The climate change debate continues.

[Jerry_Atrick]

 

24 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Ocean temps drive seasonal weather. There is a strong school of thought that ocean temps derive from undersea volcanic activity. That makes sense to me, as nothing else I know of could change ocean temps on such a time scale. And we know that undersea volcanism is huge and variable. But if I say so I am rubbished and accused of being a denier. I can only conclude that climate alarmism is a religion, not subject to scientific analysis.

I suppose the US government climate agency is woke.. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

 

Now, where is the eyes roll emoticon?

Edited January 20 by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

3 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

I suppose the US government climate agency is woke.. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

 

Now, where is the eyes roll emoticon?

As well as NASA and the CSIRO

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes.. if they aint Woke, then they must be part of the "deep state", then...

 

[old man emu]

14 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

There is a strong school of thought that ocean temps derive from undersea volcanic activity.

When I mentioned volcanic activity, I was thinking of above-ground eruptions. Didn't remember that plate tectonics is driven by the undersea volcanic activity that spreads the sea floor.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There are hundreds of undersea volcanoes, erupting all the time. It is how the heat from the earth's mantle is transferred up into the oceans.

[spacesailor]

Just making ' more ' Hawaii Islands . But are they heating the Pacific ocean .

spacesailor

 

[pmccarthy]

Wikipedia says only 119 submarine volcanos erupted in last 11,700 years but I have seen maps with a lot more active ones so will look further. Looks like the difference is whether the volcano is venting or erupting.

Edited January 21 by pmccarthy

[nomadpete]

I imagine that it would be difficult to measure the heat added to oceans by volcanoes.

 

But I  expect volcanologists would know a lot about that.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Looks like the difference is whether the volcano is venting or erupting.

In either case, a "vent" as a noun is the break in the Earth's crust through which lava rises to the surface. "to vent" as the verb means to come out of a vent. Lava can either ooze out, or if the vent gets blocked, the lava can explode out in what we call an eruption. 

 

So the count of 119 undersea eruptions is probably a good accounting, however, there are lots more active volcanic vents where lava is simply oozing out. Venting tends to construct landforms, while eruptions destroy landforms. It is venting which moves the tectonic plates. The Hawaiian islands mostly have areas of venting, while the Indonesian islands and the Philippines have eruptions. 

[onetrack]

Now the climatologists are only just starting to include vast swathes of major bushfires in their calculations. But it's not like bushfires have only just started happening, we had one of the worlds biggest bushfires in 1939 and bad ones in the 1960's and 1980's. 

So the climate researchers are now saying, "Yes, the bushfires are affecting our climate - but we've only just started measuring it and adding the effect".

WTF? Up until now, the climate researchers have been telling us their measurements are accurate, complete, comprehensive, and there's no possibility of error in the figures.

Now, we find the researchers have forgotten something else in the equation - and every couple of years, they figure out something else needs to be added to the climate equation.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-22/are-megafires-contributing-to-climate-change/103219876

 

Edited January 21 by onetrack

[Marty_d]

5 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Now the climatologists are only just starting to include vast swathes of major bushfires in their calculations. But it's not like bushfires have only just started happening, we had one of the worlds biggest bushfires in 1939 and bad ones in the 1960's and 1980's. 

So the climate researchers are now saying, "Yes, the bushfires are affecting our climate - but we've only just started measuring it and adding the effect".

WTF? Up until now, the climate researchers have been telling us their measurements are accurate, complete, comprehensive, and there's no possibility of error in the figures.

Now, we find the researchers have forgotten something else in the equation - and every couple of years, they figure out something else needs to be added to the climate equation.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-22/are-megafires-contributing-to-climate-change/103219876

 

Just to clarify, no scientist in the history of science has ever said that their results were complete, comprehensive and without the possibility of error, it's only cult leaders and Trumpian politicians who say that.

 

It's a spiralling cycle.  As the climate warms and average temperatures increase in some areas, the fuel load will dry out more and thus fires will increase in size and intensity - which then impacts the climate.

[old man emu]

Trends, trends, trends. They are the only Truth. The argument is: Is our knowledge of these trends based on long enough time?

 

The length of time can only realistically be set by the use of ice cores, sediment cores and tree-ring analysis as first steps. However, suitable data from various "sediments" might only take us back 150 to 200,000 years. That is a mere "tick tock" of the geological timepiece.

[spacesailor]

One for the scientist's .

 

Can the number of, '' atomic bomb '' tests AND the thermal energy be counted .

Pretty hot , from those ' news reel ' films .

AND a huge volume .

spacsailor

 

[old man emu]

Mother Nature seems to be hell bent on environmental suicide.

 

From:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/22/canada-wildfires-forests-carbon-emissions

 

Emissions from Canada’s record-breaking wildfire season are probably triple the country’s annual carbon footprint, experts warn, as climate systems reach a “tipping point”. This summer, as flames devoured one of the largest contiguous stretches of woodland on the planet, 2bn tonnes (2.2bn tons) of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere. The figure far exceeds all of the emissions tied to Canada’s economy each year, which emit a total of 670m tonnes.

 

But I have a way that we can each do our bit to reducing our share carbon dioxide going rapidly into the atmosphere - don't get cremated. Sequester your carbon in the ground by being buried. In fact, I think I'll start an environmentally friendly organisation whose aim it is to have all cremations banned.

 

(See how I picked "s" instead of "z" in organisations?)

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

(See how I picked "s" instead of "z" in organisations?)

Good work ome, no more Yankee spelling.

[facthunter]

Human behaviour (anthropogenic) does affect the CO2 in the air and that is easily measured accurately. CO2 in water produces 2 acids Carbolic and carbonic but while they are mild they affect crustaceans and plankton shells. A lot of the CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans but it can't go on doing it. When Permafrost melts the organic matter in it will rot and put a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. Methane has a similar effect but not as long lasting.

 

 Sorry folks this one is delayed as I didn't post it at the time it seems. Here Goes. Nev

[spacesailor]

I would like to know.

HOW

Did that " organic material " get to be ' under ' that permafrost, 

In the first place . It certainly didn't " Grow " there ! .

DID IT .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Its IN it and preserved by the ICE in the PERMafrost until it melts. Nev

[spacesailor]

It DIDN'T grow !.

At any time . Just " in it " .

spacesailor

 

[old man emu]

5 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

HOW

Did that " organic material " get to be ' under ' that permafrost, 

During the last Ice Age sequence, which occupied something like 200,000 years, there were warm periods during which that countryside was at least grasslands, similar to the grasslands of the plains of North America and East Asian steppes. Each season, when the grass died, it accumulated on the surface and plant material decomposed forming carbon-rich soils. Then the climate changed to freezing and the ground containing the plant material froze, becoming what we call permafrost.

 

Now, as the permafrost begins to melt, that plant material i available for decomposition, which released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

[spacesailor]

SO that land Was ' warm ' enough for grazing animals to roam .

Just like those " Coal-deposits " were once grasslands too .

Before my time,  of course .

spacesailor

[pmccarthy]

Greenland was called Greenland for a reason. Also Vinland where grapes grew. Just a thousand or so years ago. The cycles have always been there.

[willedoo]

44 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Greenland was called Greenland for a reason. Also Vinland where grapes grew. Just a thousand or so years ago. The cycles have always been there.

They say Greenland is mainly ice and Iceland is mainly green.

[kgwilson]

Greenlands ice sheet has been there for 2.6 million years.

[red750]

 

Greenland

 

 

Iceland