deep Sea Topic Guide

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.

"The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth," says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. "But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them," he says.

Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean's surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.

www.newscientist.com...

But of course, those who are die-hards of the Global Warming scam would rather post idiotic responses insulting, and lauhging as if that was enough proof of their myth.

Originally posted by BlasteR

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by BlasteR

 

And to think modern scientists have all the answers would be kidding yourself too.

STAR for this point alone!

We know very little in reality, about anything. Our science works (rockets, cars, aircraft), but we don't understand why the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth and not towards it as you might think it would, or how the ends of galaxies keep swirling around instead of flying off into space.

Thanks for that, Mirage. I completely agree with you! I don't want to stray too far off-topic here but wanted to give the lay-people some info on the moon-receding statement.

Like you said, we know the moon is receding from earth at a pretty constant/steady rate (about 35mm/year). Not exactly fast by human standards, but pretty fast by geologic standards. We have confirmed this with the LLRE (Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment) put in place on the moon during Apollo 11 and the two LRRR (Lunar Ranging Retro Reflectors) arrays put in place by Apollo 14 and 15. There are also arrays positioned on the moon by old Russian spacecraft.
en.wikipedia.org...

Scientists, working in conjunction with NASA, fire a laser at the arrays every day to take measurements. A couple years ago on the National Geographic Channel they showed how it was all done (It was actually on an "Is it Real" television show based around the question of whether or not the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed).

On the bigger point you were making though, you are absolutely right. I have been saying this for years. Science is not so straight forward. How you view the certainty of all scientific data sometimes depends on how you, personally, define the word "Science" too.. I don't think the average Joe really even knows what science really represents (not just what it means). Here is my shpeel on "Science"..

Science is an always on-going pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the world around us. It is a search for facts and truth about the universe and our place in it. Our current scientific understanding consists of both what we have confirmed to be true and what we have not. With many different phenomenon, the result of scientific endeavours is a theoretical "Best guess". Mainstream scientists within areas of acadamea, public and private institutions seem to have a biases (hunches) which causes them to lean towards these "Best guess" theories for a variety of different reasons. Sometimes, just depending on the topic, scientists commit professional and academic suicide by going against the scientific majority. This makes no sense..

The "paranormal" is a great example of this. The scientific best guess is that the paranormal can't be real. But, yet, mainstream scientific professionals laugh at the idea without really having any answers themselves. Therefore, a negative stigma is associated with any scientist that goes against the collective concensus of what phenomenon is real and what isn't. The scientists will claim the paranormal can't exist because there isn't enough evidence. But why is that? The real reason is because none of the scientists will do the research in the first place in fear of losing research grants, their jobs, public support, social status, and the respect of their peers. When this has nothing to do with the phenomenon being real or not real in the first place..

Then, due to the lack of scientific support, normal every-day people are forced to investigate the paranormal because, in most cases, noone else will. But when they catch evidence of something they see as substantial, the scientists can claim that it is irrelevant since the research wasn't conducted by actual scientists using the scientific process. Then writers and investigators get slammed by mainstream scientists like Michio Kaku because, as per his view, "they have to advocate the paranormal". But if the scientific community was paying attention in the first place, they would know why that is. It is because, despite whatever they might say, sometimes the facts really do contradict the majority consensus of scientific understanding. Yet they still continue to defend their positions on the issue based around their "Best Guess" conclusions without having all the facts. Scientists hate to admit when they might be wrong!...........................

Sorry this is entirely ridiculous. Science does not deal in absolute facts, it deals with what is provable. One of the basic fundamentals of science is that a theory must be "Falsifiable" -

Putting forward the idea that science has been wrong on occasion as a justifiable disputation of a well accepted fact is not logical, reasonable or even worthy of discussion. Its as though stating that

"because we were wrong about the safety of radium, science is therefore erroneous and God is proven true."

Absolutely the most profoundly unenlightened and intellectually dishonest logic ever purveyed. Science is an ongoing process of discovery and understanding, it is not a collective nor a singularity to be challenged as a representative whole.

The position of scientists on global warming is almost absolute agreement. I again challenge any person on this forum to provide me with a link to recent peer reviewed study or experiment which points to global warming being untrue.

Of course this can not happen becuase this does nto exist.

The fact remains that there are literally tens of thousands of studies, ranging across almost every scientific discipline which all INDEPENDENTLY corroborate the FACT that anthropogenic global warming is not a myth - and NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR STUDY to contradict this absolute FACT.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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.

ETC, ETC, ETC..................

What on earth is this ? Are you totally mad ?

Are you presenting this as the cause of global warming ? Or are you saying there are other "things" which are hot. Either way your post is an laughable - utterly laughable in every single way.

Yes there are going to be areas where melt water may increase due to volcanic activity - (have you ever been to Iceland or Greenland ?) However This in now way accounts for the sea ice retreat, the universal melting of glaciers ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE ARE no volcanoes.

i cant believe I am even dignifying this post with a response. Honestly do you seriously believe that of the hundreds of thousands of scientist who all un8iversally agree on global warming that they just overlooked your WHIZ BANG theory that its all down to venting of magma ? Get a grip.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by audas]

[SNIP]

Originally posted by audas
No scientist on the planet is saying that there are not natural temperature fluctuations - NONE.

Yet your idols are all claiming, without any proof, that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause, as well as dismissing the Sun, and every other natural factors, which they have been dismissing....

Originally posted by audas
What is being said is that within the normal temperature fluctuations of the Earth's cycles going back hundreds of thousands (and in some records millions) of years we are able to create a very definitive picture of the earth's temperatures, glacial mass, polar mass, water levels, the fluctuations of these indicators and build a very clear picture of the "norms" of these fluctuations.

BS. there is no such thing as "normal temperature fluctuations"

The Earth has been through periods of warming were atmospheric CO2 content was very low, and the Earth has been through periods of cooling where the atmospheric CO2 content was as high and even higher than now...

Originally posted by audas
Yes the scientists HAVE ALREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS OF THE SUN< THE CYCLES OF COOLING AND WARMING ETC - yes they are smart enough to consider these things.

They are not, they just made models in which they input in their computers that if you raise CO2 temperature MUST go up, meanwhile dismissing many natural factors.

Originally posted by audas
What is concerning is that temperature levels are heading to a state which are well outside of where they should be, in fact we should be heading into a cooling phase (this is why so many scientists claimed we were heading into a new ice age in the 60's ) - because the earth SHOULD be trying to cool itself at this point as we are at the APEX of the hot cycle. Unfortunately we are continuing to get hotter and this is completely outside the bounds of the normal cyclical nature of warming and cooling.

BS, the Arctic has been free of ice several times before, and the Earth has been much warmer than now and life existed just fine, which again only proves you have no idea what in the world you are talking about.

Originally posted by audas
The erruption of volcanoes, the natural HIGH Co2 content of the early earth atmosphere have all ALSO been taken into consideration and we are also seeing levels of this beyond any normal state - it is measurable - and the effects have been predicted for well over 50 years and they are now definitively proving that global warming as a man man condition outside the bounds of normal fluctuations is an absolute fact.

More BS from you?... show us evidence of this "temperatures are at levels beyond any (of your fantastical) normal state"....


[SNIP]

Originally posted by audas
Please read "The Republican War On Science" to understand this.

Oh right, so we have to take the word of someone who is using politics as evidence of the Global Warming myth?....

Originally posted by audas
I challenge ANYONE to present to me a single piece of CREDIBLE evidence which has not already been thoroughly dis-proven. I have laid this challenge down repeatedly on every Global Warming Thread and have not ONCE received a single piece of CREDIBLE evidence beyond clap trap regarding solar warming, galactic planetary temperature fluctuations, seasonal or even regional variations, and worst of all an EMAIL campaign....

The joke is on you, present us proof of your claims... We are not asking for more claims corroborating claims...we are asking for PROOF......

Originally posted by audas
Now a single piece of evidence by a recognised authority which has been received in a peer reviewed scientific journal - there is none. NOT ONE.

Now for all of those who ask WHY ? or who question this GO READ SOME BOOKS - seriously you are embarrassing yourselves.

The only one embarrassing himself is none other than you..

You are only showing to have an ego larger than the universe, and making claims without any corroborating evidence...

So go ahead, look at the mirror, and repeat what you just called everyone who disagrees with your myth....

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Mod Edit: Removed quoted insults and replied insults.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by audas

ETC, ETC, ETC..................

What on earth is this ? Are you totally mad ?

Are you presenting this as the cause of global warming ? Or are you saying there are other "things" which are hot. Either way your post is an laughable - utterly laughable in every single way.

Yes there are going to be areas where melt water may increase due to volcanic activity - (have you ever been to Iceland or Greenland ?) However This in now way accounts for the sea ice retreat, the universal melting of glaciers ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE ARE no volcanoes.

i cant believe I am even dignifying this post with a response. Honestly do you seriously believe that of the hundreds of thousands of scientist who all un8iversally agree on global warming that they just overlooked your WHIZ BANG theory that its all down to venting of magma ? Get a grip.

Did you stop to read the subject of this thread?...

This thread is not about your myth of Global Warming....

this thread is about, and I quote:

Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

Learn how to discuss a topic, and after you grow up, and finally learn how to properly debate come back here and show us you actually learned how to read....

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Name me a single book you have read on this issue - name me ONE SINGLE BOOK. I absolutely guarantee you know NOTHING about this issue beyond meaningless clap trap surfed on the internet.

Further I am not the one claiming the the entire global scientific community is wrong - you are - and as such you have made what can only be the most outrageous and extreme claim which in the face of certain and undeniable evidence requires proof.

I have the entire global scientific community behind me.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by audas

ETC, ETC, ETC..................

What on earth is this ? Are you totally mad ?

Are you presenting this as the cause of global warming ? Or are you saying there are other "things" which are hot. Either way your post is an laughable - utterly laughable in every single way.

Yes there are going to be areas where melt water may increase due to volcanic activity - (have you ever been to Iceland or Greenland ?) However This in now way accounts for the sea ice retreat, the universal melting of glaciers ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE ARE no volcanoes.

i cant believe I am even dignifying this post with a response. Honestly do you seriously believe that of the hundreds of thousands of scientist who all un8iversally agree on global warming that they just overlooked your WHIZ BANG theory that its all down to venting of magma ? Get a grip.

Did you stop to read the subject of this thread?...

This thread is not about your myth of Global Warming....

this thread is about, and I quote:

Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

Learn how to discuss a topic, and after you grow up, and finally learn how to properly debate come back here and show us you actually learned how to read....

Again I ask for some proof to your ridiculous claims if this as being a myth, Again I ask for your sources as to ANYTHING you have read, and again I state that it is beyond even the most intellectually mundane and logically defunct to even consider that underwater venting and volcanic erruptions are the cause of global warming, not a single one of the articles you have cited even attempts to make this claim.

Thoroughly outclassed in this forum -