Arctic sea ice vanishing faster than 'our most pessimistic models': researcher

17 Dec 09 - These two short videos show the deepest erupting undersea volcano ever seen, with "fiery molten lava bubbles exploding 4,000 feet beneath the Pacific Ocean." The lava is about 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit.

"Bright-red lava bubbles shot out of the volcano, releasing a smoke-like cloud of sulfur. The lava froze almost instantly as it hit the cold sea water, causing black rock to sink to the sea floor.

For the first time ever, scientists were able to witness the creation of a material called boninite, which had previously been found only in samples at least a million years old.

"Although 80 percent of the earth's volcanic activity occurs in the sea, scientists from NOAA and the National Science Foundation had never witnessed an eruption this deep and in this detail."

Eighty percent? I think underwater volcanic activity is thousands of times
more prevalent than now believed.

As I say in Not by Fire but by Ice, those underwater volcanoes are pumping
red-hot lava - 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit hot - into the seas and heating them.
That's ten times the boiling point! (See the chapter entitled "Fish Stew.")

In turn, the warmer seas pump ever more moisture into the skies, which
inevitably results in ever more precipitation. When that precipitation falls
in the winter, you have the makings of an ice age. I think we're seeing that
happen right now. It's not global warming, it's ocean warming, and it's
leading us into the next ice age.

Warmer seas and colder skies: A deadly combination.

www.iceagenow.com...
You be the judge,
Volcanoes exploding under water at North Pole

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

intriguing spot on the Gakkel Ridge they had come to explore. The 1,800-kilometre-long ridge, which cuts across the Arctic from Greenland to Siberia, is in international waters. It is one of the planet's "spreading" ridges where molten rock rises up from inside the earth creating new crust.

www.canada.com...

[edit on 112828p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


A alternate possible explanation does not change the empirical observations about the rate of loss of Arctic ice. The problem still exists irrespective of its cause. However it certainly does provide a possible contributing factor to the unexpected rapidity of melting.

Thank you for an intelligent post. You raise some excellent points.

Seems to me people just looking for articles that support there own point of view.

At the moment whether you like it or not MMCC (man made climate change)is a THEORY not fact not set in stone not an unexcapable universil law a dammm THEORY.

Now all good scientist should hold theories test them re-asses, reject or prove as fact.

All climate scientists have an agenda at that is more funding. Politics plays to big a role in global warming ohhh wait its now climate change because of the non warming period we had.

For me until science proves that MMCC is fact then I will take it as theroy.

Lets face it they are working on a couple hundred years of data for the planet even less for the workings of the solar system and some of them think they have it proved.

The climate of the planet and the effects of the solar system is far more complex than just a couple hundred years of data.

Now some will think well hell these guys have PHD's ect who am I to question them?

Well there still people they make mistakes, they have there own agenda's and some of them are just flawed in there thinking so we have a duty to question them.

In closing think of this quote and I am sure you can see how I think.

Aristotle

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.




[edit on 7-2-2010 by jpmail]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by jpmail]

As it stands i don't think there is one climate scientist i trust just now, with all the lies they keep coming out with, it seems there is no end to them trying to bring people round to their way of thinking, well NEW FLASH, people used to think their way,but the news is out the science is not settled, and the globe wars, and cools as part of nature, and there is nothing we can do to influence it, or change it, if you think other wise, then you honestly are deluded. Besides i want all my money back for taxes i have paid, that are climate change related. It is the biggest scam and lie, that is the only man made thing going on here.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

intriguing spot on the Gakkel Ridge they had come to explore. The 1,800-kilometre-long ridge, which cuts across the Arctic from Greenland to Siberia, is in international waters. It is one of the planet's "spreading" ridges where molten rock rises up from inside the earth creating new crust.

www.canada.com...

It's well known that you need very little mechanical disturbance to trigger an earthquake. ...Mechanical luctuations resulting from melting ice might just be the mechanical trigger here.

“There’s no question triggered earthquakes happen,” says seismologist Leonardo Seeber of the Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.

…. “The surprising thing to me is that you need very little mechanical disturbance to trigger an earthquake,” says Seeber. Removing fluid or rock from the crust, as in oil production or coal mining, could do it. So might injecting fluid to store wastes or sequester carbon dioxide, or adding the weight of 100 meters or so of water behind a dam…

Did Human Activities Trigger the Great Sichuan Earthquake of 2008?

Like most dynamics in our universe, there is no single cause and effect - what's happening is called multi-factorial.

Global warming causes changes that accelerate global warming...

Yuk. The sickly-sweet reek of the semi-animated corpse of AGW…… stumbling around blind and friendless like an abandoned ‘stench’ from Land of the Dead.

A ten-second perusal of the internet provided wattsupwiththat.com... I believe this source is more credible, not because they have $CAN156m – but because they don’t.

Also, the repeated attempts in this ignorant MSM propaganda article to blame man for any change in arctic ice (whilst providing no evidence for this) are as disingenuous as the accompanying photo of yet another effing polar bear all dressed up with nowhere to go.

There you go: CAN$156m. I hope the Canadian taxpayers are satisfied with their return-on-investment!

Originally posted by Namron7

A ten-second perusal of the internet provided wattsupwiththat.com... I believe this source is more credible, not because they have $CAN156m – but because they don’t.

Your source shows area of ice, photographed by satellite.

Your source also provides the explanation for the -only apparent- discrepancy:

the melted permanent ice was metres thick, while the temporary winter freeze produces temporary ice that is very thin.

...The total ice VOLUME is just a fraction of what it was.

Melt ice to a record low summertime extent and you then can freeze a record amount of ice in the subsequent fall. Of course, your replacing metres thick once permanent ice with very thin seasonal ice and as a result the volume is a fraction of what it was.

This change is exactly as expected under global warming and will continue for a period while the Arctic switches from a perennial ice regime to a seasonal ice regime.

...Looks like that $CAN156m was very well spent all things considered, not least the blind ignorance of the unthinking sheeple.



Ed. for sp. and clarity


[edit on 7-2-2010 by soficrow]

I beg to differ.

www.c3headlines.com...

It's expanding, it's a natural cycle.

Just gonna post one of Prof. Barber's past predictions.

2 to 1 odds for Prof. David Barber

We are well into summer and the Arctic ice extent and area are taking their annual plunge. How deep will the plunge be? David Barber of the University of Manitoba thinks it will be very large. Just a year ago he predicted that the the North Pole would be ice free in the summer of 2008. National Geographic reported:

“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

It turned out that he was wrong.

I think we have all seen the modus operandi of these manmade global warming alarmists, and their continuously wrong 'predictions'. If you haven't realized yet that these supposed 'scientists' are strictly under control of the mighty pocketbook, and make up 'science' and 'data' to further their goals of landing grants and getting themselves published, then I guess the rock you're living under must be pretty isolated from the real world.

[edit on 2/7/10 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

Originally posted by K-Raz
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

So what. I don't care.

This sums up the motive of most Global-warming deniers. A selfish, lazy and ignorant attitude. Oh, and suicidal.

reply to post by soficrow


I'm not an expert – and I think you are probably more of one than I am in this area.

But at the risk of exposing my own ignorance, this caught my eye in wattsupwiththat:

'Certainly the 30 year arctic trend in ice area is downward, even the most committed global warming scientist has to admit this happens regularly in climate along with regular 30 year uptrends. The questions are, did we cause it or not, and was CO2 the instigating factor. The rapid recovery of ice levels has to have some meaning regarding the severity of the problem. This goes directly in the face of accelerated global warming and the doom and gloom scenarios promoted by our politicians and polyscienticians.'

Apart from the dubious role of CO2, they are also saying that arctic surface ice is now increasing rapidly. As a scientist it makes sense to me that surface ice would be the first type of ice to indicate change of any kind (thereafter – yearly multiple surfaces add to 'volume', of course). It has yet to be seen whether this will continue – but the recent increase in surface ice alone is a blow to current AGW theory.

Also the nonsense in the MSM article about this being reflected in southern climate trends did not do much for its cause - as the situation with antarctic ice is entirely different.

Cheers!

N

reply to post by metamagic


I think we need some context.

This study has added to the already vast store of data we have that proves climate changes is happening. This is a no-brainer.

What it DOESN'T do, is add anything we haven't heard before about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Therefore, I class it as propaganda, trying to reinforce the 'alarmist' agenda.

Dont't get me wrong, I applaud the science involved. It's the fact its' being bastardised to promote a global agenda that bothers me. We don't need investigations into climate change, we need investigations into whether or not we (humans) are causing it or adding to it.

If we knew either way, we could accept the situation, and generate a consensus. Then we as a species might survive.

Parallex.

Originally posted by Parallex
reply to post by metamagic

 

I think we need some context.

This study has added to the already vast store of data we have that proves climate changes is happening. This is a no-brainer.

What it DOESN'T do, is add anything we haven't heard before about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Therefore, I class it as propaganda, trying to reinforce the 'alarmist' agenda.

Dont't get me wrong, I applaud the science involved. It's the fact its' being bastardised to promote a global agenda that bothers me. We don't need investigations into climate change, we need investigations into whether or not we (humans) are causing it or adding to it.

If we knew either way, we could accept the situation, and generate a consensus. Then we as a species might survive.

Parallex.

Some good points Parallex.

But I don't agree that we need to investigate whether or not we (humans) are causing climate change or adding to it.

Obviously, the dynamic is multi-factorial - and the factors range from galactic effects to industrialization.

Equally obvious, TPTB are pushing this red herring and fuelling a synthetic polarization to prevent peoples' cooperation and consensus.

Without a mass cooperative effort, only a small enclave of power brokers will be positioned to survive the predictable holocaust, and ready to rule the broken world.


Before you write me off, check this out:
Ancient Interstellar Collision: May Help Explain Climate Change




oops. Ed. format









[edit on 7-2-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by expat2368


Why do we give the human race so much credit for "destruction", Mother Earth has shaken off WHO know how many inhabitants in the past 3-4 Billions years, I hardly think our little 10K or so years has added anything new to the mix, I rather think that at the most we have joined at a time that we could actually notice a change that was started a freaking lot longer than our measly last 200 years of pollution.

reply to post by soficrow


Blimey, they don't call you an ATS Conspiracy Master for nothing do they?

Parallex.

Click here for more information.

I truly wish somebody, somewhere, with the relevant scientific background and the requisite scientific detachment, would do an exhaustive and purely analytical study on this matter without any poltical bias, either left or right.

Silly me, of course that's impossible. Without idiotic partisan sniping and agendas to be proven on both sides of the fence, where would the funding come from? And without the spider-monkey-like hooting and screeching from the peanut gallery on teh Intrawebz,™ how could the relevant parties drum up the needed firestorm of partisan idiocy to back their agendas?

Before we can take on global warming in any serious and objective manner at all, we've got to do something about all the "hot air" on the Internet, in corporate and public-action-group back rooms, and in the halls of government.

(Sorry Namron7 - missed your post before.)

Originally posted by Namron7


reply to post by soficrow

 

...this caught my eye in wattsupwiththat:

....It has yet to be seen whether this will continue – but the recent increase in surface ice alone is a blow to current AGW theory.

Don't think so - fluctuations in surface ice are predictable. The volume of permanent ice is what's important.

Also the nonsense in the MSM article about this being reflected in southern climate trends did not do much for its cause - as the situation with antarctic ice is entirely different.

Cheers!

N

I didn't think he was referring to Antarctica!

My reading was that this claim referred to the idea that "warm trends are warmer and cold trends are colder" - ie., in climates south of the North Pole, but not all the way round to Antarctica. ...And that certainly does seem to be the case, doesn't it?

The impact means more variability in the Earth’s climate — warm trends are warmer and cold trends are colder.

Thanks,
sofi

Originally posted by Parallex
reply to post by soficrow

 

Blimey, they don't call you an ATS Conspiracy Master for nothing do they?

Parallex.

True enough. I come by the distinction honestly.

[bow]

Yea it's vanishing...it vanished and showed up in my town in the form of 30"+ of snow this sat with another 12"+ forcast for Wed.