SLH, stop it. Please. Your numbers in regards to heat flux are a wild distortion that is a total distraction from this. That number takes into account the entire surface of the globe. In the process, it eliminates isolated area's like this. The only areas where there is true interaction is in zones of tectonic instability. Using THE ENTIRE GLOBE to achieve an "average" heat flux is ridiculously stupid at any scientific level. A more telling description would be heat flux over the tectonic zone in comparison to that number. There's no sense in taking into account the vast majority of the land on earth that isn't pulling itself apart.

Your number is trying to paint the picture that volcanoes in a concentrated area do not emit as much heat per square foot as radiative heat incoming into earth. It's absolutely positively disengenous.

A hot square metal plate sitting in the sun itself will give off more heat flux than the average radiative heat flux coming into earth. It's just stupid. And the fact that you posted that useless statistic is very telling.



People who dispute global warming theories don't get published. People who publish these journals don't sell journals or get articles published further unless they are selling doom and gloom. These people hedge their lives on this bullshit. People have their scientific careers ended, and don't get published if they disent. You can't get research grants if you disent. The whole "science" is bogus. Particularly when you are talking about a paper that tries to use radiative heat flux vs average global heat output from volcanoes to say that volcanoes do not have a local impact on sea ice.



I'm not. I'm criticizing the notion based on what I know from hundreds of hours of class room instruction and hundreds of hours of homework which tells me...an event like this can most certainly have a potential impact on sea ice.



No you haven't. Because if you had, you wouldn't be posting this bogus shit. If you've taken a fluids class, then help out and you tell me what the required energy MUST have been to result in an exploding volcanoe the size of Pompie. that will greatly help in my math. If you've taken Thermo, then how the hell can you possibly sit here and tell me that an absolutely massive, immense energy being released instantaneously would categorically have no impact on sea melt. Seriously.

Hey, DUNCE, did you not see this from earlier?



You get like, one chance to maybe have some intelligent input into a thread but instead you spend the time insulting and us insulting scientists who've made it their life studying mountains of data regarding subjects which you have barely more than an infantile grasp on. And you've still proved nothing. Way to go champ.

Perhaps it's time to rethink your approach.

this has nothing to do with scientific dogma, as you put it before. science is the antithesis of dogma. if the science was there, it would be published. that's that. this is why articles supporting intelligent design don't get published in scientific journals: not because scientists are anti-religious, but because it's not science (or good science). the facts don't support the theory. if the science was rock solid, it would be published.

also, it takes a long time -- perhaps years -- to get something published in a peer-reviewed journal. you don’t simply get published. scientists review it over and over, scrutinizing every find, tearing you to shreds. getting something published in a truly scientific, respected peer-reviewed journal is an honor, and a feat. for you to take down every scientist who has published a peer-reviewed article supporting the current climate change model is quite shocking, i say.

moreover, dissent is only good if the science behind it works. in our current state, dissenters must not only prove the currently accepted climate change model is wrong, but also prove there is no other explanation for climate change than merely earth's natural changes.

How many times does the "science" need to blown out of the water? Ya know, it's funny, back in the day, science was regarded as a Law. The Law's of Thermodynamics. The Law's of Motions. Even theories. The Theory of Evolution. Global warming science is such junk science at this point that it's not even a theory, much less a law, which is why it's peddled on the notion of "consensus." Global Warming crap has been being published for twenty years. For twenty years this crap has been forwarding a political agenda. And for twenty years, the press releases that have built the political agenda have been progressively blown out of the water. Doom and gloom makes the front page. Worst case scenarios drive global politics. Anything condradictory to the status quo is brushed aside. Detractors, who use science mind you, are summarily branded as "nutjobs." Amazing isn't it? If you produce a study that proves global warming, you are scientist. Even in this crowd. If you detract, you are instantly branded a nutjob. And you say it can't possibly be dogma?! Gimme a break.



And the IPCC didn't just come up with a bogus chart that showed exploding heat growth...



Tearing me to shreds? Perhaps you should take a look at the IPCC studies that have been obliterated over progressive years as we continue to learn more, and find out new factors that contribute to the balance of earths overall temperature. I mean, you are going on and on about people who produced climate models with static output from the sun. These are the people you are glorifying. These are the people peer-reviewing THEMSELVES and getting published. Think about it.



I'm not taking down every scientist. I'm saying that there is bad science within the system. I'm saying that the system is distorted in one direction.



You let me know when your scientists are able to do that first.

I can't help but notice you haven't posted even the beginning to your information, LW. I know, it's only been about 3 hours, but I'm genuinely curious. Stop getting in pissing matches and share...it's like the education thread, my man...I really, honestly want to know. I'm not going to skim and guess, or dismiss. I don't care for opinions that aren't supported, in myself or others, and I'd like all the info I can get.

For the record, I am spending my kid's nap looking up any and all articles about submarine volcanoes, fissures, and oceanic warming...only accepting articles that are completely unrelated to global warming, LW, so as to avoid bias.

I did find this image of the area in question for this particular site, though.



I also noted that the area is more than 3,000 meters below sea level, about 17% deeper than a 1989 mass area eruption in the East Pacific Rise which documented no change in surface temperature.

I also am reading about the Gorda Ridge eruption off the coast of Canada in 1996, where the surface temperature anomaly image looks like this:



That's a map of the entire area affected, and you can see that at the worst of it this powerful eruption effected surface temperatures by .1 degree Celsius.

So I'm doing my best to learn what I can. Any help is welcome.

I spent my three hours in a circuits lab, and commuting home, to my place way outside of the city. Oh the shame. If I'm going to crack the lid on this, it's not going to get done until Friday. I have way to much to get done right now.

I'll keep checking in. Any thoughts on the stuff above?

i'm lost here. science was regarded as laws? laws and theories are based on observations.



dogma is being unopen to any argument on your belief. that something is completely indisputable. we could say that no worthy scientist doesn't accept evolution. and what i'm basically asking you to do here is find the remains of a 3-billion-year-old horse.

c_b, if this thread has shown us anything these last few pages, it's that LW will never get around to answering my REQUEST if he has the chance to ARGUE with you instead. Is our goal to gather information, or to fight?

sorry

Sure, you need to keep in mind that these volcanoes are not like the volcano you posted. I have read that these volcanoes triggered the largest outbreak of earthquake activity in the entirety of history. I've read that these volcanoes are much larger than anything that's ever been recorded, and that if they had occured on land, it would have been a total catastrophe. So, you are probably looking at MAGNITUDES higher. I've read that in just the initial explosion that matter was immediately shot up 2KM into the ocean. And that they presume the gas vents from these volcanoes were shooting superheated gases into the ocean at 500 meters per second. Try and put that into perspective of your 4KM depth. Also, I believe that these volcanoes occurred right in the middle of the ice sheet. So I don't think it's reasonable to say that the heat was transported out from under it. I seriously see no way of reaching the conclusion that this didn't have an effect on icemelt. Particularly when global warming fundies have been saying how just the slightest rise in temperatures can melt a bazillion square miles of ice in a day and a half.

If I end up doing hardcore math on this crap, there's a lot of factors, and I really don't know what is going to be safe assumptions and what isn't. What I might end up doing is doing a best case/worst case scenario. I'm really happy now that I'm taking the oceanography class because I imagine my book is gonna have some helpful information in it to be applied with everything else.

But again, you need to keep in mind that this is an unprecedented geological event.



Laws are not really based on observation. If I watch you push a heavy box, I can say that your force causes movement. But I certainly cannot establish the relationship that F = MA. If I watch you playing pool, and see your que ball go off at the same angle, and observe the que go slower after hitting the 8 ball, I cannot arrive at the law of equal and opposite reaction forces. I cannot arrive at conservation of momentum. It cannot conclude that angle of incidence with the ball will equal the angle of refraction. I can light a fire under an icebath, but I cannot conclude shit from watching it...other than the heat it generates eventually will melt the ice. The only way I can generate a law is if I take measurements of the temperature of the water. Only then can I draw a meaningful conclusion from it.

Global warming is still in a formulation phase...at best. Observations have been made, deductions have been made, but it's still not even a theory, let alone any sort of certain law. Global Warming is in the infantile stages of the scientific method. Al Gores shitty movie proves that.



Again, look within yourself. Examine how this is being peddled. Examine how one sided the news on global warming is. Examine how detractors are literally shut out every step of the way. In publishing circles, in universities, out of government grants and funding. In regards to Iraq, you guys say, doom and gloom sells. Well guess what, doom and gloom sells newspaper ads. You're never EVER going to read the article that says, "Expert says global warming not so bad." Nope, you will read, "Global Warming Predicted to be Worse than Ever!"
You guys are the ones who are firm in your belief that global warming IS happening. I mean, it's happening right? And I suppose I won't dispute that. It would seem that the globe is warming. But the question that it is because of humanity? That's where I begin to draw the line, and I'll continue to maintain that we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion either way. And I will continue to hold the belief that until we know all of its contributing factors and the positive and negative feedback loops that humanity creates by our existance, that we cannot draw any sort of conclusion. There's too much that we don't understand to even begin saying that there's a scientific consensus.

Regardless of your views on science, religion, and philosophy, do any of you above think it is important to clean up after yourselves, to try and limit wastefulness and to reduce your impact on your surroundings?

If so, that is all well and good for you. It is your choice. If it is something you truly believe in, you can set a good example for others to follow. You would be wise to market your idea as one that everyone should choose as the easiest and best choice. However, you cannot force others to do the same if they do not hold climate change and other green policies as near and dear to their hearts as you (i.e., government mandate). Forcing views upon others, whether they are environmental, religious, or social, goes against the very liberty you are entitled to.

If not, that is certainly your personal choice and you are entitled to make that decision. But beware of the consequences of your actions. If you are a believer in personal responsibility, you must already be aware that you are charged with the task of dealing with your surroundings once you have destroyed them. By making this choice, you willingly or unwillingly influence others to do the same, and though you are all free to make up your own minds, you may all face the same negative fate (i.e., lemmings over the cliff).

So, how bout that waste management? My parents live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and their garbage rates are set to go up significantly. They are being encouraged to compost all paper products and food waste, leaving very little to go to the actual 'garbage'. They have three cans, one for garbage, one for recycling, and one for green waste. And then I come to Colorado, where they only have one can, for everything. And presumably no sorting down the line. What gives?

Recycling is regionally controlled, so it varies from region to region. In some places, individuals sort material to be recycled themselves. In other places sorting is done at collection centers. Obviously, the most efficient system is sorting by individuals, but there is a lot of technology that is used to separate different types of plastics and metals. Sorting has to occur at some stage in order for recycling to occur.

LW, your audacity has a sort of medieval charm, but how can you continute to debunk research that you admit that you have not read?

Undersea volcanoes have all sorts of results including the formation of interesting undersea habitats. Although the Gakkel Ridge volcanoes have not been studied until recently, there has been much interest in temperature fluxes and changes in chemistry surrounding undersea eruptions. Estimating the exact amount of heat discharged, as you should know, is not a trivial procedure. But there have been attempts to generalize this procedure.

We hypothesize that nearly all of the potential heat to be extracted at the Flow site is contained in the seafloor lava flow and shallow underlying dyke and conduits, and that a significant part of this heat was extracted and formed event plumes during the eruptive event. The decline in observable fluid flux and maximum measured vent fluid temperature from 51°C on 1 August 1993, to 36°C in mid-October, to only 9°C in July 1994 shows that the heat source at the Flow site was nearly exhausted within a year. Using the volume of extruded lava (5.4 × 10 m) estimated by Chadwick et al. (1995) and the basalt properties found in Sleep et al. (1983), we calculate that the heat available in the lava mound through latent heat of crystallization and cooling to ambient seawater temperatures is 2.7 × 10 J.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/ ... sion.shtml

Your link isn't opening.



I don't really think I have debunked anything. I have simply said that I disagree with the assertion that this can't possibly have any effect on icemelt. And I've used some pretty fundamental principals to back that assertion up. That's not debunking. That's more like educated disagreement.

Once I get enough information, then I'll go about debunking it.

I don't know how much value your information is. The volume seems to be relevant, but probably low balled since this is categorized as bigger than Pompei, but the rest of it doesn't seem to be too relevant, as it seems to be dealing with a totally different incident. That information, at face value, seems to discount other aspects of these explosions.

Whether or not this needs to be done is debatable, but it looks like the conservative government in Alberta will follow through with some promises re: greenhouse gases.

Yet again, private industry shows up when government fails:

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/*

*wind power people will like this one.


And LW, please note that it's tax credits that made this possible, not zero interest gubm'nt loans.

Oh, the unintended consequences....

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19926634.800-cleaner-skies-explain-surprise-rate-of-warming.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming

* 09 July 2008
* From New Scientist Print Edition.

GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.

Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034228). "The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years," says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland's national weather service.

The latest climate models are built on the assumption that aerosols have their biggest influence by seeding natural clouds, which reflect sunlight. However, the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.