YAGWT - This time volcanos

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
The more studies like this that are surfacing, the more the "theory" of earth's cyclical nature is looking more and more of the cause. Maybe if we have alternative fuel the volcanos will keep quiet?

Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting

Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

"This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet" in Antarctica, Vaughan said.

Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.

Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it. Ash and shards from the volcano carried through the air and settled onto the surrounding landscape. That layer is now out of sight, hidden beneath the snows that fell during the next 2,300 years.

Still, the layer showed up clearly in airborne radar surveys conducted over the region in 2004 and 2005 by American and British scientists. The reflected radio waves over an elliptical area about 110 miles, or 176 kilometers, wide were so strong that earlier radar surveys had mistakenly identified it as bedrock. Better radar techniques now can detect a second echo from the actual bedrock farther down.

The thickness of ice above the ash layer provided an estimate of the date of the eruption: 207 B.C., give or take 240 years. "It's probably within Alexander the Great's lifetime, but not more precise than that," Vaughan said.

 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
So a possible eruption 2000 years ago beneath the MASSIVE ice layers in Antarctica is causing todays climate shift?

Your able to copy/paste, but that's about it.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
So a possible eruption 2000 years ago beneath the MASSIVE ice layers in Antarctica is causing todays climate shift?

Your able to copy/paste, but that's about it.

Wow. You suck at reading.

"Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning."
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Volcanoes and lava have nothing to with melting ice.

so you dont think inactive volcanos could become active again? Which would mean magma flow closer to the earth's surface, thus raising temps? do you remember Mt St Helens by chance?
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: manowar821
So a possible eruption 2000 years ago beneath the MASSIVE ice layers in Antarctica is causing todays climate shift?

Your able to copy/paste, but that's about it.

Wow. You suck at reading.

"Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning."

No, you suck at reading. How could that be affecting THE WORLD'S ICE?
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
"Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning"

Interesting? Yes. Anti GW? No.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: manowar821
So a possible eruption 2000 years ago beneath the MASSIVE ice layers in Antarctica is causing todays climate shift?

Your able to copy/paste, but that's about it.

Wow. You suck at reading.

"Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning."

No, you suck at reading. How could that be affecting THE WORLD'S ICE?

So...the cause of melting ice sheets should be the same everywhere? Im not understanding what youre saying...the article clearly mentions one specific place...
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: manowar821
So a possible eruption 2000 years ago beneath the MASSIVE ice layers in Antarctica is causing todays climate shift?

Your able to copy/paste, but that's about it.

Wow. You suck at reading.

"Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning."

No, you suck at reading. How could that be affecting THE WORLD'S ICE?

So...the cause of melting ice sheets should be the same everywhere? Im not understanding what youre saying...the article clearly mentions one specific place...

The tone in your OP was that it's a better theory for why the GLOBE'S climate is changing more rapidly in the last 100 years even though this volcanic event happened 2000 +/- years ago in an isolated place. If that is NOT your tone, I apologize. You have to understand, though, you do go out of your way to get myself and others a little riled up..

"Maybe if we have alternative fuel the volcanoes will keep quiet?"

There, is the cause of my retort.

Ignoring the hugely positive effect 100% alternate fuel sources would have for the environment AND our civilization as a whole, that kind of comment is a somewhat ignorant (and probably somewhat partisan induced) one.

I understand very well the ability volcanoes and magma/near-lava could have on a localized area of ice and glacier. I also understand very well that it is only one piece of a complicated system of "levers and pulleys" that make up the cause of this climate shift.

Again, if you're not claiming it is somehow a miraculous cause for the entire climate shift regardless of the massive amounts of CO2 we've created, as well as chemicals and sun activity, I apologize.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Manowar...chill out man. The fuel comment was sarcasm. Change your battery

My premise isnt that an event 2000 or whatever years ago is affecting ice melt NOW. It's the comments by the study that CURRENT volcanic activity COULD be the reason. Because there is a known dormant volcano int hat particular area, doesnt mean it's still dormant. Thats all the study is saying. Theyre exploring that. It is thought by many on both sides warming water causes ice to melt (duh). The CAUSE of warmer water is what we're unclear of. It certainly isnt pollution. We all al know there are alot of ACTIVE volcanos in the sea, and the study is just suggesting a known volcano in that area could be the cause.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,807
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?

The BS is this: It is typical for the AGW crowd to do 2 things in my experience:

1) Deny GW/GCC and ignore mountains of verified evidence supporting GW/GCC
2) Grab on to everything and anything that seems to possibly cast doubt on GW/GCC regardless if it's been verified, already taken account of by GW/GCC calculations, or just plain sounds Scientificky(new word!)

Was my post a RP post? No, but your OP certainly qualifies as such given the circumstances.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?

The BS is this: It is typical for the AGW crowd to do 2 things in my experience:

1) Deny GW/GCC and ignore mountains of verified evidence supporting GW/GCC
2) Grab on to everything and anything that seems to possibly cast doubt on GW/GCC regardless if it's been verified, already taken account of by GW/GCC calculations, or just plain sounds Scientificky(new word!)

Was my post a RP post? No, but your OP certainly qualifies as such given the circumstances.

Well, I cant help how you read it. No where in ANY thread have *I* suggested GW doesnt exist. Thats not the spirit of the OP. Whats in doubt is 1. The cause, 2. HOW MUCH man has contributed, and 3. IF there is really anything we can about it. Those 3 things have NOT been proven AT ALL. Im simply passing yet another piece of the puzzle, as there many in this subject

Dont get so defensive...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,807
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?

The BS is this: It is typical for the AGW crowd to do 2 things in my experience:

1) Deny GW/GCC and ignore mountains of verified evidence supporting GW/GCC
2) Grab on to everything and anything that seems to possibly cast doubt on GW/GCC regardless if it's been verified, already taken account of by GW/GCC calculations, or just plain sounds Scientificky(new word!)

Was my post a RP post? No, but your OP certainly qualifies as such given the circumstances.

Well, I cant help how you read it. No where in ANY thread have *I* suggested GW doesnt exist. Thats not the spirit of the OP. Whats in doubt is 1. The cause, 2. HOW MUCH man has contributed, and 3. IF there is really anything we can about it. Those 3 things have NOT been proven AT ALL. Im simply passing yet another piece of the puzzle, as there many in this subject

Dont get so defensive...

To clarify: Volcanic activity has already been taken into account by those claiming Man Made GW/GCC. Certa0inly I realize that no one really denies the GW part anymore, those that did just a few years ago are now on the "Nature" vs "Man Made pollution" angle of attack. Unfortunately the "Nature" part has been part of the whole debate from the very beginning! IOWs, this is nothing new at all.

Instead of posting this tripe, why don't you actually read the science the IPCC and other "Man Made" causes of the current accelerated Warming trend is based on? You'll save yourself and everyone else a lot of time if you did so.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
The more studies like this that are surfacing, the more the "theory" of earth's cyclical nature is looking more and more of the cause. Maybe if we have alternative fuel the volcanos will keep quiet?

Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting

Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

"This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet" in Antarctica, Vaughan said.

Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.

Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it. Ash and shards from the volcano carried through the air and settled onto the surrounding landscape. That layer is now out of sight, hidden beneath the snows that fell during the next 2,300 years.

Still, the layer showed up clearly in airborne radar surveys conducted over the region in 2004 and 2005 by American and British scientists. The reflected radio waves over an elliptical area about 110 miles, or 176 kilometers, wide were so strong that earlier radar surveys had mistakenly identified it as bedrock. Better radar techniques now can detect a second echo from the actual bedrock farther down.

The thickness of ice above the ash layer provided an estimate of the date of the eruption: 207 B.C., give or take 240 years. "It's probably within Alexander the Great's lifetime, but not more precise than that," Vaughan said.
Sarcastic or misleading? I remember your other posts, so I pick no. 2. Time to climb out of the rabbit hole.:sun:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?

The BS is this: It is typical for the AGW crowd to do 2 things in my experience:

1) Deny GW/GCC and ignore mountains of verified evidence supporting GW/GCC
2) Grab on to everything and anything that seems to possibly cast doubt on GW/GCC regardless if it's been verified, already taken account of by GW/GCC calculations, or just plain sounds Scientificky(new word!)

Was my post a RP post? No, but your OP certainly qualifies as such given the circumstances.

Well, I cant help how you read it. No where in ANY thread have *I* suggested GW doesnt exist. Thats not the spirit of the OP. Whats in doubt is 1. The cause, 2. HOW MUCH man has contributed, and 3. IF there is really anything we can about it. Those 3 things have NOT been proven AT ALL. Im simply passing yet another piece of the puzzle, as there many in this subject

Dont get so defensive...

To clarify: Volcanic activity has already been taken into account by those claiming Man Made GW/GCC. Certa0inly I realize that no one really denies the GW part anymore, those that did just a few years ago are now on the "Nature" vs "Man Made pollution" angle of attack. Unfortunately the "Nature" part has been part of the whole debate from the very beginning! IOWs, this is nothing new at all.

Instead of posting this tripe, why don't you actually read the science the IPCC and other "Man Made" causes of the current accelerated Warming trend is based on? You'll save yourself and everyone else a lot of time if you did so.

I have. I like to read ALL sides and keep an open mind. just because I post this finding doesnt mean Im de-emphacizing mad-made contributers. But, as I said, there are MANY pieces of the puzzle, and to discount this means maybe you should read material on natural causes One isnt necessarily more than another. No where did I even impy nah nah nah youre wrong...
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?

The BS is this: It is typical for the AGW crowd to do 2 things in my experience:

1) Deny GW/GCC and ignore mountains of verified evidence supporting GW/GCC
2) Grab on to everything and anything that seems to possibly cast doubt on GW/GCC regardless if it's been verified, already taken account of by GW/GCC calculations, or just plain sounds Scientificky(new word!)

Was my post a RP post? No, but your OP certainly qualifies as such given the circumstances.

Well, I cant help how you read it. No where in ANY thread have *I* suggested GW doesnt exist. Thats not the spirit of the OP. Whats in doubt is 1. The cause, 2. HOW MUCH man has contributed, and 3. IF there is really anything we can about it. Those 3 things have NOT been proven AT ALL. Im simply passing yet another piece of the puzzle, as there many in this subject

Dont get so defensive...

Really? So if you're just taking the open-minded approach to the issue, what exactly does..."the "theory" of earth's cyclical nature is looking more and more of the cause." mean?

This has been said MANY times before, but there are many natural events that can change temperature in specific areas or across the whole Earth. Those factors represent an interesting field of study, and the more we know about natural changes the better. But their study is also completely irrelevant to the man-made climate change discussion. You keep searching for "the cause", either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the fact that there is no single cause...and that the contribution of a non-man made factor says nothing about how much man has contributed without a comparative study. Which is something that's almost always absent from discussions like this one, but something that has been studied in great detail and is at the core of the argument that support the idea that human beings are contributing a significant percentage to climate change.

Your style of passive-aggressive arguing on this topic is pretty much the same as that used by creationists and everyone else who wants to argue against science without having to actually understand it. You say you only want to "pass on another piece of the puzzle" or "teach the debate" or whatever, but what you're really doing is trying to make enough noise to make people question the actual science without having to make a real argument. The point of this particular thread was to make the argument that volcanoes are a contributing factor to melting some glaciers, therefore man-made global warming is less likely to be a culprit. Of course that's an argument that's not even remotely supported by the data, and contradicted by the article itself. So you DON'T make that argument, you just post the article and make some snide little comments and hope people don't notice.

I find the pursuit of scientific truth admirable, but that's not what's going on here.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
The more studies like this that are surfacing, the more the "theory" of earth's cyclical nature is looking more and more of the cause. Maybe if we have alternative fuel the volcanos will keep quiet?

Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting

Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica's glaciers: volcanoes.

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

"This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet" in Antarctica, Vaughan said.

Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.

Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it. Ash and shards from the volcano carried through the air and settled onto the surrounding landscape. That layer is now out of sight, hidden beneath the snows that fell during the next 2,300 years.

Still, the layer showed up clearly in airborne radar surveys conducted over the region in 2004 and 2005 by American and British scientists. The reflected radio waves over an elliptical area about 110 miles, or 176 kilometers, wide were so strong that earlier radar surveys had mistakenly identified it as bedrock. Better radar techniques now can detect a second echo from the actual bedrock farther down.

The thickness of ice above the ash layer provided an estimate of the date of the eruption: 207 B.C., give or take 240 years. "It's probably within Alexander the Great's lifetime, but not more precise than that," Vaughan said.
Sarcastic or misleading? I remember your other posts, so I pick no. 2. Time to climb out of the rabbit hole.:sun:

You know, I'd agree with you usually... Maybe I'm feeling nice today, or maybe I'm just tired from a crazy weekend, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,807
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?

The BS is this: It is typical for the AGW crowd to do 2 things in my experience:

1) Deny GW/GCC and ignore mountains of verified evidence supporting GW/GCC
2) Grab on to everything and anything that seems to possibly cast doubt on GW/GCC regardless if it's been verified, already taken account of by GW/GCC calculations, or just plain sounds Scientificky(new word!)

Was my post a RP post? No, but your OP certainly qualifies as such given the circumstances.

Well, I cant help how you read it. No where in ANY thread have *I* suggested GW doesnt exist. Thats not the spirit of the OP. Whats in doubt is 1. The cause, 2. HOW MUCH man has contributed, and 3. IF there is really anything we can about it. Those 3 things have NOT been proven AT ALL. Im simply passing yet another piece of the puzzle, as there many in this subject

Dont get so defensive...

Really? So if you're just taking the open-minded approach to the issue, what exactly does..."the "theory" of earth's cyclical nature is looking more and more of the cause." mean?

This has been said MANY times before, but there are many natural events that can change temperature in specific areas or across the whole Earth. Those factors represent an interesting field of study, and the more we know about natural changes the better. But their study is also completely irrelevant to the man-made climate change discussion. You keep searching for "the cause", either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the fact that there is no single cause...and that the contribution of a non-man made factor says nothing about how much man has contributed without a comparative study. Which is something that's almost always absent from discussions like this one, but something that has been studied in great detail and is at the core of the argument that support the idea that human beings are contributing a significant percentage to climate change.

Your style of passive-aggressive arguing on this topic is pretty much the same as that used by creationists and everyone else who wants to argue against science without having to actually understand it. You say you only want to "pass on another piece of the puzzle" or "teach the debate" or whatever, but what you're really doing is trying to make enough noise to make people question the actual science without having to make a real argument. The point of this particular thread was to make the argument that volcanoes are a contributing factor to melting some glaciers, therefore man-made global warming is less likely to be a culprit. Of course that's an argument that's not even remotely supported by the data, and contradicted by the article itself. So you DON'T make that argument, you just post the article and make some snide little comments and hope people don't notice.

I find the pursuit of scientific truth admirable, but that's not what's going on here.

Exactly! :thumbsup:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sigh, not this BS again?

I dont remember reading a thread talking about active volcanos as a theory? Lots of other theories tho..is this a RP?

The BS is this: It is typical for the AGW crowd to do 2 things in my experience:

1) Deny GW/GCC and ignore mountains of verified evidence supporting GW/GCC
2) Grab on to everything and anything that seems to possibly cast doubt on GW/GCC regardless if it's been verified, already taken account of by GW/GCC calculations, or just plain sounds Scientificky(new word!)

Was my post a RP post? No, but your OP certainly qualifies as such given the circumstances.

Well, I cant help how you read it. No where in ANY thread have *I* suggested GW doesnt exist. Thats not the spirit of the OP. Whats in doubt is 1. The cause, 2. HOW MUCH man has contributed, and 3. IF there is really anything we can about it. Those 3 things have NOT been proven AT ALL. Im simply passing yet another piece of the puzzle, as there many in this subject

Dont get so defensive...

Really? So if you're just taking the open-minded approach to the issue, what exactly does..."the "theory" of earth's cyclical nature is looking more and more of the cause." mean?

This has been said MANY times before, but there are many natural events that can change temperature in specific areas or across the whole Earth. Those factors represent an interesting field of study, and the more we know about natural changes the better. But their study is also completely irrelevant to the man-made climate change discussion. You keep searching for "the cause", either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the fact that there is no single cause...and that the contribution of a non-man made factor says nothing about how much man has contributed without a comparative study. Which is something that's almost always absent from discussions like this one, but something that has been studied in great detail and is at the core of the argument that support the idea that human beings are contributing a significant percentage to climate change.

Your style of passive-aggressive arguing on this topic is pretty much the same as that used by creationists and everyone else who wants to argue against science without having to actually understand it. You say you only want to "pass on another piece of the puzzle" or "teach the debate" or whatever, but what you're really doing is trying to make enough noise to make people question the actual science without having to make a real argument. The point of this particular thread was to make the argument that volcanoes are a contributing factor to melting some glaciers, therefore man-made global warming is less likely to be a culprit. Of course that's an argument that's not even remotely supported by the data, and contradicted by the article itself. So you DON'T make that argument, you just post the article and make some snide little comments and hope people don't notice.

I find the pursuit of scientific truth admirable, but that's not what's going on here.

Wow. you really missed my point as I have explained it, or you are intentionally being argumentative.

Im not arguing against science. At all.

You keep searching for "the cause", either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the fact that there is no single cause
I admitted in this very thread there are MANY factors, and this is but one of them. Did you miss it? It has nothing to do, I agree, with the man-made portion, and I never implied it. When I said "the more the "theory" of earth's cyclical nature is looking more and more of the cause" in my OP, perhaps I should have expanded that for those who decide to interprate what I meant. I will add, "The more natural thoeries we find, the less man's cause seems to be". you can agree or disagree, I really couldnt care less. But it is what it is.

but something that has been studied in great detail and is at the core of the argument that support the idea that human beings are contributing a significant percentage to climate change.
Really? I dont disagree at all; however, how is "significantly" defined? It's not. I can also find, as has been done on this board many times, studies that disprove the studies that prove how much man has caused GW. But of course, those on BOTH sides of the argument (did you notice I said BOTH?) dismiss the other's studies as hacks..or incomplete...or whatever. We dont fucking know!

everyone else who wants to argue against science without having to actually understand it.
eh? Is not the study of earth's natural cycles science?

The point of this particular thread was to make the argument that volcanoes are a contributing factor to melting some glaciers
wow youre pretty smart there Rains. youre right! Do you deny volcanos contribute? Do you deny that magma heats the earth, and is itself cyclical?

This was simply a topic I havent seen before. Have you? On this board? Can you link the thread for me where this has been discussed?

As I said before, which you seemed to have missed, is that I agree man has contributed to GW. As I have also said, and maybe you missed that too, is I dont disagree GW is a reality. The question still remains unanswered: How much is man-made, how much is natural, and can man have a significant impact to change it? The answer is-we dont really know.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
For what it's worth, I spread some coal cinders in my driveway and on my sidewalk earlier today. They'll absorb more of the sun's heat rather than reflect it as the snow and ice would, plus they provide more traction. So, I just contributed to global warming in my own personal way.


However, in response to your question about whether this has been discussed before, yes it has. Someone else recently posted another thread about a glacier melting due to volcanic activity. (I didn't search for it.) That person's argument was shot down quite quickly as it doesn't explain the other thousand volcanos that are melting, nor does it suggests that there are reasons other than global warming for the other thousands of glaciers melting.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: DrPizza
For what it's worth, I spread some coal cinders in my driveway and on my sidewalk earlier today. They'll absorb more of the sun's heat rather than reflect it as the snow and ice would, plus they provide more traction. So, I just contributed to global warming in my own personal way.


However, in response to your question about whether this has been discussed before, yes it has. Someone else recently posted another thread about a glacier melting due to volcanic activity. (I didn't search for it.) That person's argument was shot down quite quickly as it doesn't explain the other thousand volcanos that are melting, nor does it suggests that there are reasons other than global warming for the other thousands of glaciers melting.

Alrighty. I dont remember seeing it, and I guess these guys who did this study are a little stoned *shrug* no biggie
 

Comanche

Member
May 8, 2005
148
0
0
The past few years there have been many people talking about the melting ice on antartica as part of the arguement for MMGW. What many of those don't mention is that most of the melting is going on in one region of Anartica.

The article doesn't mention anything about MMGW but it does suggest that there are other reasons for the melting Ice in this one region down there.

Now, the OP might have had ideas that this might pertain to Global MMGW, and in a sense it does because it points out the fact that there can be other causes for melting Ice.

Go to this site (not for the week in MMGW)
http://www.iceagenow.com/
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |