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

reply to post by poet1b

You are really grasping at straws here...

I present proof of recent volcanic activity. I state that indicates the possibility there are more volcanoes that are yet to be discovered which could easily be active.
You state that since the volcanic activity is only recent and not currently erupting, there are no active volcanoes.

Those are the statements that have been made. Now you wish to twist this around in a metaphor?

Please...

Prove to me there are no volcanoes erupting underneath the Arctic ice sheet. So far I have been providing evidence and you have been dismissing it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


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.

The oil companies would be eager to support them.

reply to post by TheRedneck

You state that since the volcanic activity is only recent and not currently erupting, there are no active volcanoes.

Where do I state this? Please provide a link and a quote.

Do you realize that there is a difference between volcanic activity and volcanic eruptions? Clearly there is volcanic activity, but no reports of eruptions since the 1990ies.

You are the one clutching at straws.

reply to post by eriktheawful


From what I got out of the articles, seismic disturbances were discovered, so an expedition was made to investigate. It took years to put this thing together, must have cost a bunch of money.

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.

reply to post by poet1b

Let's get this consolidated, shall we?

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.

Yes, it is being investigated by geologists. I can only hope climatologists will eventually figure out that volcanic activity is hot.

Be patient; not all scientists publish incomplete works. That is typically only accepted in the field of climatology.

Where do I state this? Please provide a link and a quote.

Link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

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?

Oh, so you are pleading semantics? Very well... I will admit to being somewhat imprecise and using the word "eruption" when the word "activity" would be more appropriate. Does that discount my hypothesis or strengthen yours?

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.

Usually the holdup is a lack of funding. So much for those pokes about oil companies financing expeditions, eh?

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.

OK, then I would like your explanation of how a planetary-wide effect is being concentrated in small localized areas. Remember this image?

That's localized. How is the heat being concentrated?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

That's localized. How is the heat being concentrated?

Ocean Currents and wind for a couple.
i51.tinypic.com...

Water from the North Pacific enters the Bering Strait.

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.

psc.apl.washington.edu...

reply to post by Phage

Well, hello Phage! Long time no see; I hope you are well.

Those are some pretty severe winds to affect water temps to such an extent. The anomalies are in excess of 2.5 C. While possible, I would think there would be some report of a wind pattern shift that accompanied the accelerated melt. I know of none, but maybe I overlooked it?

The area in which this anomaly is located is not exactly open to most outside currents. Arbitrageur posted this pic earlier which shows the oceanic currents in the area. I simply do not see a lot of potential for import of heat in the area of the anomalies. Do you?


(You edited while I was typing... reviewing your link)

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I never claimed the Earth cooled through evaporation. You keep claiming I have posted statements, that I have not posted. I used the RH example because it is something most people are aware of. You didn't seem to want to include latent heat into the picture, which is the important part of the issue.

No, I did not know you tutored physics. Maybe I have this wrong, but 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?

Here is a great link I found on the subject on the history of the study of green house gases and their effect on climate.

www.aip.org...

Here is a good article on how greenhouse gases warm the ocean.

www.skepticalscience.com...

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.

This article on a study backs up the claim that greenhouse gases are causing the oceans to heat up.

www.globalpost.com...

I'm not sure what the basis of your skepticism is, but the evidence is against you.

reply to post by TheRedneck

The area in which this anomaly is located is not exactly open to most outside currents.

Except for the Bering Strait.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I'm pretty sure most climatologist know volcanos are hot.

Semantics?

There is a huge difference between volcanic activity, and eruptions. Yellowstone is active, but it is not erupting?

Yeah, it discounts your hypothesis.

Oil companies are only willing to financially back scientists who report what they want reported, so legitimate scientists have a harder time finding funds.

As far as your image goes it was put out by a junk science blog that reads like it was written by a high school kid. Got any links that provide information on what this image captures? I wouldn't call that localized. Look at the current map, and you will find your answer. Warning currents from the Atlantic cause the ice to melt.

reply to post by poet1b

I never claimed...

I'm getting a little tired of referencing your own posts. Anyone who wishes to know what you claimed can look it up easily enough.

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?

My position is as follows:

I do not believe there is insufficient evidence to make the assumption that present or reasonably anticipated future carbon dioxide levels are sufficient to have a catastrophic effect on Earth's climate. I believe the IPCC and associated researchers have falsified documents, tampered with models, and selectively cherry-picked data sets in order to promote the present theories in order to allow governmental bodies to profit from use of fossil fuels. I base this belief on the number of improper actions that have been reported, the number of measurements taken from out-of-tolerance measuring stations, and the amount of secrecy which has surrounded the science. Taken together, this indicates the information presented to support Anthropogenic Global Warming is inaccurate and the claims are unsubstantiated.

I do accept that carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and other gases with correct absorption characteristics can under proper conditions act as in the greenhouse gas theory. I believe this is a natural part of the Earth's ecosystem. I also entertain the possibility, however slight, that man-made emissions may have some impact on the overall climate, and I attempt to keep an open mind when evidence suggests this.

That is my position.

(Still reading, Phage. As usual, you present good evidence.)

TheRedneck

reply to post by Phage

Correct.

A very intriguing article that does purport to show an influx of heat energy. I will have to admit that this may indeed be at least partially responsible for the melt acceleration.

Sometime in the past, I was studying this very subject and came across a source of photos that could be downloaded by date. If I can find that (one of my personal demons is that I tend to store way way too much data and sometimes have issues with locating a particular piece), I will take a look and see if the influx matches the more recent anomalies.

TheRedneck

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.

How does one prepare for an atmosphere choked off by methane? We should be digging it up while it's still ice and shoot it off to Titan. I know, I know, wishful thinking.

reply to post by TheRedneck


You should stop misquoting me, and claiming that I have made claims which I did not make.

I believe all too many people believe what they want to believe, and ignore that which proves them wrong.

There is no profit to be made from Global Warming studies. The government is controlled by the oil companies who are ran by people blinded by greed among other things, who only see profit and don't care about the consequences.

It is starting to become my opinion that we have reached a tipping point, where global warming has become self sustaining, and that it can not be reversed even if we suddenly reverted to the stone age, so it really doesn't matter what is causing GW.

Those who want to bury their heads in the sand, go ahead.

This thread is for those who intend to keep on top of things as they unfold, so they can make changes as needed.

reply to post by jiggerj


On positive note, I have read the there are efforts to harvest the methane hydrates, Maybe some sort of harvester could be develop to capture the methane hydrates. Drop down a harvester towed by a ship, and maybe solve our ongoing energy crisis. I think Japan is working on such an idea.

If global warming could be controlled, this could be a good thing. We just need to get enough people on board with the idea to gain the political will to make such a thing happen. If enough people were to wake up to the reality of our current situation.

reply to post by poet1b

Where did I misquote you? I provided links to everything I have claimed. All of your previous posts are there for anyone who wishes to see.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Phage

OK, finished reading and researching...

The report you linked does indicate that there is some warming taking place due to an influx of warmer than normal water from the Pacific. I cannot deny the observations made, and it would be foolish to think that this additional heat energy would not contribute, probably significantly, to the melting.

In short, I agree with your assessment. Oceanic currents are responsible for some of the melt.

I also cannot completely assign the sea temperature anomalies to the influx. It appears to me we have multiple conditions responsible, the "perfect storm" if you will. The evidence for volcanic activity still exists and coincides too closely with the localized anomalies and anomalous gas readings to be completely discounted.

My new position: something has upset oceanic current conditions and in combination with volcanic activity underneath the ice sheet is causing the melt.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Before I begin I will say that I am math challenged (diagnosed learning disability) and I get almost downright panicked when I see numbers and letters mixed together, you'll find me on the ceiling if you throw math symbols at me. However, what I am good at is reading and interpretation, Long story short, if an equation comes with an english interpretation, I understand it decently enough. I mention this because I noted your post in which you stated you tutor physics and because later in the post I'll be talking about your previous mentioning of Co2 being too narrow to absorb LR.

The last couple of pages of this thread talked some about logical conclusions which is what prompted me to respond to your last post. You said:

My new position: something has upset oceanic current conditions and in combination with volcanic activity underneath the ice sheet is causing the melt.

Temperature changes in the ocean affect the currents. In the arctic we have voluminous amounts of melted ice (very cold, fresh water) pouring into the ocean. If you haven't seen Chasing Ice (which is now on NetFlix) you absolutely should if you want visual confirmation that there are literal rivers flowing off the ice and into the ocean (it's also a very inspiring personal story of the man driven to document it all on film despite physical hardships), on top of all that it is visually stunning despite the implications.

Everywhere else in the world we have warming oceans affecting currents. What is the logical conclusion to the question of why are all of the oceans warming simultaneously and recently? Warming has been observed to depths of 700 meters, where is that heat coming from? The sun isn't putting out more energy which we also know from observation, yet clearly that energy is coming from the sun, at least initially. What's changed between the water and the sun?

In a thread we both commented on earlier, the OP talked about a study that had been conducted by scientists with the MET Office in which a correlation between anthropogenic aerosol reduction and an increase in more intense, more frequent tropical weather was found. We know that aerosols act as 'mirrors' redirecting that energy back into space, we also know they rise higher than the denser GHG's. Having more aerosols up there lead to cooler water, less has lead to warmer water, so obviously the sun is major factor in ocean temperature. So if the sun isn't stronger and there are less aerosols to 'reflect' the incoming energy, why are the oceans warming to higher temperatures than prior to anthropogenic aerosol introduction?

My logical conclusion (based on other knowns as well) is that the energy bouncing off the planet is getting absorbed and redirected back to earth by GHG's, warming the oceans and everything else.

So about the Co2 thing I mentioned earlier, here's an article with lots of links to studies claiming empirical evidence on how the increase of Co2 causes the planet to warm. I hope to read your thoughts later.

reply to post by Kali74

OK, I'll try to describe the physics in English (as best as I can; I am more mathematical myself) and then compare that to the article you link.

All materials absorb specific ranges of frequencies of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. Materials will not absorb EM radiation outside of these frequency bands. You can beam a billion watts of power at a material that does not have the same frequency band of absorption as the energy beamed, and it will pass right through it like sunlight through a clear glass window. If the material has the same absorption frequency as the frequency of energy hitting it, it absorbs it, like sunlight on a black rock.

We use this all the time to find out what stars are made of... each material also emits specific frequencies, usually the same frequencies it absorbs. We look at the light coming from stars, break it down into its individual parts, and we can match those parts up with what material emits what frequencies.

I need to switch between frequency and wavelength here, so hold on... the two are related. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength, and vice versa.

Everything in the Universe that has heat also radiates energy, and the wavelength of that energy is determined by how hot that thing is. There is an equation for calculating this you can look up, called Wien's displacement law. This gives the wavelength of the most energy coming from the body. The energy will cover a fairly wide band of wavelengths, but this will effectively be the center or main wavelength; the farther you get from that main wavelength, the less energy is emitted. The average temperature of the planet is -18.8 C, so the energy radiated from the earth is centered around 11.4 micrometers wavelength.

For a range, consider the warmest and coldest temperatures ever recorded: -89.2 C and 57 C. These give a main wavelength of 15.6 and 8.5 micrometers, respectively. So the majority of the energy radiated is going to be between these wavelengths

Carbon dioxide has three main absorption bands, at wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. The 4.3 micrometer band is what is responsible for the runaway global warming on Venus... it radiates a lot of energy at that wavelength which gets absorbed and re-emitted back to the planet. On Earth, the energy band of carbon dioxide closest to the energy radiated is 15 micrometers. That is within the band we established earlier, corresponding to the coldest temperatures ever recorded, but a long way from the temperatures we consider 'normal'.

That means that carbon dioxide will act as a greenhouse gas to some extent, but not to a large extent. It also means the colder the planet gets, the more carbon dioxide will act as a greenhouse gas because the wavelength of the radiation from the earth gets closer to 15 micrometers. If the planet warms, the wavelength of the frequencies emitted get shorter and farther from 15 micrometers.

Carbon dioxide then acts like a negative feedback switch, warming the planet when it gets cool and letting heat escape more when it heats up.

Now, to the article you linked... the graphs are somewhat misleading. In the first one, it labels CO2 exactly where a huge band of frequencies is shown as having a dip, on the far left hand side. In reality, the CO2 absorption is a single line in that area. It then shows another CO2 where there is no change in the graph about midway across; there is no major CO2 absorption at that point! The other two bands are off the scale to the far right.

(the values at the bottom are another way to muddy the water... instead of using frequency or wavelength, they are using wavenumber, which is a rather confusing (IMO) method that keeps most people from realizing exactly what they are looking at. The wavenumbers of the CO2 absorption bands are 667, 2330, and 3700 waves per cm)

In the second graph, again at the left side, a similar situation exists. Look at that single line projecting down directly above the 'CO2' label... that is the absorption band, not the wide area of energy.

Whenever I see things like this which are purposely confusing, I immediately take everything else in the article as highly suspect. The simple fact is that it is no big deal to check the absorption bands of CO2 and compare them with the emission wavelengths of the planet. As it turns out, CO2 will provide some more warming in the Arctic than at the equator because of its absorption bands. But all CO2 can do is reflect energy back, and there is little solar energy there in the first place because it is at the pole. Also, we have discovered that one real culprit is the warmer then normal water from the Pacific, which is coming from closer to the equator and therefore less subject to CO2 greenhouse gas effects than the Arctic.

I hope that clears things up for you. If not, feel free to ask for a clarification.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I understood most of that previously. Here's what I was trying to point out; a response from a comment similar to yours just now, about manipulated data sums it up nicely IMO.

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).

From the comment section here

It seems Co2 in the atmosphere may not capture the entire band of the LR that it comes in contact with, but it absorbs the wavelengths that it can and the amount that it can't absorb continues on it's journey to space... like putting a bucket under a wide jet of water, some of the water goes in the bucket while the rest that's beyond the girth of the bucket continues on it's merry way. So what does get trapped by Co2 gets re-radiated back to earth and we're back to the original basis of the theory, that the more Co2 as well as other GHG's in the air... if it's continuously increasing like it has been, eventually becomes a forcing... which it did a while back.