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: 18
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wehavenoclue

Any temperature change will affect the ocean at deeper levels, with the effect lessening as the depth increases (the effect actually becomes insignificant fairly quickly, although off the top of my head I do not remember at what depth). This is through conduction and convection, and is not directly affected by greenhouse gases.

The question was moving toward greenhouse gasses dissolved in seawater, which is irrelevant. Greenhouse gas induced heating comes from atmospheric re-radiation only, will heat surfaces and the atmosphere itself, and then and only then affects ocean and land temperatures via conduction and convection.

Acidic contaminants only affect the acidity of the seawater, not the temperature.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


From what little I've gleamed, it has to do with cycles in the trade winds. The oceans has a vast network of streams flowing through them. These streams carry different densities of molecules, and temperature fluctuations to go along with it, much like what occurs in the atmosphere. It is the cycling, or shuffling of these molecules through these layers of streams that leads to a rise in temperature over time at greater depths.

My point is to counter your reasoning regarding GHG's only effecting surface temperature. You seek to find a source for these temperature anomalies in the deep ocean, and/or over the arctic, and find it reasonable to conclude it can't happen from GHG, so must be something else, like underwater volcanic eruptions. While it can be from UVE's, I have yet to see any data backing this up. Do you have any to provide?
edit on 23-6-2013 by wehavenoclue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Instead, these eruptions are slow, steady events that have apparently been happening for quite some time. Instead of a sudden explosion of lava and gases, it is a slow leak of lava and gasses, but enough of these slow leaks over a wide area over a prolonged period of time would raise water temperatures pretty much worldwide (as we have seen), air temperatures worldwide to a lesser degree (as we have seen), and more anomalous readings in the area affected, the Arctic (as we have seen).


If you have some proof that this is going on, you might have a point, but the very articles linked by eriktheawful tells about robots sent down to the area, and they do not report any ongoing eruptions, so this is not happening. In order for the eruptions to melt the ice on the surface, the heat produced by the eruptions must reach the surface, but the deep cold waters of the ocean absorb all the heat produced by the eruptions, an it never reaches the surface.

Scientists don't allege that volcanic activity isn't causing global warming, they don't see any connection. For there to be a connection, then there would have to be evidence, such as a steady increase in underwater volcanic activity that coincides with global warming.

I don't know what convinced you not to believe in global Warming, but the physical evidence at this point is overwhelming. If you look at the links I have provided on this thread, you will find this clear evidence.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wehavenoclue


From what little I've gleamed, it has to do with cycles in the trade winds. The oceans has a vast network of streams flowing through them. These streams carry different densities of molecules, and temperature fluctuations to go along with it, much like what occurs in the atmosphere. It is the cycling, or shuffling of these molecules through these layers of streams that leads to a rise in temperature over time at greater depths.

Nope.

None of the processes you have mentioned produce heat; they all transport heat. Where is the production of heat energy coming from? What has changed in recent decades that would account for such an acceleration of heat inflow into the Arctic?


My point is to counter your reasoning regarding GHG's only effecting surface temperature.

I never said an increased temperature does not conduct through layers of water and earth. You are trying to argue a different point than what I was making. I was making the point that CH4 and CO2 dissolved in water does not act as a greenhouse gas they must be atmospheric to do so.

If your intent is to prove that the energy melting Arctic ice is coming from another source other than volcanic action underneath the ice sheet (which, again, is an observed and documented fact), then all I need to see is a reasonable explanation of how that much heat is being transported, where it is being transported from, and the source of the heat.

I have provided proof of undersea volcanic activity in the Arctic, explained how the recent observations of atmospheric gas anomalies can be directly attributable to such, explained the transport mechanism for those gas anomalies, and compared the possibility of atmospheric heating with the possibility of oceanic heating. Simply do the same with your hypothesis and I will look at your conclusions. In an earlier post, I already demonstrated this willingness to look at the data and change my position when I stated that the atmospheric methane was indeed likely due to permafrost melting rather than volcanic exhaust, since volcanic methane would likely be converted to CO2 and water as it rose toward the surface under those conditions.

Give me a hypothesis; don't just keep trying to muddy the subject.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

If you have some proof that this is going on, you might have a point...


Then in August 2001 an international team of scientists embarked on a rare exploratory mission aboard two icebreakers specially-equipped with scientific instruments to map the seafloor, collect samples, and analyze what really lies three miles (five kilometers) beneath the ice-covered seas.
...
But based on rock samples dredged from the ocean floor and detailed sonar mapping, researchers were surprised to discover that the Gakkel Ridge is actually a hotbed of volcanic activity and hydrothermal vents.

"We expected very few fresh volcanic lavas. Yet the first maps and samples revealed a highly active volcanic province," said Langmuir, noting that the abundant and recent volcanic activity was both surprising and remarkable.
Source: news.nationalgeographic.com...


But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.

What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.

Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.
Source: afp.google.com...


New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests that a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

Hidden 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes can range up to more than a mile (2 kilometers) in diameter and a few hundred yards (meters) tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.
Source: www.nbcnews.com...


A team of geologists has found evidence of volcanoes occurring under the Arctic Ocean, an event previously thought impossible due to the weight and pressure of the ocean and the composition of the sea rock.

An international team led by researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) found splintered rock, known as pyroclastic deposits, over a 10 square kilometer (4 square mile) radius around a series of small craters some 4,000 meters (2.5 miles) below the sea surface. The volcanoes lie along the largely unexplored Gakkel Ridge, which runs through the Arctic Ocean, explains an Institute statement.
Source: www.thetechherald.com...


An international team of researchers says they have evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time.

Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge report in the current issue of Nature that they discovered extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.
Source: www.science20.com...

Here's a nice graphic... notice how the temperature anomalies are localized?
Source: my.opera.com...

Looks like some scientists think it's at least worth exploring...

Two Bryn Mawr students will have the chance to join Geology Lecturer Lynne Elkins on a trip to the waters north of Iceland next summer as Elkins and her fellow researchers try to better understand volcanic activity in the area. The researchers plan to explore the mechanisms driving the production of new ocean crust occurring at volcanic mid-ocean ridges like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the Arctic Ocean, and also to help explain anomalous volcanic activity occurring in the region.
Source: news.brynmawr.edu...

My apologies for the post length restrictions. I'm sure you can find plenty more verifications of undersea volcanic activity in the area.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The heat comes from the sun, and the green house gases trap the heat, instead of it radiating back out to space.

I'm not going to go into much detail on how this works, but I will give an example.

Air that is 70 degree at the surface (atmospheric pressure) at 50% relative humidity has less latent heat than air that is 70 degrees with 100% relative humidity.

If you get up and move around in the 50%RH, the air will pull heat from your body, keeping it somewhat cool.

If you get up and move around in 100%RH, then the air will not pull heat from your body, and you will get hot, because nothing is removing the heat from your body.

This is what happens with greenhouse gases, except multiplied several times.

And the green house gases absorb by the ocean, have the same affect.

This is well established science.


edit on 23-6-2013 by poet1b because: typos



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


None of these articles state that the eruptions where currently occurring.

From your link and quote;


New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests that a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.


"Erupted", as having occurred in the past, in the 1990ties. None of these articles state that there are current ongoing eruptions.

Volcanic eruptions have been occurring in the oceans probably as long as the oceans have existed. This is nothing new or unusual, except for the way the eruption occurred.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Instead, these eruptions are slow, steady events that have apparently been happening for quite some time. Instead of a sudden explosion of lava and gases, it is a slow leak of lava and gasses, but enough of these slow leaks over a wide area over a prolonged period of time would raise water temperatures pretty much worldwide (as we have seen), air temperatures worldwide to a lesser degree (as we have seen), and more anomalous readings in the area affected, the Arctic (as we have seen).


If you have some proof that this is going on, you might have a point, but the very articles linked by eriktheawful tells about robots sent down to the area, and they do not report any ongoing eruptions, so this is not happening. In order for the eruptions to melt the ice on the surface, the heat produced by the eruptions must reach the surface, but the deep cold waters of the ocean absorb all the heat produced by the eruptions, an it never reaches the surface.





Emphasis in your quote by me.

The articles I linked are 5 years old. Circa 2008.

Not all of the Arctic Ocean floor has been explored. Only a small percentage.

The Earth is a geologically active planet. At any given time we have volcanoes starting to erupt and ending an eruption event.

The reason I highlighted your quote is: because the eruption that they found took place a while ago, and isn't currently active, and only in that one area, you are saying that what Redneck proposed can't be happening.....

Making that statement is the same as declaring the entire Sahara Desert a tropical place, because the one place you looked was in the middle of an oasis.

What they need to do is take a look in other areas and explore, not dismiss it out of hand because of only looking in one place.

I'm not saying that finding more volcanoes and showing that they are melting the Arctic ice pack debunks AGW. What I am saying is that when we look at complex things like climate and climate change, we can't just ignore or dismiss things that might be natural in cause and not human in cause. Doing so is just flat out wrong.

It's like finding a tree that died and we find that someone had dumped motor oil or gasoline around the tree, and that killed it. We then turn around and declare that humans are the cause of all trees that die. It's a very arrogant statement and is on par with declaring the Earth the only planet in the universe that has life.

I have no doubt that humans have an effect on our planet. However I also know that the planet has things that effect it too. And sometimes, I bet if we looked hard enough, we would find both humans and nature can have an effect at the same time.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Here's a nice graphic... notice how the temperature anomalies are localized?


Very interesting idea TheRedneck, thanks for your posts, I've learned a lot.

Another thing that may possibly help support the your idea is this map of ocean current showing the Beaufort Gyre, which is a not quite circular current but the point is since it loops back on itself, it's not as prone to mixing with other ocean water, so this seems like a region which might be capable of retaining excess heat from the volcanoes due to the current pattern not mixing so much. And from the temperature anomaly map in your post, doesn't it seem like there is some alignment between this gyre and the temperature anomalies (especially in 2007)?

www.windows2universe.org...


This image shows the movement of water in the Arctic Ocean. Blue arrows show cold, relatively fresh water and red arrows show warm, salty water that has entered the system from the North Atlantic. The image also shows the prominent Beaufort gyre which has been an area of great scientific research in the last decade.

Someone had objected before to your idea because of the ocean water mixing and dissipating the excess temperature, so I thought this was interesting as a possible reason why that might not be the case.


edit on 23-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Whoops!
edit on 23-6-2013 by wehavenoclue because: my points were moot, as I incorrectly assumed the studies were recent. they are not.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



Making that statement is the same as declaring the entire Sahara Desert a tropical place, because the one place you looked was in the middle of an oasis.


Ah, but this is exactly what you and The Redneck are doing.

They found the evidence of a volcanic eruption because instruments detected earthquakes in the area.

Back to my original point, no evidence of volcanic eruptions since then, over a decade now. Meanwhile the Arctic region has continued to accelerate in heating up.

This is very solid evidence that that warming is not caused by volcanic eruptions.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



Making that statement is the same as declaring the entire Sahara Desert a tropical place, because the one place you looked was in the middle of an oasis.


Ah, but this is exactly what you and The Redneck are doing.

They found the evidence of a volcanic eruption because instruments detected earthquakes in the area.

Back to my original point, no evidence of volcanic eruptions since then, over a decade now. Meanwhile the Arctic region has continued to accelerate in heating up.

This is very solid evidence that that warming is not caused by volcanic eruptions.



No it's not the same.

I (me at least) am saying that it should be looked at........not dismissed out of hand, which is what you are doing.

How many seismic sensors are laying on the Arctic ocean floor?
How many exploratory teams are up there and looking?
An explosive eruption in one specific area happened in the late 1990's and was not discovered until almost 10 years later......

Over 5 million square miles, and it is not being all looked at 24/7.

The evidence is not overwhelming I'm afraid. It's what you are choosing to believe, and that's the problem. There is no evidence that says it is NOT happening. Lack of looking and finding things does not mean it's not there to find, and should be dismissed.

That's just bad science.

If they look, and find NO evidence at all that this is happening, then you would have your evidence that it's not. But not before that.

Until then, Redneck (and many others if you search the web on this) theory about this is just as valid a theory as AGW.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

If you get you and move around in the 50%RH, the air will pull heat from your body, keeping it somewhat cool.

If you get up and move around in 100%RH, then the air will not pull any heat from your body, and you will get hot, because nothing is removing the heat from your body.



All these years I thought that temperature flowed from warm to cold with a rate based on temperature difference and insulation values... wow...

Yeah, that was a poke. But it was a deserved poke, and here's why: you just described evaporational cooling, which is completely irrelevant in the field of global temperatures. Water molecules on the skin (sweat) pulls heat energy from other molecules of water through random transfers of kinetic energy and will eventually raise the energy of that molecule enough to allow it to escape the attractive forces holding the water together as a liquid. When it does this, it escapes into air, assuming the air id not saturated, and leaves cooler molecules intact. The effect is to separate hotter and colder molecules through evaporation and thus cool the body by absorption of the water into the air.

The planet does not cool that way. The planet receives approximately 1400-1500 watts of energy per square meter from the sun, distributed across the lit surface according to the normal plane of the sun. Some of this energy is reflected by clouds, with the remaining energy hitting the surface. Some of that is reflected (albedo) while the rest is absorbed and converted into heat energy. Since the surface of the planet is warm, it radiates energy into space in electromagnetic waves, the frequency of which is dictated by physics. If those waves intercept a molecule of gas which has an absorption spectrum that coincides with the wave frequency, that wave is absorbed and then re-emitted in a random direction. A small percentage is also reflected back to the earth by cloud cover. The rest escapes into space, carrying energy with it.

The three most important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are, in order of efficiency, water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide. CO2 is far behind methane in efficiency, and methane is far behind water vapor in efficiency.

In order of abundance in the atmosphere, and therefore in order of potential to trap heat of coincident frequency, water vapor is present in orders of magnitude more than carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is still a few hundred times more abundant than methane.

Heat can also be introduced from tectonic activity and radiation from radioactive elements in the crust. We are still studying tectonic mechanisms and learning more about the contribution to climate made by these forces.

THAT's how it works.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

Let's see if I can explain this a little more on the layman level.... no offense intended.

Say we both walk up to a forest and see the remains of a decaying rabbit. I make the assumption that since there was a rabbit here and i have not explored the forest, there is a high probability that there are rabbits living in the forest. You conclude that since the rabbit is dead, there are no more rabbits here; they must all be dead.

Who just made the more reasonable conclusion?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur

You're very welcome!

Looking at those two images side by side, I do see the area of temperature anomalies seems to be in an area which does not have unrestricted inflow and outflow to other oceanic bodies... and that would indicate the possibility of a more or less closed system in regard to heat transfer. It also coincides very well with the oblong instead of circular heat patterns.

In fairness, I have come across suggestions that the Arctic inflow is increasing in temperature, and the same closed system could be used to support that idea as well. I really haven't had time to research that idea, but it flies in the face of the last reports I heard on the state of the Gulf Stream.

You may well be on to something. Good show! Sometimes a fresh set of eyes can see things older eyes tend to miss.



TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I do appreciate theories and conjecture from my peers here at ATS however when it comes to science I hold the opinions of those in that field of study and scientific peer reviewed articles much higher.

Keeping that in mind can the theory presented here by ATS members about volcanos being the souce of arctic melt be substantiated by scientists in the field?



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi

Investigations are still apparently ongoing.

Originally posted by TheRedneckLooks like some scientists think it's at least worth exploring...

Two Bryn Mawr students will have the chance to join Geology Lecturer Lynne Elkins on a trip to the waters north of Iceland next summer as Elkins and her fellow researchers try to better understand volcanic activity in the area. The researchers plan to explore the mechanisms driving the production of new ocean crust occurring at volcanic mid-ocean ridges like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the Arctic Ocean, and also to help explain anomalous volcanic activity occurring in the region.
Source: news.brynmawr.edu...
H opefully we'll have scientific review soon. I'm sure this is only one of several groups trying to fond out what's down there.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I suggest you look up latent heat. It is also a part of the equation. Do you realize relative humidity effects how much the air will cool through evaporation?

The effect of humidity in the air is not the same process that the Earth cools, but I thought it makes a good example.

If you want a better explanation, here is a decent link.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

This is well established science, the only question is if the greenhouse gas levels are enough to create the global climate change we are seeing.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Here is my interpretation.

There is a smell in the air, so we walk into the forest to investigate.

We walk into the forest and see a dead rabbit.

I conclude that we have found a dead rabbit.

You conclude that there must be numerous dead rabbits in the forest stinking up the place. (A volcanic eruption was discovered, and you claim there are numerous ongoing eruptions melting the ice.)

If more evidence that there were continuing volcanic eruptions had been discovered, I imagine they would have been investigated, or at least reported.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

The atmosphere does not cool through evaporation. Evaporational cooling involves the transfer of heat energy from one object or mass to another via evaporation. What is the atmosphere transferring heat into? The best you can do is show how one air mass can transfer heat into another... not relevant to global temperatures

You do realize I am certified as a Professional Tutor in physics... I know what latent heat is.

Now can we please get back to the Arctic ice? I'm not really in the mood to tutor today...

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join