Author Topic: General Climate Discussion  (Read 105657 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1260 on: January 20, 2008, 03:57:20 PM »
Hehe, I always scratch my head about the same people denying GW as a measured unit as well as promoting GW as a natural swing.
Ahhh, the humanity....and the records fall.....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1261 on: January 20, 2008, 06:44:24 PM »
Well, well, well. :rofl
Interesting wording indeed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive volcano exploded under Antarctic icesheet, study finds

Sun Jan 20, 1:43 PM ET

PARIS (AFP) - A powerful volcano erupted under the icesheet of West Antarctica around 2,000 years ago and it might still be active today, a finding that prompts questions about ice loss from the white continent, British scientists report on Sunday.

The explosive event -- rated "severe" to "cataclysmic" on an international scale of volcanic force -- punched a massive breach in the icesheet and spat out a plume some 12,000 metres (eight miles) into the sky, they calculate.

Most of Antarctica is seismically stable. But its western part lies on a rift in Earth's crust that gives rise to occasional volcanism and geothermal heat, occurring on the Antarctic coastal margins.

This is the first evidence for an eruption under the ice sheet itself -- the slab of frozen water, hundreds of metres (feet) thick in places, that holds most of the world's stock of fresh water.

Reporting in the journal Nature Geoscience, the investigators from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) describe the finding as "unique."

It extends the range of known volcanism in Antarctica by some 500 kilometres (300 miles) and raises the question whether this or other sub-glacial volcanoes may have melted so much ice that global sea levels were affected, they say.

The volcano, located in the Hudson Mountains, blew around 207 BC, plus or minus 240 years, according to their paper.

Evidence for this comes from a British-American airborne geophysical survey in 2004-5 that used radar to delve deep under the ice sheet to map the terrain beneath.

Vaughan's team spotted anomalous radar reflections over 23,000 square kilometres (8,900 sq. miles), an area bigger than Wales.

They interpret this signal as being a thick layer of ash, rock and glass, formed from fused silica, that the volcano spewed out in its fury.

The amount of material -- 0.31 cubic kilometres (0.07 cubic miles) -- indicates an eruption of between three and four on a yardstick called the Volcanic Explosive Index (VEI).

By comparison, the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, which was greater, rates a VEI of five, and that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 is a VEI of six.

"We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years," BAS' Hugh Corr says.

"It blew a substantial hole in the icesheet and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12 kms (eight miles) into the air."

The eruption occurred close to the massive Pine Island Glacier, an area where movement of glacial ice towards the sea has been accelerating alarmingly in recent decades.

"It may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration," says BAS professor David Vaughan, who stresses though that global warming is by far the greater likelier cause.

Volcanic heat "cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm (0.008 of an inch) per year to sea-level rise," he adds.

"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1262 on: January 20, 2008, 10:55:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MORAY37
Climates don't break records.

Individual events do.. and when there is a pile of records being broken, you can figure that your "climate" is changing. (Climate henceforth represented as the "mean" of individual statistics.)

Again...pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.


Or perhaps more information is being collected.

If it is 50C in the Sahara and no one is there to record it is it still hot?
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1263 on: January 21, 2008, 08:05:41 AM »
Jacka1, at it with the GW underwater volcanoes again?
Tell you what. Out of my window I can see a volcano, who's plume in a one nights eruption was already close to 14 km high.
If I turn my head, I see a glacier, under which there is a volcano, the sheet of Ice between them is 600 metres thick. When that one blows (and she's overdue), all that ice melts in a whiff! It's some 80 km's away, and from eruption untill the water is here (where I live) there are but 4 hours. So I am on an evac list. The water volume, although short-lived is furious, some 300.000 cubic metres per second.
Since this one in Antarctica didn't melt through recently, I wonder how you can explain recent rises in SL, melting on the N-hemisphere and also the sea-ice melting near Antarctica (look above where I posted links) with this.
However, this is interesting information.
BTW, we had an eruption in our biggest glacier some years back. The sheet was thick, but it got melted through all the same. When there was enough water there, the glacier "lifted" with the water passing under it to the coast. It was the biggest river on the planet at the time as far as I know, - for a day, or a couple. I will gladly post links to that.
You had 1000 tonnes icecubes floating around that mess as if they were made of cork!
The glacier has AFAIK some 7000 sq. km.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1264 on: January 21, 2008, 08:54:40 AM »
Angus, some of the studies of the thermohaline circulation system in the North Atlantic are showing some disturbing trends.

For the last four decades, the coastal waters of the North Atlantiac have been freshening.  Decreasing salinity levels have been detected to depths varying from 1,000 to 4,000 meters.  In the last ten years especially, the amount of fresh water detected in this region has grown alarmingly.

If the trend continues, which it gives every indication of doing, this increasing volume of fresh water threatens to form a cap over the warmer, more salty water being brought up from the Gulf Stream.  In that event, those warm, temperature moderating waters would subsume, and the northern circulatory ocean currents would shut down.  Such a change would cause temperatures in Northern Europe and the United States to drop by at least 5 degrees Celsius.

That drop of 15 degrees Fahrenheit or more would prove disastrous for the northern hemisphere, reducing the length of the growing season, and would increase not only the length of our winters but also the severity.

According to scientists studying this potential event, it could happen within a decade, in which case, the warming trend for Greenland and Iceland, your home digs, would come to an abrupt end.

The studies also suggest that global warming is exacerbating the problem, but the main cause cannot be determined.

By the by, during this current cold snap, temperatures for the entire U.S. are at least 10 degrees below normal.  Some areas have temperatures nearly 30 degrees lower than the average, and freezing temperatures can be found as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.

What's it doing in Europe?

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1265 on: January 21, 2008, 09:10:42 AM »
In Europe? Warming.
As for the salt levels, that is normal, for there is a lot of freshwater (from ice) melting together with the sea.
Although the melting of the sea ice does not raise SL, it certainly affects the salt levels!
Now, the sea ice, while being cooler than the ocean, still does not manage to cool the ocean.
I am aware of the possible change of the Gulf stream, and it has actually split up like once. That would make my home pitch into a tundra in one go :(
In the meantime you have other parts warming, as well as the tropical areas (belts) expanding.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1266 on: January 21, 2008, 10:33:53 AM »
geeze moray..   of course climate changes..  it always has... there is no norm.   There is nothing normal about climate or weather.   There is nothing normal about climate change.  this is no different than other times.   There is no such thing as a "normal" rate of climate change.   We haven't even tracked it for long enough to know... some alarmists like mann... don't believe in the little ice age or medievel warm period even... most do..  Those were rapid climate changes and they were completely natural.

angus... there you go again..   it is warming cause it is warmer where you live.   Why is it local when it is the entire North American continent but "global" when it is greenland?

Fact is..  for good or bad..  it is going to be hard to sell people on "man made global warming" and the need to tax us into oblivion and add another buck or two onto the heating oil they use when they are freezing.

Fact is.. more and more scientists are saying it is BS and that it is natural or that at least.. the co2 hoax is just that..  reducing co2 will have little or no effect.. most of the effect of a doubling of co2 has already happened.    Nothing bad has happened..  we are doing fine..  better than fine.. we are better off a degree of two warmer than a degree of two colder than their "average".

lazs

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1267 on: January 21, 2008, 11:44:43 AM »
Greenland probably holds more energy bound in ice than the USA.
The Oceans hold more energy than the atmosphere. The world Ice holds more mass than the atmosphere.
The North Atlantic is very much bigger than the USA.
USA = local.

However, a degree or two as a plus suits me (in my local area) just fine :D

p.s. make up your mind wether it's warming or not.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1268 on: January 21, 2008, 12:03:34 PM »
angus.. I have said that we are in a warming period and that it is a good thing.

It may have warmed a whole 0.4 degrees in the last century.. this is well below the margin of error.   We simply don't know everything about it.

In some places.. where real accurate data is taken.. there has been no real warming in decades.    

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

again... don't believe me.. read what these experts in the field are saying.. many of whom were involved in the original study..

Many give algore credit for being such a liar and a blowhard that they had to speak out.

read it.. only a page or two.  Follow the links if you want or the reference sitings all of it is peer reviewed as moray likes to say.

lazs

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1269 on: January 21, 2008, 03:41:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Jacka1, at it with the GW underwater volcanoes again?


You mean the ones you denied existed earlier? :)

I didn`t write the article. I didn`t do the research. I didn`t release the results.
The guys you build shrines to did.......................... .2000 years after the fact.
The wording is what I found interesting. The same old "maybe/maybe not - could be/could not be - possibly/possibly not" BS.
It`s called CYA here.
Possibly in another thousand to two thousand years they might actualy have a clue about what they are doing and discussing without having to try to sell BS for facts. These cats remind me of a bunch of second rate Electrolux salesmen.

Then again....possibly not. :rofl
« Last Edit: January 21, 2008, 03:48:55 PM by Jackal1 »
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1270 on: January 22, 2008, 03:01:52 AM »
Lazs:
"angus.. I have said that we are in a warming period and that it is a good thing. "
And in the next sentence you refer to the possible warming as being within a measurable margin of error....
But indeed, it's a good thing for me, but not everybody else....
Anyway, there is nothing in a "marginal" scale occuring on the arctic areas, and although Jacka1 tries to explain that with undersea volcanoes I think that is nonsense. BTW, I do not deny underseas volcanoes, - I practically live on top of one- but them melting the arctic Ice as well as warming the sea in the last sudden 30 years or so, - I rather think not. Especially when they don't get spotted so easily. Here's a picture of one that I can see out of my window. It was underwater untill it reached the surface. That was in 1963 if I remember correctly...
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1271 on: January 22, 2008, 03:49:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
[B
Anyway, there is nothing in a "marginal" scale occuring on the arctic areas, and although Jacka1 tries to explain that with undersea volcanoes I think that is nonsense. [/IMG] [/B]


:rofl  No Jackal doesn`t try to explain that..
Once again, it`s not my article or research. It`s your  heroes.
I hardly ever try to explain scams with smoke and mirrors.
What it does point out, however, is the CYA factor. I don`t think you are getting that.
Since the bandwagon is falling out from under the promoters of this crap, most are trying to find an out so they will have at least an out .--------->CYA
It also shows that some people are thinking for a change and want answers, real answers instead of some half baked shell game for money.
People are seeing just how much has not been factored in and how little is known on the subject in general.
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1272 on: January 22, 2008, 04:24:13 AM »
Source?
Most of the "heroes" I read from seem to blame GW on greenhouse effect.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1273 on: January 22, 2008, 10:06:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Greenland probably holds more energy bound in ice than the USA.
The Oceans hold more energy than the atmosphere. The world Ice holds more mass than the atmosphere.
The North Atlantic is very much bigger than the USA.
USA = local.
 


By the same logic, Antarctica holds 10 times the energy bound up as ice as Greenland.

So Greenland = local?
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: General Climate Discussion
« Reply #1274 on: January 22, 2008, 10:56:05 AM »
Local about 6 metres of SL...globally :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)