It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arctic Ice Melt "has the momentum of a runaway train."

page: 16
58
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




As the planets oceans increase in volume, and increase their pressure on the Earth's crust, it is only natural that we would see and increase in volcanic and magmatic activity, not to mention seismic activity.



Got any sources on that?

Would like to read them if you do.




posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
It is only Jun, and Methane levels have reached new highs. Methane levels have now reached the highest level seen in all the historical records from ice cores and other methods of looking at past climate history. This is bad news.

arctic-news.blogspot.com...


Now another milestone has been reached that looks even more threatening than the above one. On the morning of June 16, 2013, methane levels reached an average mean of 1800 parts per billion (ppb). This is 1100 ppb higher than pre-industrial peak levels.


thinkprogress.org... he-arctic/?mobile=nc


NASA Finds ‘Amazing’ Levels Of Arctic Methane And CO2, Asks ‘Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?’


www.nasa.gov...


"The Arctic is critical to understanding global climate," he said. "Climate change is already happening in the Arctic, faster than its ecosystems can adapt. Looking at the Arctic is like looking at the canary in the coal mine for the entire Earth system."

"Changes in climate may trigger transformations that are simply not reversible within our lifetimes, potentially causing rapid changes in the Earth system that will require adaptations by people and ecosystems."


If we have new records already, what will methane levels reach by September? The unthinkable is happening. And it looks like our planet will experience rapid changes on a biblical perspective in the very near future. I don't know if is better to be ignorant of this or not.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


No, it is my own personal theory.

There were some articles on how the deep ocean waters are starting to warm and expand which is contributing to ocean level rises. They could probably be found with a quick search. It only makes sense that if these deep waters are pushing up the surface of the ocean, they would also be pushing against the continents and the sea bed crust.

I read in one article how one of the great extinction periods, believed to be caused by super volcano eruptions may have been trigger by ocean levels during a very warm period of Earth's history.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


No, it is my own personal theory.

There were some articles on how the deep ocean waters are starting to warm and expand which is contributing to ocean level rises. They could probably be found with a quick search. It only makes sense that if these deep waters are pushing up the surface of the ocean, they would also be pushing against the continents and the sea bed crust.

I read in one article how one of the great extinction periods, believed to be caused by super volcano eruptions may have been trigger by ocean levels during a very warm period of Earth's history.



I think mega tons of ice sitting on the land has much more effect than water sitting in ocean basins.

If the surface of the oceans had no way to release/overflow then I would agree pressure might build up against the shelfs. But there is nothing keeping the ocean surface from rising (or colder surface water from sinking), so I don't see how it would exert more pressure of any significance.

Glacial forming on land over time does push land masses down, slowly over time as the weight of the ice builds up, and that same land slowly rises (very slowly) back up as the ice retreats off the land.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Good points.

I wonder what the impact of the glaciers melting away from Antarctica will be simply from the change in the way mass is distributed on the planet.

Still, there is massive amounts of pressure in the deep ocean. That pressure pushes out in all directions, so increases in that pressure could very well have a serious impact. Hopefully not too much of an affect.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Interesting thread... the Arctic ice is still melting.

No argument there. I do have a problem with tying this to CO2 and CH4 levels though, so let me see if I can tie them together. If the ice is melting, that indicates there is a source of energy in the area. The ice is surrounded by water and air, so one of these must be the source of the energy. Whichever one is the source will be the one which shows the greatest energy rise.

That would be the water.

The Arctic is warming at almost twice the rate of the rest of the planet. Water temperatures are also rising,
Source: oceansnorth.org...

This makes sense because it is much easier to melt ice with warm water than with warm air. Water has a specific heat value several times that of air and thus can contain much more heat energy in a smaller temperature change. So it's the water, not the air, which is melting the ice. Now where is the warm water coming from?


“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.
Source: www.canada.com...

Ah, volcanoes! Molten rock spewing underneath the Arctic Ocean, releasing heat into the water. But what about the CH4 and CO2 levels?


An erupting volcano will release gases, tephra, and heat into the atmosphere. The largest portion of gases released into the atmosphere is water vapor. Other gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen gas (H2), NH3, methane (CH4), and SiF4.
Source: www.geo.mtu.edu...

Oh, that's right, volcanoes release CH4 and CO2 when they erupt. Well, that makes sense, but what about the SO2? Where is it going? Volcanoes emit a lot of SO2...


At the end of the northern winter 1996/1997, 21 snow samples were collected from 17 arctic localities in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Svalbard, Russia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Iceland. Major element concentrations of the filtered (0.45 mum) melted snow indicate that most samples are consistent with a diluted seawater composition. Deviations from this behaviour indicate additional SO(4)(2-) and Cl(-) relative to seawater, suggesting a minor contribution from (probably local) coal combustion emissions (Alaska, Finland, Sweden, Svalbard). The samples with the highest Na and Cl(-) content (Canada, Russia) also have higher Na/SO(4)(2-) and Cl(-)/SO(4)(2-) ratios than seawater, suggesting a slight contamination from (probably local) deicing activities.
Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So the found elevated levels of SO4--... could that be from SO2? Why, yes it could!

Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.
Source: Got this one from en.wikipedia.org... easy enough

So, we have Arctic ice melting at a higher rate than anywhere else on the planet for several ears now, heat anomalies in the water underneath the Arctic ice being reported for several years now, volcanic actrivity underneath the Arctic ice discovered a few years ago, rising concentrations of two volcanic gasses in the Arctic atmosphere (CO2 and CH4), and evidence of another volcanic gas (SO2) in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentrations in the Arctic snow.

The Arctic ice is gonna all melt, probably. When the volcanoes die back down, it'll come back, just like Frosty the Snowman.


Not hard to figure out. We're all gonna die, but not from the climate change boogey-man. My apologies to Al Gore and James Hansen for the inconvenient facts.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
haha OP
you should go here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

then you wouldn't have to spend so much time typing for nothing



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Again, debunked on numerous threads, including the one in you link. Solar warming should be evidence throughout the planets, not just on a few.

In recent decades solar activity has decreased, while global temperature rise has accelerated, which contradicts the solar warming theory. If all the planets showed warming, then you might have something.

www.skepticalscience.com...






edit on 22-6-2013 by poet1b because: insert image

edit on 22-6-2013 by poet1b because: improve image



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Then the melting of Arctic ice should be localized.

Volcanos have been erupting under the Arctic for centuries and not melted the ice. It is a very active volcanic area, see Iceland.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

It is localized... under the Arctic. It's not like the Arctic is global... the Antarctic is doing just fine and dandy overall; as one area melts another builds.

And the volcanic activity has recently been discovered. We do not know if it has been ongoing at this rate for centuries. Icelandic volcanism has been ongoing, but it's not underwater. The anomalous gas concentrations would seem to indicate the present level of volcanic activity underneath the Arctic Ocean is a fairly recent (geologically speaking) occurrence.

Also, since you brought up Iceland... there's not a lot of ice in Iceland, and not a lot of green in Greenland. Since they were discovered by the Vikings, not that long ago, Iceland has warmed and Greenland has cooled. Maybe all those Icelandic volcanoes had an effect on that as well?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The Arctic is a very large area of the planet. Erupting underwater volcanos do not have that much effect, and there are numerous such eruptions under many of the seas and oceans.

Where is your proof that this underwater volcano is only a recent eruption? That hardly fits typical volcanic activity.

This level of Climate change has not been seen for over a million years. Are you claiming that this volcanic eruption is the first in a million years under the Arctic?



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The Arctic is a very large area of the planet. Erupting underwater volcanos do not have that much effect, and there are numerous such eruptions under many of the seas and oceans.

Where is your proof that this underwater volcano is only a recent eruption? That hardly fits typical volcanic activity.

This level of Climate change has not been seen for over a million years. Are you claiming that this volcanic eruption is the first in a million years under the Arctic?



Large area, but still a localized area.

Can you show beyond a shadow of a doubt that underwater volcanoes can in no way at all raise water temps that can in turn melt sea ice?

I suggest also that you look up and do some reading on "typical volcanic activity". They can go dormant, they can go active. They can be active for short periods. They can be active for very long periods. They can be dormant for short periods, and they can be dormant for very long periods.

Ask any expert on volcanoes how many exactly there are under the oceans....

There answer will be: we don't know.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

Despite what you may see on a flat map, the Arctic is not all that huge. It simply looks that way because of the attempt to detail a 3D object in 2D.

I'm not buying the million years story, sorry. A million years ago there wasn't exactly accurate measurements... any info we have found that would indicate a million years would be subject to interpretation, both from the analysis itself and from the dating process. Instead, I will acquiesce to the fact that this is an occurrence that has not happened as long as we have records and is not indicated in markers beyond that.

That's still not a million years, and even if it is, how many volcanoes have been thought to be extinct and then suddenly erupt?Need I go on?

There is also this:

There may be no such thing as a dormant volcano, according to scientists, who say that many could in fact be reawakened in a period of months.

It has long been thought that once a volcano's magma chamber has cooled down, it stays dormant for centuries before it can be remobilized by fresh magma.

But Alain Burgisser of the Orléans Institute of Earth Sciences, together with a US researcher, has tested a theoretical model on two major eruptions and found that this process can take place in just a few months. The findings should lead to a reassessment of the dangerousness of some dormant volcanoes, he says.
Source: www.tgdaily.com...

So we have several examples of "dormant" volcanoes coming to life unexpectedly, and scientific theories that state such is possible. Sounds like volcanoes being hot enough to melt ice is still a viable theory.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
My understanding of the alarm being raised about the increase in methane release is because it is a greenhouse gas not because they are worried about people being able to breathe as many seem to think.

Methane can be broken down and absorbed by the planet but I read it has a half-life in the atmosphere of 5 years and the higher the concentration the longer it takes to be absorbed by the earth’s natural mechanisms.

The worry is that with already high levels of greenhouse gasses that if there is a methane burp big enough that it would tip the scales where it would become self-perpetuating causing further thaws and more methane release. Therefore making the earth even warmer causing an extinction level event.

It was about a year ago that I had found an article on this from artic news I started a thread on it but most dismissed it as fear mongering. So now I see it has gone mainstream.
Links to both below. Food for thought.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
arctic-news.blogspot.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I thought I would add this.





On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958. This is 120 ppm higher than pre-industrial peak levels. This unfortunate milestone was widely reported in the media.

Now another milestone has been reached that looks even more threatening than the above one. On the morning of June 16, 2013, methane levels reached an average mean of 1800 parts per billion (ppb). This is 1100 ppb higher than pre-industrial peak levels.

Vostok ice core analysis shows that temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide and methane have all moved within narrow bands while remaining in sync with each other over the past 400,000 years. Carbon dioxide moved within a band with lower and upper boundaries of respectively 200 and 280 ppm. Methane moved within lower and upper boundaries of respectively 400 and 800 ppb.
Temperatures moved within lower and upper boundaries of respectively -8 and 2 degrees Celsius.

From a historic perspective, greenhouse gas levels have risen abruptly to unprecedented levels. While already at a historic peak, humans have caused emissions of additional greenhouse gases. There's no doubt that such greenhouse gas levels will lead to huge rises in temperatures. The question is how long it will take for temperatures to catch up and rise.

Large releases of methane must have taken place numerous times in history, as evidenced by numerous pockmarks, as large as 11 km (6.8 mi) wide.




Importantly, large methane releases in the past did not result in runaway global warming for a number of reasons:

•methane release typically took place gradually over many years, each time allowing a large release of methane to be broken down naturally over the years before another one occurred.
•Where high levels of methane in the atmosphere persisted and caused a lot of heat to be trapped, this heat could still be coped with due to greater presence of ice acting as a buffer and consuming the heat before it could escalate into runaway temperature rises.


Arctic news articles are pretty sound and for those who argue that they are doing it for the money are simply nutz.

You couldn't pay me enough to freeze my ......off. I am talking about the researchers.
arctic-news.blogspot.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi

You are correct in your assessment of the problem with methane. It is a potent greenhouse gas.

However, your position actually appears to support my volcano hypothesis. If we are assuming that the methane released is coming from surface sources, such as permafrost, then all that methane was in the atmosphere previously at some point in time... meaning it could not be coming from such sources because the methane level is (supposedly) higher than it has been in known history. Therefore, the methane is coming from another source.

It is doubtful this other source could be man-made, because methane is one of the main components of natural gas, a precious resource that would not be wasted. Also, while oil is being evacuated from Arctic areas, natural gas is not, so there is little to no man-made activities in the area of concentration to account for a release anyway. Ergo, another source for the methane must exist, and since volcanic activity does contain methane, it follows that this supports the volcano hypothesis.

Thank you.

As for the CO2 levels at Mauna Loa... Mauna Loa is a volcano and therefore a natural emission source of CO2. I discount that data for this reason. Oh, and please don't tell me "they adjusted for that" as there is no measurement of how much gas of what type is being emitted from Mauna Loa and no adjustment can be accurately made without knowing what is being adjusted and by how much.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Your volcano theory is a joke. You want to claim that the Arctic Ocean is localized. Do you realize that the Arctic Ocean is a lot larger than that few square inches on a globe?

Where is your proof that an underwater volcano has ever created a temperature rise of the extent we are now seeing in the Arctic Ocean over an area the size of the Arctic Ocean?

How do explain frozen tundra in the Arctic on land defrosting and being exposed to the air for the first time in over a million years? How does you underground volcano un-freeze land as well?

Do you understand the source of the Methane? Do you know what methane hydrates are?



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
this is being purposely melted away....

so corps can sell the water



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Your volcano theory is a joke. You want to claim that the Arctic Ocean is localized. Do you realize that the Arctic Ocean is a lot larger than that few square inches on a globe?

Where is your proof that an underwater volcano has ever created a temperature rise of the extent we are now seeing in the Arctic Ocean over an area the size of the Arctic Ocean?

How do explain frozen tundra in the Arctic on land defrosting and being exposed to the air for the first time in over a million years? How does you underground volcano un-freeze land as well?

Do you understand the source of the Methane? Do you know what methane hydrates are?



Curious.

Instead of offering a civil debate on the subject with Redneck, you instead call his theories a joke, instead of showing evidence why you think his theories are wrong.

Again: can you show proof that underwater volcanoes can NOT generate enough warm water that can lead to sea ice melt? Yes or No? If you can't, his theory on the source of heat is not something you can just throw out. You have to show that it can not be possible in order to dismiss the theory.

The Arctic Ocean is 5,427,000 square miles. The Atlantic Ocean is 41,100,000 square miles, and the Pacific Ocean is 63,800,000 square miles. So it's very small compared to them.

The Mediterranean Sea is 965,000 square miles, so it's 5 times smaller than the Arctic Ocean. Yet it has a very large amount of volcanoes both on land and under the sea (the exact amount under the sea is not known as with ALL oceans and seas).

Iceland was mentioned. Iceland is actually part of the mid Atlantic ridge system. It's the part that had enough volcanic activity that it actually is above the water. If you bother to look and follow that ridge, continuing north, guess what? It goes all the way up into and across the Arctic Ocean:



We also know that many volcanoes are located at ridges that upwell and subduction areas.

So don't just dismiss the idea. Take a look at it. Your dismissing it, is just as bad as those that do the same to you. And I'm sure that irritates you.

I take a look at what you post, read the links, look into other areas. I don't just dismiss it with a wave of my hand. If I disagree with something, I tell you so and why, and list sources if I can. But I won't call your ideas, theories or suggestions a "joke".

Can't you offer the same to others?

I will say this about AGW vs. Natural Climate Change: anyone that says they have it all figured out and that their side MUST be right, are kidding themselves. Considering how complex and at times chaotic it can be, I think we still have a LOT to learn about it.

And seeing how people on both sides simply dismiss or ignore data points that should be considered or possibly investigated, tells me that we all have a lot to learn about how to learn in the first place. Ignoring those things because they might interfere with one's agenda or belief in something isn't how the scientific method is suppose to be done.

THAT is the real "Joke".



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Ok, I have to question the theory of the massive volcanic melting scenario. Not because I don't think it's completely implausible, but that there seem to be massive gaps of data in the whole flow of how it is presented.

Questions:

1- If we take it as given that there is a volcano or vent generating that much energy under the ice pack;

1a- Where is the ejecta/pumice and the like? Given that pumice floats, a vast undersea volcanic field should present some noticeable evidence among the melting ice pack.

1b- Where are the volcanic vents? As 1- That much heat energy must convert water to steam. 2- Steam takes the path of least resistance, wouldn't it visibly melt and out gas through the ice pack? 3- Steam/heat rises, so clearly there would have to visible column of steam & then given the nature of water to reform into ice crystals. (Creating an artificially generated, nearly constant snow storm.) Which could be discerned via satellite weather forecasting models. Is there such a unexplained weather scenario with no discernible _externally_ generated weather system?

2- Under the above volcanic activity, where are the seismic records for any given volcanic activity? Given that a massive volcanic field is needed to melt a goodly potion of that ice pack. Surely there must be at least some sort of tectonic movement to allow for a volcanic field to exist, correct?

3- Surface altitude changes, given that for a volcanic field to exist in such a state; has there been any major surface elevation changes recorded by the Cryosat satellite or other similar satellite? Surely given such technology, much less an IR / Thermal measuring available, what elevation and heat sources have been detected?

While I can visualise a volcano/volcanic field under an ice pack, as volcanos do happen in Alaska and other icy places, and they have been documented... and the effects measured. There exists a huge data vacuum in the theory that a volcanic effect is driving the -entire- ice pack melt down.

Given the lack of this data; I have to admit that I am severely skeptical as to the theory that volcanic activity could cause that much change to the ice pack _on its own._

So in the parlance of my misbegotten youth:

Where is the beef? (Data?)

M.

Here is a link to an article on the CryoSat Link (It was a cool bit I found that relates to the above.)
edit on 22-6-2013 by Moshpet because: link added.

edit on 22-6-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join