Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
bostonangler

Massive Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet as the Arctic Sizzles

Recommended Posts

 

Communists and Socialists made up all that as climate change is a Russian / Chinese / N.Korean / Cuban plot and a hoax.....Yeah right.......

Edited by umbertino
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, umbertino said:

 

Communists and Socialists made up all that as climate change is a Russian / Chinese / N.Korean / Cuban plot and a hoax.....Yeah right.......

 

I can't believe those who deny this is real. If anyone believes this is a hoax is someone I don't need to be around. They live in a fantasy world.

 

B/A

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

I can't believe those who deny this is real. If anyone believes this is a hoax is someone I don't need to be around. They live in a fantasy world.

 

B/A

 

Agreed, B/A....But we have to respect their opinions as well....As they do respect graciously ours ( on this one and every other issue) Yes, I feel good today......

 

 

Maybe it might even turn out ( who knows...) they were right or partly right in their stances....But it won't concern us at that point and time ( I'd figure an average of 50 / 100 years from now) as those of  at least my own generation ( I'm 62) will be all dead by then ( most likely).....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, umbertino said:

 

Communists and Socialists made up all that as climate change is a Russian / Chinese / N.Korean / Cuban plot and a hoax.....Yeah right.......

 

Actually  according to the below video, the Russian climate model is the most accurate.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say, has man made an impact on the environment and the climate? Sure!  But I believe it's a minute  impact. Weather patterns,  jet streams and earths temperatures have been changing long before we ever existed. Long before we ever had the industry pollution we have now

 That being said, there is nothing wrong with REASONABLY trying to reduce waste, pollution and destruction of the earth's resources. JMO

Change works best when it's agreed upon by eveyone and not forced down ones throat.  Ever notice the more extreme the plan is and the more its gets forced on others the less anything gets done?  

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cranman said:

I say, has man made an impact on the environment and the climate? Sure!  But I believe it's a minute  impact. Weather patterns,  jet streams and earths temperatures have been changing long before we ever existed. Long before we ever had the industry pollution we have now

 That being said, there is nothing wrong with REASONABLY trying to reduce waste, pollution and destruction of the earth's resources. JMO

Change works best when it's agreed upon by eveyone and not forced down ones throat.  Ever notice the more extreme the plan is and the more its gets forced on others the less anything gets done?  

You did not list the sun as a factor for global warming and cooling cycles, so I thought I would add it on.

Also; 

"Change works best when it's agreed upon by eveyone and not forced down ones throat.  Ever notice the more extreme the plan is and the more its gets forced on others the less anything gets done?"

Kinda like immigrants/ illegal immigration! If your going to open the boarders, dont just do it for the people that do it illegally. Might as well do it equally for all that way demagraphics aren't changed so quickly as it has done and make sure they love America and want to be a part of it instead of not assemalating and want to make our country what they are running from. 

  •  
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Written by James Edward Kamis, guest post on November 6, 2018. Posted in Latest news

Discovery Of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper On Global Warming Theory

Recent research shows that the volume of volcanic CO2 currently being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere is far greater than previously calculated, challenging the validity of the man-made global warming theory.

volcanic gas fractured glacier

Figure 1.) Volcanic gas emissions breakthrough overlying fractured and partially melted glacial ice sheet. (Image credits: Christina Neal, AVO/USGS)

The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere.

 

A warmed atmosphere that directly, or in some cases indirectly fuels anomalous environmental disasters such as ocean warming, alteration of ocean chemistry, polar ice sheet melting, global sea level rise, coral bleaching and most importantly dramatic changes in climate.

 

 

There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.

 

Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2

 

Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint.

 

It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (see here).

 

This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991).

 

Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers).

Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.

 

To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents.

 

By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.

 

Especially knowing that volcanic activity varies greatly from area to area, volcano to volcano, and through time. Utilizing just 0.001 percent (10/901,500) of Earth’s volcanic features to calculate volcanic CO2 emissions does not inspire confidence in the resulting value.

 

Non-Erupting Volcanoes Can Emit Massive Amounts of CO2 into Earth’s Atmosphere

Recent geological research by the University of Leeds and others proves that non-erupting volcanoes can emit massive amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The Gerlach calculation and all follow-up calculations utilized volcanic CO2 rates from actively erupting volcanoes.

 

Lost in the numerous recent media articles concerning the argument of when, or if Iceland’s Katla Volcano will erupt is the discovery that this non-erupting subglacial volcano is currently emitting staggering amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere!

 

Researchers from the University of Leeds who studied the Katla Volcano said this.

“We discovered that Katla volcano in Iceland is a globally important source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in spite of being previously assumed to be a minor gas emitter. Volcanoes are a key natural source of atmospheric CO2 but estimates of the total global amount of CO2 that volcanoes emit are based on only a small number of active volcanoes. Very few volcanoes which are covered by glacial ice have been measured for gas emissions, probably because they tend to be difficult to access and often do not have obvious degassing vents. Through high‐precision airborne measurements and atmospheric dispersion modeling, we show that Katla, a highly hazardous subglacial volcano which last erupted 100 years ago, is one of the largest volcanic sources of CO2 on Earth, releasing up to 5% of total global volcanic emissions. This is significant in the context of a growing awareness that natural CO2 sources have to be more accurately quantified in climate assessments and we recommend urgent investigations of other subglacial volcanoes worldwide.”(see here)

The Number of Volcanoes Emitting CO2 into the Atmosphere at Any One Time 

The calculation of the total yearly volume of volcanic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is based on the presumption that very few volcanoes are erupting at any one time.

Scientists from various worldwide volcano research institutions, most notably the United States Geological Survey, have estimated this number to be 20.

 

This very low number has been challenged by many scientists including those at NASA.

 

A  multinational team led by NASA has initiated a high-resolution satellite CO2 monitoring project (see here). This project is focused on determining how many geological features are emitting CO2 at any one time.

 

This project may eventually give scientists a better idea of how many land volcanoes are emitting CO2 at any one time.

 

However, it is doubtful the project will properly record ocean CO2 emissions from Earth’s 900,000 deep ocean floor and very difficult to monitor volcanic features.

 

In any case, this project is certainly a step forward towards achieving a better understanding of the climate influence of volcanic CO2 emissions.

 

The Amount of CO2 and heat infused into Earth’s Oceans by Seafloor Geological Features

About 71% of Earth’s surface is covered by oceans making it a water, not land, planet. For many years now, scientists have contended that the nearly one million geological features present in these vast ocean regions have played a minimal role in heating and chemically charging ocean seawater.

 

Instead of contending that man-made atmospheric CO2 was the root cause of changes to our oceans.

underwater volcano

Figure 2.) An underwater volcanic erupts in the Pacific Ocean (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science—AP).

Recent research has proven that the contentions of these scientists are far from 100% proven. To the contrary, it has become clear that geological heat flow and chemically charged heated fluid flow into our oceans is far more influential than previously thought and possibly the root cause of changes to our oceans.

 

One example is that geological features are warming Earth’s oceans and causing El Nino’s and La Nina’s (see here, here, and here). Warmed seawater is not capable of holding as much CO2 as cold water.

 

So, the geologically warming of seawater indirectly leads to a large amount of CO2 being released from oceans and emitted into the atmosphere.

 

Recent research shows that seafloor geological features also directly emit large amounts of CO2 into our oceans and atmosphere(see here, here, here, and Figure 2).

In summary, the volume of volcanic CO2 being emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere has not been accurately assessed.

 

Numerous research studies and articles conducted/written by qualified scientists concur with this contention (see herehere, and here).

 

In a geological time frame, Earth has gone through many periods of increased volcanism. These volcanic periods resulted in; major plant and animal extinction events (see here, here, and here), the end of glacial eras (see here) and the dramatic alteration of Earth’s climate (see here).

 

All indications are that Earth is currently experiencing another period of strong volcanic activity which is acting to infuse CO2 into our atmosphere thereby challenging the validity of the global warming theory.

 

Clearly, its time to put on hold all environmental action plans based on the cornerstone AGW principle of the global warming theory until additional geological CO2 emission research is conducted.

 


James Edward Kamis is a retired professional Geologist with 42 years of experience, a B.S. in Geology from Northern Illinois University (1973), an M.S. in geology from Idaho State University (1977), and a longtime member of AAPG who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. More than 14 years of research/observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is an important driver of the Earth’s climate as per his Plate Climatology Theory.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be a ban on volcanic activity. 

There needs to be some sort of emissions control device installed. 

Oh the humanity of it all.

It's for the children.

We need to throw a virgin into the volcano to appease the volcano gods. (Sarcasm off)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one tells the real story of the cycles. 

 

Even CNN says "it is unusual but not unprecedented".

 

According to the NORMAL cycles up there it will be very cold and a lot of snow.

 

 

 

Edited by bigwave
finished the post
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

There needs to be a ban on volcanic activity. 

There needs to be some sort of emissions control device installed. 

Oh the humanity of it all.

It's for the children.

We need to throw a virgin into the volcano to appease the volcano gods. (Sarcasm off)

Ummmm, you left out a few things. Like, cars and trucks, airoplanes, factories and especially ones that make toxic batteries, and outlaw oil and gas. If you vote democrat, you can have all of this for the price of humanity. Thats right, save the world and make humans extinct. lol.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jg1 said:

Ummmm, you left out a few things. Like, cars and trucks, airoplanes, factories and especially ones that make toxic batteries, and outlaw oil and gas. If you vote democrat, you can have all of this for the price of humanity. Thats right, save the world and make humans extinct. lol.

Well since you put it that way it makes perfect sense.  No humans means a saved planet. Let's do this! Who's first? Haha! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cranman said:

Well since you put it that way it makes perfect sense.  No humans means a saved planet. Let's do this! Who's first? Haha! 

Yo go first. lol

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is opposed to taking care of the environment but no group or government has come up with real solutions except criminal plans like the Paris Accord where every country in the world get to continue doing what they're doing except the US and the US basically funds off the taxpayers the rest of the worlds infrastructure overhauls. Covering the earth with electric cars? Yeah right. Ever see how caustic a lithium mine is? Acres and acres of solar panels and wind turbines just not going to replace all fossil fuels. And now they're totally against nuclear power. 

 

There are ways to improve the earth but keep the pollution dictators and govt wack jobs out of it and people will listen. Like the Green New Deal had all this pork in it to do all these things that had nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with socialist control.

 

When the powers that be get serious about the environment with real ideas, people will listen....

 

IMO....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jg1 said:

Yo go first. lol

Sure.  I'll let you know how it goes,  It may usher in the RV.  That would be about right.  LOL

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the argument that the world is changing. I do get the argument that it is natural and not man-made. With that said, live it up and waste the earth as much as you can. Who cares about your grandkid's future? Don't go out and try to improve things or reduce your impact, hell just go out and burn down a forest... Because as Ronny James Dio once wrote.... "We are the last in line"

 

B/A

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be amused if not for the seriousness of this debate. The condescending arrogance of our society to think that we humans have the power to change the climate and the earth. In the over all scheme of "Mother Nature" you need not worry about saving the earth. WE CANNOT SAVE THE EARTH!!!  The earth will save itself if the climate or environment gets dangerously out of balance. Remember all the oil spills and the hand wringing over destroying the oceans. Yep, turns out there are micro organisms at the bottom of the oceans that actually eat and clean up the oil. And we also learned that the earth seeps oil into the oceans floor so deep man COULD NOT clean it up. But it gets cleaned by nature. Amazing!! Same with global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever the "term de jour" this scam is being called today. If this crock of dung gets implemented the poor will suffer the most due to all the excessive taxes that will be levied on humanity at large. It is and elitist power play. And PLAESE don't give me the tired old line of scientific consensus! THERE IS NO CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE! Science is pretty cut and dry. You either prove the theory or you don't. Ever watch the weather reports when a hurricane is headed to our coasts. "The computer model" predicts that the storm will move in one of 20 directions. YGTBSM!  20 directions? Pretty good odds one will be correct and then they will tout how good they are at producing the weather. Give me break. I am all for cleaning the pollution made by man (such as plastic and old tires) that wash up on the shores, but let's not be so arrogant as to believe we can warm or cool the earth by sticking a cork up a cow's butt, not eating meat or going completely green. It pollutes when you have to make those electric car batteries and the again when you have to dispose of them. Fossil fuel is the life blood/engine that makes the earth move. You want to find ways to use it more cleanly, outstanding, but the economies of the world would be adversely effected if that happened. Fossil fuels will be around LONG after we are gone from this earth.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

I don't get the argument that the world is changing. I do get the argument that it is natural and not man-made. With that said, live it up and waste the earth as much as you can. Who cares about your grandkid's future? Don't go out and try to improve things or reduce your impact, hell just go out and burn down a forest... Because as Ronny James Dio once wrote.... "We are the last in line"

 

B/A

I think climate change is a combination of both man made and natural happenings.  In my opinion most people are open to making resources last longer,  recycling and reducing pollution.  It's just that some plans are to extreme. There are compromises that need to made.  There are steps that are being taken already. This world isn't going to die in 10 years. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cranman said:

This world isn't going to die in 10 years. 

 

The world was here billions of years before us and will be here billions of years after we are gone.

 

B/A

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

The world was here billions of years before us and will be here billions of years after we are gone.

 

B/A

Yep. My point exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Markinsa said:

 

Actually  according to the below video, the Russian climate model is the most accurate.

 

 

 

 

Awesome....Thanks Markinsa for sharing this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cranman said:

I say, has man made an impact on the environment and the climate? Sure!  But I believe it's a minute  impact. Weather patterns,  jet streams and earths temperatures have been changing long before we ever existed. Long before we ever had the industry pollution we have now

 That being said, there is nothing wrong with REASONABLY trying to reduce waste, pollution and destruction of the earth's resources. JMO

Change works best when it's agreed upon by eveyone and not forced down ones throat.  Ever notice the more extreme the plan is and the more its gets forced on others the less anything gets done?  

 

Thanks for your sensible approach esp. when you say that "there is nothing wrong with REASONABLY trying to reduce waste, pollution and destruction of the earth's resources. JMO"

 

I might even agree on the part  "Change works best when it's agreed upon by eveyone and not forced down ones throat" .....But that does not seem to be the the case here.... 

 

 I personally do not think that posting an /any article on the global warming ( or on any other issue) means forcing anything down one's throat...One can always choose to read or skip....Reading anything / any subject article is not ( thank God ) and will never be  mandatory....And just in case one decides to proceed and read, one is completely free to agree or disagree on any issue....Freedom of choice

 

Best

Edited by umbertino
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, umbertino said:

 

Thanks for your sensible approach esp. when you say that "there is nothing wrong with REASONABLY trying to reduce waste, pollution and destruction of the earth's resources. JMO"

 

I might even agree on the part  "Change works best when it's agreed upon by eveyone and not forced down ones throat" .....But that does not seem to be the the case here.... 

 

 I personally do not think that posting an /any article on the global warming ( or on any other issue) means forcing anything down one's throat...One can always choose to read or skip....Reading anything / any subject article is not ( thank God ) and will never be  mandatory....And just in case one decides to proceed and read, one is completely free to agree or disagree on any issue....Freedom of choice

 

Best

I agree.   I was talking about The New Green Deal and how New York city wants to make every building green in the very near future.  Those plans are extreme and not feasible in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 2:28 PM, bostonangler said:

I don't get the argument that the world is changing. I do get the argument that it is natural and not man-made. With that said, live it up and waste the earth as much as you can. Who cares about your grandkid's future? Don't go out and try to improve things or reduce your impact, hell just go out and burn down a forest... Because as Ronny James Dio once wrote.... "We are the last in line"

 

B/A

 

 

Among other more scientific issues, what you say it's right on target ....It's really a very very very selfish ( in the least ) way to consider all this and acting consequently ( by not caring at all)  ...Who cares about the future of our children, grandkids and their children and grand kids ...An awesome heritage we will leave to them.....I  do believe that part of the problem is man-made anyway.....JMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.