It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You state that since the volcanic activity is only recent and not currently erupting, there are no active volcanoes.
In other words, volcanic activity is being study in the Arctic on a continuous basis.
None of the scientist engaged in these studies believe that volcanic activity in the Arctic is responsible for the melting of the Arctic ice. If those scientist believed such a thing, they would certainly be publishing their work.
Where do I state this? Please provide a link and a quote.
Originally posted by poet1b
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.
Do you realize that there is a difference between volcanic activity and volcanic eruptions?
If they were able to detect the eruption in the early nineties, I am sure they are able to continue to monitor the area for more eruption. Being that the ice has receded so far, it is easier to go up there and place instruments now.
I don't claim that there is absolutely no possibility that volcanic activity could be warming the Earth, or even melting the Arctic ice, but I think it is a very slight possibility. Most of the evidence, I would say the lion's share, points to greenhouse gas increases.
Ocean Currents and wind for a couple.
That's localized. How is the heat being concentrated?
Mooring data indicate the Bering Strait throughflow increases ~50% from 2001 (~0.7Sv) to 2011 (~1.1Sv), driving heat and freshwater flux increases. Increase in the Pacific-Arctic pressure-head explains two-thirds of the change, the rest being attributable to weaker local winds.
Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to the atmosphere. One way to think about this is to compare the gradient (steepness) of a flowing river - water flows faster the steeper the river becomes, but slows as the steepness decreases.
The same concept applies to the cool skin layer - warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean.
I never claimed...
it seems to me that you claim that greenhouse gases can not cause global warming, that they do not trap heat from the sun, and keep it from RADIATING back out into space. Is this correct?
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by rickymouse
It is hard to imagine how this is all going to go down.
At this point the debate about whether or not this is happening is a waste of time.
Now is the time to start preparing.
My new position: something has upset oceanic current conditions and in combination with volcanic activity underneath the ice sheet is causing the melt.
Response: Harries 2001 does look at the full infrared spectrum except for wavelengths less than 700nm (which happens to be where a large portion of the CO2 absorption occurs). The observed changes in the spectrum from 1970 to 2006 are consistent with theoretical expectations. As the atmosphere warms, more infrared radiation is radiated to space. However, less infrared radiation escapes at CO2 wavelengths. The net effect is that less total radiation escapes out to space.
This is independently confirmed by surface measurements which find the net result is more longwave radiation returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006). It's also confirmed by ocean heat measurements which find the oceans have been accumulating heat since 1950 (Murphy 2009).