Study Links Rapid Ice Sheet Melting With Distant Volcanic Eruptions (upi.com) 117
schwit1 quotes UPI:
New research suggests volcanic eruptions can trigger periods of rapid ice sheet melting... "Over a time span of 1,000 years, we found that volcanic eruptions generally correspond with enhanced ice sheet melting within a year or so," Francesco Muschitiello, a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a news release. The volcanoes of note weren't situated next-door, but thousands of miles from the ice sheet, a reminder of the unexpected global impacts of volcanic activity.
The new research -- detailed this week in the journal Nature Communications -- suggests ash ejected into the atmosphere by erupting volcanoes can be deposited thousands of miles away. When it's deposited on ice sheets, the dark particles cause the ice to absorb more thermal energy and accelerate melting... Some scientists have even suggested melting encouraged by volcanic eruptions could trigger even more eruptions, a positive feedback loop. As glaciers and ice sheets melt, pressure is relieved from the planet's crust, allowing magma to rise to the surface.
The new research -- detailed this week in the journal Nature Communications -- suggests ash ejected into the atmosphere by erupting volcanoes can be deposited thousands of miles away. When it's deposited on ice sheets, the dark particles cause the ice to absorb more thermal energy and accelerate melting... Some scientists have even suggested melting encouraged by volcanic eruptions could trigger even more eruptions, a positive feedback loop. As glaciers and ice sheets melt, pressure is relieved from the planet's crust, allowing magma to rise to the surface.
Let's bury that one (Score:1, Insightful)
It contradicts climate change "science"...
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
But we have to get rid of this anthropogenic volcanic activity. Without some solid science to stop it, the liquid magma keeps on rising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Let's bury that one (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exacerbated? No. Made it more easily observable because there wasn't something with a bigger impact overshadowing it. It was just harder to collect data before.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, most people far short of being genius all the way up to being a genius can see that that makes no sense at all. Just because something does X and Y, and X causes Z, doesn't mean tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.
29 comments. 14 at -1. (Score:1, Interesting)
So there are 29 comments. It looks like 14 are currently at -1.
I think it really highlights how far this site has fallen. There's so little discussion to begin with, and a good chunk of the comments aren't even visible by default because of the atrocious moderating.
I don't see why people asking legitimate questions about the role, or rather the lack of the role, of humans in climate change should be downmodded here.
Questioning theories, claims, observations and evidence is the very foundation of science. It
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Bingo. Anyone who uses the world 'Denier!' to refer to people who dispute a scientific point is no scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're against people asking questions then you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
No one is against people asking questions. We are against people ignoring the science which disputes the concerns raised by those questions and people asking irrelevant questions. Let's look at every single modded -1 comment I found without going too deep into each comment hierarchy. Where are the suppressed insightful comments you are concerned about?
1. Let's bury that one. It contradicts climate change "science"...
2. Just tax the volcanoes. More taxes solve all problems, according to leftists.
3. Lets pret
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you're a liar. The post was at 0 when you posted your comment. It's now at +1. Repeating the same lie doesn't make it true. You have no interest in telling the truth. You have no interest in an honest discussion about global warming. You are a liar. It's impossible to have an honest discussion about global warming here because there are so many liars like you. The post you keep referencing should be at -1. It's at +1. Outright lying should be modded to -1. That's where your posts belong.
It's definite
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
Entirely wrong, yet being proven never stops you (Score:2, Informative)
Here is proof you're entirely and utterly wrong, repeating BS from the echo chamber of denial:
http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
Re:Non-skeptics are entirely right (Score:1, Informative)
The climate models by 4 of the "non-skeptics" (the only exception is Kellogg) match the data to within 0.25C or thereabouts. The climate models by 5 of the "skeptics" don't match the data at all - even the trend is wrong. Despite being rebased or having a shorter end prediction, their mean error is more than 0.5C.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lets pretend science is wrong (Score:1, Informative)
The last ten years were on average warmer than the previous ten, which were warmer than the previous ten. Where on earth do you get the idea that there hasn't been any warming? The trend agrees well with the models from the 1980s, let alone more recent one
Re: (Score:2)
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
1. So, was there a temperature rise in the last 20 years?
2. If so, what caused that temperature rise?
3. Did your modeling predict that rise accurately? If not, according to your own terms, you are completely, and utterly, wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
You know, you might be right, except for the question not being climate patterns, but the melting of glaciers, which are not entirely the same thing.
Re: Mini Ice Age? Krakatoa? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
These are ice sheets not glaciers. If an ice sheet is already stressed with summer heat a large mass of heated water will be enough to set the dominoes of pushing the ice out to sea with the heavy water pushing against it and melting it in the process.
Soviets tried this. (Score:1)
An open shipping lane across the top of the world would unlock the Siberian landmass for the Russians, and then who knows what happens next...
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wa... [sjsu.edu]
--#
Not surprising (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"China's particle emissions from their coal plants are reaching the arctic and causing faster melting"
That can't be right. In the 70s, the West's particle emissions were causing cooling that would lead to a New Ice Age if we DON'T BAN FOSSIL FUELS NOW!
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, if you don't, then nope. It is just fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post may be in jest, but you are pointing at one of the real problems in taking action on climate change.
India and China have between them 1/3 of the Earth's population, and far to many of them live in energy poverty. These two countries have to raise their people's standard of living, or their people will revolt and install a government that will. If you stopped all CO2 and thermal emissions outside of these two countries it would only be a rounding error in global CO2 emissions over the next 50 yea
Re: (Score:1)
And china's particulates DO hit the arctic ice. They have so much pollution and of course, if flows not only west to east, but also northwords. Then top that with CHina adding another 100 GW around the globe to other nations.
Likewise, India is adding more.
What needs to happen is it needs to be a combination of nuke, along with AE.
Until we stop adding more
Feels like stupid...or stale (Score:3)
Of course volcanic eruptions can cause ice sheet melting. Put soot on snow and it's more likely to melt. They also cause temporary warming. Hydrogen Sulfide is a green house gas. And they can add lots of CO2 to the atmosphere.
BUT The "year without a summer" was caused by a volcano eruption. So don't try to make this a global statement. It depends on the particulars.
If you go back a few centuries volcano eruptions were one of the big driving factors behind temporary climate changes ... temporary meaning they didn't last more than 20 years, except for trailing effects, like a lake flooding or a grassland turning into a desert, which tended to persist. Even today there *are* volcanoes that could swamp everything people do. Yellowstone is an example, but not the only one. And that isn't new knowledge.
The feels like somebody rehashed things that everybody knows, and got a reporter to call it news.
Actually, when I read the article it sounds as if they do have some no findings, but nothing that wouldn't have been predicted ahead of time. It sounds as if the actual research is valid, but the write-up is hyperbolic shit.
FIX: Re:Feels like stupid...or stale (Score:2)
Change:
Actually, when I read the article it sounds as if they do have some no findings, but nothing that wouldn't have been predicted ahead of time. It sounds as if the actual research is valid, but the write-up is hyperbolic shit.
to:
Actually, when I read the article it sounds as if they do have some new findings, but nothing that wouldn't have been predicted ahead of time. It sounds as if the actual research is valid, but the write-up is hyperbolic shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope you completely missed what it is about, why it seems hyperbolic to you. This is not about climate, this is about weather, there is a huge difference between the two. When you start trying to forecast weather extremes, compounding negative probability outcomes can become quite severe when expressed. Than the decision is whether or not to and to what extent to protect against those forecast severe weather outcomes. So how strong does a building need to be to survive a measured risk over time for a weathe
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen Sulfide is not a greenhouse gas.
It actually has the opposite effect, like most sulfur compounds.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure about that? I thought it could act either way depending on exactly where it ended up, and how it bound to water. But if not, that just makes my point stronger, because it doesn't persist.
I'm rather sure though that I've read that it could cause clouds to turn into rain and clear the air...temporary cooling, but longer term warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen sulfide is a reactive gas that normally has a half-life in the atmosphere measured in days -- too short to be a long-term greenhouse gas. The reaction is as follows
H2S + OH HS + H20.
Sulfanyl (HS) is highly reactive and converts mainly to sulfur dioxide (SO2), which carries the sulfur out of the atmosphere as acid rain. So again the total half life of sulfur in the atmosphere is a matter of days or weeks at most. This precludes it H2S being a greenhouse gas concern.
In comparison the half-life of
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it causes warming over some side effects, it is not a green house gas.
Green house gases are gases that absorb the IR light that is reflected from the earth surface.
I'm rather sure though that I've read that it could cause clouds to turn into rain and clear the air...temporary cooling, but longer term warming.
This would not be a long term warming, why would it?
We see that with snow (Score:2)
When snow sticks temperatures drop 15 degrees or 7 for those on the Celsius scale as the snow reflects the heat of the sun back into space. Air is not heated by the sun. It is heated by the surface of the ground.
If black ash were on the snow it would warm up rather than reflect the heat back into space.
It also explains why Antarctica is so much colder than the northern equivalent which is ice free in the summer. Alaska can get warm in the summer and is the same latitude as the shores of Antarctica which nev
Dr Evil (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)
...it's almost like we have a feedback system in which there are infrequent but regular 'spikes' of temp and CO2, which are then almost equally counteracted* by a comparable more-or-less sudden drop thereafter?
You know, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (look at the 'pulse' beat of spikes every 120k years or so, for certainly the last million years, more like 2-3 million).
*curiously, nobody seems to be talking/studying this mechanism - how or why it happens? Personally my bet is on cloud cover a
Re: (Score:1)
PEAT
(facepalm so hard it hurts)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with climate change deniers... (Score:2)
Aroint thee, troll.
Re:The problem with climate science (Score:5, Informative)
Rocket science is complex, but we (maybe not you) model it adequately.
Pete and Bogs* may be Bart Simpson's school mates for all I know, but it is clear as hell you do not understand the concept of science, and need to investigate that before you go on to find what science tells you.
*The stuff that forms boggy ground is called peat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid.
Yes, we can model complex systems, however that doesn't mean it's an easy task by any means, or that correct model predictions can be assumed. I spent years modeling and simulating the power grid, which is arguably less complex than climate, and that modeling was always a matter of constant tuning, refinement, and working toward making the models accord with known results so that we would have at least some confidence about predictions.
By all means we need to model climate and climate change and attempt to
Re: The problem with climate science (Score:1)
Modeling climate isn't an easy task, but that isn't a reason to discredit the models. The same modeling techniques used to forecast weather are also used to model climate. In some cases, they're the same models. Although the skill in forecasting weather rapidly diminishes after a few days, the statistical properties are valid over much longer time scales. Weather and climate models are numerical solutions of fundamental equations governing the behavior of the atmosphere, such as the Navier-Stokes equations.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, the need to improve climate models is not a valid excuse for altogether rejecting their predictions.
I agree completely, and the goal is to continuously improve the models so that the predictions become more accurate and provide a better basis on which to base corrective action. As the poster below points out, poor models leave us at the mercy of everyone; we may need to plan for the worst-case scenario, because we can't rule it out, yet the opposition can easily build a case against it by saying the models are unreliable. But the option of just doing nothing until the models are proven to everyone's satis
Re:The problem with climate science (Score:4, Interesting)
The same applies to climate. If the modeling is good, then we have an accurate representation of the future direction which is between the best and worst case scenario. If the modeling can't be trusted, then the worst case scenarios become possible, which means we need to mitigate against those as well - some unpredicted secondary effect that causes runaway warming, for example. That means immediate, and drastic, and expensive, action.
If the models are bad, then this should be proven, and then we'll move on to immediately closing down all our sources of emissions.
Re: Comparing a fully testable system to one that (Score:2, Informative)
Climate models have been largely correct, not drastically wrong, for the last thirty years. What wasn't modelled well initially was particularly regional detail, and the detailed effects of clouds, aerosols, and land coverage, but all are somewhat improved, but haven't much changed projections on a global scale. If you look at Hansen's projections against BAU emissions (broadly RCP 8.5 from the IPCC), the agreement with current temperatures is good. Year-to-year variations in detail cannot be predicted, as
Re: (Score:2)
Because something includes unknown variables from poorly-understood inputs, we can't model it with precision greater than X.
You might know what direction it's going and the general order of magnitude, but not the precise number. The order of magnitude may be based in channels of 30 or 40 width--30, 900, 27,000 and so forth. So maybe you point somewhere up and to the right and say it's out there somewhere, but not out way straight up, and not out more horizontally.
That's the difference between not know
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. " There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other. But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
Really? So how did your own modeling perform?
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
No: thats you.
You are the one saying "The climate is changing rapidly but we don't know why or what's going to happen next". In your scenario, anything could happen. The climate could keep warming until we reach Venus like conditions.
Talk about panic inducing!
If you truly believe your own assertions, you should be advocating that all our funds be immediately diverted to climate science:
1. To find the cause of the recent, rapid change
2. To identify and
Re: (Score:1)
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. " There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other. But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
Really? So how did your own modeling perform?
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
No: thats you.
You are the one saying "The climate is changing rapidly but we don't know why or what's going to happen next". In your scenario, anything could happen. The climate could keep warming until we reach Venus like conditions.
Talk about panic inducing!
If you truly believe your own assertions, you should be advocating that all our funds be immediately diverted to climate science:
1. To find the cause of the recent, rapid change
2. To identify and model what will happen next
3. To identify and implement the fix, which we can assume will be far more expensive than replacing our emitting technologies (which we were going to replace anyway, given how inefficient they are).
I believe this , E- learning methods are developed nowadays more than any time they help you to learn every thing as soon as possible for example i used these mobile apps for learning English Doulingo,memrsie http://oxinchannel.com/ [oxinchannel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
first they come up with the conclusion, and then try to find evidence to back it up. That's not how science works.
That's actually exactly how science works. Except the proper term is hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
>> my major complaint is that it is impossible to get correct information from anywhere ... they come up with the conclusion, and then try to find evidence to back it up. That's not how science works.
AC, I agree with you entirely. It's a real problem. I've found one person who speaks about this in an honest data driven way, that is willing to cut through the hype and hyperbole. His name is Dr. Richard Muller at http://berkeleyearth.org/ [berkeleyearth.org]
Here's why I find his arguments compelling.
1. He disassembles t
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY, "5. He, and team, went back and redid analysis without data fiddling and came back with the same results as the IPCC."
Actually, no, you didn't FTFM. The last IPCC report, the one that was marched into the Paris Accords, makes a number of claims that are not based in scientific fact, and he debunks them quite thoroughly. Mr. Muller asserts, and I agree, that you will not convert climate skeptics by lying to them or throwing out doomsday scenarios with million-to-one odds against them happening. The