Jump to content
arc

Geological activity causing climate change (split from reasons not to worry)

Recommended Posts

But that position is separate and seemingly contradictory to this one you previously espoused:

 

Like i said, as i stated in the rest of my post multiple times (not just that one line, which i also agree with, btw. )

 

Please don't take things out of context that way.. Please read the entire post before you make a judgement about my opinion that isint true.

 

My point is that both are true.

 

Again, please refer back to my post. Human actions and pollution only hurt ourselves, the planet will always recover.

 

You completely missed the whole point and intent of that position in my post.

But that position is separate and seemingly contradictory to this one you previously espoused:

 

are you really that uncomfortable thinking outside your comfort zone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said, as i stated in the rest of my post multiple times (not just that one line, which i also agree with, btw. )

 

Please don't take things out of context that way.. Please read the entire post before you make a judgement about my opinion that isint true.

 

My point is that both are true.

 

Again, please refer back to my post. Human actions and pollution only hurt ourselves, the planet will always recover.

 

You completely missed the whole point and intent of that position in my post.

are you really that uncomfortable thinking outside your comfort zone?

 

It's not that he's missing the point, he's trying to misrepresent it. happy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not that he's missing the point, he's trying to misrepresent it. happy.png

well that's just mean! If he needs validation by misrepresenting my info...well i guess that speaks for itself. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about winning, by any means. wacko.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you really that uncomfortable thinking outside your comfort zone?

Give me a good reason to and I am glad to do so. Thus far, however, all I see is silly claims and childish nonsense.

 

It's not that he's missing the point, he's trying to misrepresent it.

All I did was quote her. That cannot validly be turned into an assertion that I am misrepresenting her as you're here now trying to do. She feels that humans are just being "arrogant" when they suggest we have an impact on climate. To hell with the mountains of evidence in support of that suggestion, and be damned with the fact that more than 98% of climatologists agree with that, and bugger all with the fact that scientists are more than 95% certain of the human cause.

 

It's all about winning, by any means.

Thanks for reinforcing my decision to walk away from this thread. It didn't start out on a very high note, and has only devolved since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I did was quote her. That cannot validly be turned into an assertion that I am misrepresenting her as you're here now trying to do. She feels that humans are just being "arrogant" when they suggest we have an impact on climate. To hell with the mountains of evidence in support of that suggestion, and be damned with the fact that more than 98% of climatologists agree with that, and bugger all with the fact that scientists are more than 95% certain of the human cause.

 

Thanks for reinforcing my decision to walk away from this thread. It didn't start out on a very high note, and has only devolved since then.

It CAN be turned into an assertion that you misrepresented my opinion!!

 

It's EXACTLY what you did.

 

And if this is the method you use while you are backing up other claims, such as those pretty little graphs and quotes from biased sites, then as of now, i have my own personal experience to base my judgement on when it comes to your posts.

 

You completely disregarded my entire point and picked out one sentence out of context that without the preceding information was twisted 180 completely.

 

Obviously, this is often the way you try to make your point.

 

Your posts have exactly zero validity with me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you misrepresented my opinion!!

Kris - Please clarify, then. Do you or do you not accept that human contributions of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases are having a very real impact on our climate?

 

If so, do you also accept that these changes are very likely to be detrimental to our way of life, as well as our chances of long-term survival?

 

There are two questions there. Please answer both, but if you cannot, then please at the very least answer the first question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read into it what you will. I am neither upset nor anxious. You can choose to accept that I'm telling you the truth or not, but you're not exactly convincing me that it's worth wasting any more time on this topic. Have fun.

 

 

Arc - I have zero interest in engaging you on this topic.

 

 

Thanks for reinforcing my decision to walk away from this thread. It didn't start out on a very high note, and has only devolved since then.

 

 

 

 

Apparently when you say something you don't really mean it, third time wasn't a charm after all.

 

 

 

iNow, I appreciate it when you post links like;

 

http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/

 

That one makes the ridiculous claim that a warming atmosphere leads to stronger monsoons which increased the movement of a continent.

 

Is there a better example than this that the existing model is grossly inadequate to deal with the observations.

 

It was nice to be able to show the power my model has in reinterpreting these misguided predictions of observations.

 

I'm a little concerned that you would think that it is possible.

 

iNow

Page 1

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:24 PM

While plate movements can impact climate, their movements haven't shifted proportional to the changes we're seeing in global average annual temperatures. Specifically, the plate movements result in increased earthquakes and volcanism, both of which have, in fact, been accounted for by climate scientists.

 

Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around.

Yes, concerns me much indeed.
Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I can't help myself because I am at a visceral level averse to ignorance in all of its many forms, and disgusted by those who remain willfully so.

 

 

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4388

 

The melting of glaciers driven by global warming portends a seismically turbulent future. When glaciers melt, the massive weight on the Earth's crust is reduced, and the crust “bounces” back in what scientists call an "isostatic rebound.” This process can reactivate faults, increase seismic activity, and lift pressure on magma chambers that feed volcanoes.

 

This has happened several times throughout Earth's history, and the evidence suggests that it is starting to happen again. Of course, not every volcanic eruption and earthquake in the years to come will have a climate-change link.

 

There are implications for all parts of the world where glaciers and active faults coincide, including the Alps, Himalayas, Rocky Mountains, Andes and the Southern Alps in New Zealand. But of particular concern is the continental shelf around Greenland, where a massive melting of the ice sheet might trigger earthquakes strong enough to trigger underwater landslides which in turn could generate tsunamis.

 

Melting ice and sea-level rise also mean that previously exposed continental margins become inundated with water. At the end of the last ice age, the extra load was more than enough to reactivate faults and trigger earthquakes around the rims of all the major ocean basins, some of which are thought to have set off giant landslides on the sea floor.

 

“A particular worry,” writes Bill McGuire in New Scientist, is that such seafloor landslides could “contribute to large-scale releases of methane gas from the solid gas hydrate deposits that are trapped in marine sediments. Gas hydrates have been identified around the margins of all the ocean basins, and outbursts of gas may occur as sea temperatures climb or as rising sea levels trigger underwater quakes in the vicinity.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

The melting of glaciers driven by global warming portends a seismically turbulent future. When glaciers melt, the massive weight on the Earth's crust is reduced, and the crust “bounces” back in what scientists call an "isostatic rebound.” This process can reactivate faults, increase seismic activity, and lift pressure on magma chambers that feed volcanoes.

This has happened several times throughout Earth's history, and the evidence suggests that it is starting to happen again. Of course, not every volcanic eruption and earthquake in the years to come will have a climate-change link.

There are implications for all parts of the world where glaciers and active faults coincide, including the Alps, Himalayas, Rocky Mountains, Andes and the Southern Alps in New Zealand. But of particular concern is the continental shelf around Greenland, where a massive melting of the ice sheet might trigger earthquakes strong enough to trigger underwater landslides which in turn could generate tsunamis.

Melting ice and sea-level rise also mean that previously exposed continental margins become inundated with water. At the end of the last ice age, the extra load was more than enough to reactivate faults and trigger earthquakes around the rims of all the major ocean basins, some of which are thought to have set off giant landslides on the sea floor.

“A particular worry,” writes Bill McGuire in New Scientist, is that such seafloor landslides could “contribute to large-scale releases of methane gas from the solid gas hydrate deposits that are trapped in marine sediments. Gas hydrates have been identified around the margins of all the ocean basins, and outbursts of gas may occur as sea temperatures climb or as rising sea levels trigger underwater quakes in the vicinity.”

 

Don't try to dodge what that link or the subject you posted was about. It wasn't glacial rebound or this site http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4388

 

This is from the site that iNow posted earlier

http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/

The Australian-led team of researchers from France and Germany found that the strengthening Indian monsoon had accelerated movement of the Indian plate over the past 10 million years by a factor of about 20%, publishing their findings in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal.

Effects of long-term climate change

“The 100km-thick outer shell of Earth, the lithosphere, is divided into pieces called tectonic plates. Plates move in different directions at speeds in the order of centimetres per year, comparable to the speed of fingernail growth in humans.

This is not about rebound from melting ice like your trying to redirect it to. There was no massive glacial melt here. You posted the link and you supported the claim. That the plate accelerated and it was caused by increased rain. Rain doesn't compress a continent down for millions of years so that it can rebound later. And this is about speed in a continents lateral movement.

"Iaffaldano said that the monsoon, which increased rainfall in northeast Indian by four metres annually, sped up motion in the Indian plate by almost one centimetre per year."

This is a tropical continent with low elevation. What Ice melt rebound? And anyway, a lot of that extra rain became snow high in the Himalayas, adding to the weight of glacial content, increasing it's mass weight not decreasing it.

The lack of an accurate and complete model can lead to interpreting the "effects" of a phenomena as being the "cause". I find it difficult to give credence to a finding of a relation between increased rain and the acceleration of a moving continent within a global plate matrix. A matrix under compressional forces. These researchers did not then or even now posses an accurate model of plate tectonics. They made a presumptuous claim with no bases in an actual working model. Possibly even biased from a climate and surface mechanism direction. Seeing accelerated movement and increased rain in synchronization the researchers appear to have identified the periods warming climate as the energy source producing the rain that leads to the plate movement. To use this in an attempt to bolster a pro anthropologic climate change argument is to it's opponents advantage.

Lets try it with my model.

http://pubs.usgs.gov...c/himalaya.html
The collision of India into Asia 50 million years ago caused the Indian and Eurasian Plates to crumple up along the collision zone. After the collision, the slow continuous convergence of these two plates over millions of years pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to their present heights. Most of this growth occurred during the past 10 million years. The Himalayas, towering as high as 8,854 m above sea level, form the highest continental mountains in the world. Moreover, the neighboring Tibetan Plateau, at an average elevation of about 4,600 m, is higher than all the peaks in the Alps except for Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa, and is well above the summits of most mountains in the United States. . . . The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity.

According to my model, the Earth's magnetic field had moved into a period of lower energy. The outer core had cooled and contracted, as it moved the mantle followed in tandem initiating the compression in the crust by way of the recent ridge infill, this raised the Himalayan range as the gravitational potential energy continued to build in the entire plate matrix.

This process caused extreme amounts of compression to build in the Indian Continental plate, the mass of the surrounding and massively larger continental plates of Antarctica, Africa, Pacific and Eurasian were being gradually and increasingly converted into the gravitational potential energy as the outer core cooled. Energy that as kinetic raised the Himalayan range through compression.

I would expect the Indian continental plate to gradually and increasingly give off an appreciable amount of the compressional energy as heat during this period, even though overall the mantle's strain energy into the ocean has decreased. And I would expect to see that thermal energy rise to become the mentioned monsoons above it, growing gradually and increasingly stronger over time as the compression grew. This compression, and the disposition of it is what the acceleration actually was.

The researchers where unaware of the thermal energy that was being created by the compression exerted on the Indian continent by the mass of those four mega continents, enough compression to drive India into Eurasia and raise the Himalayas, and to produce the increased thermal energy for the monsoons of increased strength.

It makes for a more believable mechanism in this explanation than it does as a warming climate and rain being the driver of tectonic plates during the Himalayan uplift.

So iNow, don't try to switch the links and the subject phenomena to get out of a corner.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All-in-all, [current] climate change is causing geological activity. As ice loads on land masses lessen, the continental crust rebounds and as ocean levels rise the oceanic crust is compressed. Neither geologic activity nor climate are static. We're alive now -that is we personally here writing- and in geologic terms we'll soon be dead. It should be enough that we have such interesting things to do such as study geology and climate in the short time we [personally] have.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All-in-all, [current] climate change is causing geological activity. As ice loads on land masses lessen, the continental crust rebounds and as ocean levels rise the oceanic crust is compressed. Neither geologic activity nor climate are static. We're alive now -that is we personally here writing- and in geologic terms we'll soon be dead. It should be enough that we have such interesting things to do such as study geology and climate in the short time we [personally] have.

 

 

 

Acme, this is well understood and we all agree this is what happens when an ice mass is removed from a land mass. But this debate right now is about the claim that iNow made by posting;

 

Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around.

 

This statement could mean post glacial rebound but he then provided this and only this link with it.

 

http://www.cosmosmag...-earths-plates/

 

This article is only about monsoon rains increasing the speed of the continent of India's movement towards and during the Himalaya uplift. It has nothing to do with post glacial rebound. He is just trying to change the content of his argument now because that claim would seem rather tenuous at best before and even more so now in light of my models simple and straight forward explanation in comparison to the article's somewhat illogical assumption that an increase in rain would lead to a continent's lateral acceleration.

 

The article states; "Iaffaldano said that the monsoon, which increased rainfall in northeast Indian by four metres annually, sped up motion in the Indian plate by almost one centimetre per year."

He is trying to obfuscate what he claimed and linked to.

And he still has not directly dealt with even one, let alone all, of the predictions of observation of my hypothesis that, by the way, make a strong and what appears impenetrable case against his once irreproachable claims of anthropological warming.

All he has to do is pick one and give me a believable alternative explanation for it, one that can render my claims insufficient in comparison. I am waiting to hear something other than;

"98% of climate scientists. . . blah. . . blah. . . blah"

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Acme, this is well understood and we all agree this is what happens when an ice mass is removed from a land mass. But this debate right now is about the claim that iNow made by posting;

 

 

OK. I was responding to the title and I'm only interested in the science and not the squabbling. Science is always amendable and if you have amendments worthy of publication, submit them to publishers. Best of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought this over from the climate science section; Who here is a global warming skeptic?

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data gathering techniques, we should doubt the analytical processes, we should doubt the conclusions. We should doubt the researchers, we should doubt their motives, we should doubt the peer review process.

Doubt is a cornerstone of good science. Skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.

Having doubted all of these things in relation to global warming I am left with the distinct impression that global warming is very real and very serious. However, as a good skeptic, there is one area in which I have no doubt. I do not doubt the possibility that new research could turn our current understanding on its head - its just that that possibility is, on the balance of the evidence, extremely remote. In the meantime we should proceed on the basis that global warming is a real and present danger.

Oh, and have a look in your dictionary. You will likely find that skepticism and denial are not synonyms. Skeptical? Just go ahead and check.

 

This post received +6. He is a man of great vision and wisdom no doubt.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wise man to understand us women! lol

 

I am not sure who is still standing ! ?

 

post-33514-0-62952400-1381529262_thumb.jpg

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.