Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Canuck Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Interesting little story. Deep ocean measurements have not found any warming of the world's oceans (actually a bit of cooling).
Where's all this extra heat, which the surface monitoring network tell us is in the air???

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Quote:

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

But I thought we knew everything???

.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Well you have something there !!!

dont you?

I understand that the surface temperature of the moon has also not changed because of global warming.

lets see suppose you were to relieve pressure under greenland , would this pressure relief tend to reduce the temperature of the earths magma?

Quote:
(actually a bit of cooling).


I think its just a matter of catch up.

the oceans floors just need to wait awhile until the temperatures catch up.

also we dont live on the ocean floor , we live up here where the temperatures are rising.




Last edited by paul; 05/07/08 10:10 PM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: paul
Well you have something there !!!

Quote:
(actually a bit of cooling).



also we dont live on the ocean floor , we live up here where the temperatures are rising.




Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


I must say you have got a point there Paul, no we dont live on the Ocean floor. Those Argo Computer Floats dive down to about 1 mile deep, where the ocean temp would be very constant.

Which is brings me to Canuck's very interesting find "The Mystery of GW missing Heat"
It seems that this, and similar storys are being put out because
the findings are......that the Oceans are cooling slightly??
A story based upon the 3000 Argo floaters not finding any distinct ocean warming pattern.

I am prepared to go out on a limb and suggest the data coming back from the Argo's is not sufficiently accurate to show the actual warming in the upper last six inches of the oceans
I would be prepared to bet that this in-accuracy is caused by the bad design of the floats, for the info required?

If one is prepared to establish that the hottest parts of any ocean are within the top 12 inches of the sea. Which is exactly where the interface between wave and wind is best able to pick up the oceans heat and transfer it to the atmosphere.
Unless I am mistaken these approx 4.5 ft long floating computers
(excluding antennae)do not take sea temperatures of the upper 6 inches of the sea surface. That was a great mistake.

While diving down to a mile deep, their sea temps are pretty constant, dependant upon where they are, its the last 6 inches of ocean heat, and the dirt/dust particles that are warmed by the Sun in those few inches that we would like to know the temperature of.
Looking at some temp and salinity graphs, they seem to show that they take their readings using pressure.
Allowing for various weighting variations of the individual floats, and the various different speeds they sink and rise over their max 5 year life (before the battery runs out) it does not make for a very good temp data of the top inches of sea water temperature we really want to know about.
In fact even the upper Salinity readings are suspect, since they vary due to prolonged, even heavy rainfall, or proximity to ice bergs, even river outflows.
So in my opinion there is no Heat-loss Mystery, just a misnamed idea based on inconclusive sea surface temperatures .
There is a lot of information below, this first item is quite deliberately comical.

http://wo.jcommops.org/cgi-bin/WebObject...0.3.1.1.5.1.6.0

My original Gogo topic here

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=24369#Post24369

The rest need real study, with questions asked. If anyone got the time?

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/latest_data.html

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?id=5203&aid=2429












.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Maybe the heat went into melting 300-500 Gigatonnes of ice each year (...or has that been accounted for already?).


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Canuck Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
lol - oh paul, you're funny.


These scientists go looking for a supposed "tell-tale" sign of global air temperatures increasing, the deep ocean getting warmer - as something to verify the surface record. Given that temperature has been increasing since 1850, you would have thought the oceans would show something. At least they thought so - perhaps you know better.

But, much to their surprise, they find nothing - and you, so intelligently, counter "we don't live on the bottom of the ocean, so it doesn't matter".
Try opening your mind a bit paul, and read the parts that I bolded. This shocked them, they expected to find something. Our present "knowledge" of the climate, and how it deals with heat, said the oceans should be warming. But that doesn't appear to be happening. Something else is going on. Something else that affects the heat balance of the globe. Don't you think that's at all interesting? Don't you think that calls into question our supposed "knowledge" of the climate?
Apparently it did for these scientists. In their words, people are going to have to go back to the "drawing boards".

No doubt if they did find the oceans warming, the alarmist crowd would be declaring this as further "proof". If there's nothing found - it's passed off as meaningless. Global warming is moving further and further away from being a science, and getting dangerously close to a religion.


By the way - how is solar cycle 24 coming along? Anything yet? Perhaps on a related note, we're now 5 consecutive months of "normal" global average temps. http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_tim...Ocean_v03_1.txt

Or how about the problem that "global" warming doesn't seem to be truly "global"
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tmt
Nope - nothing wrong here.....completely in line with what we expected. Let's get some carbon trading centers up and running. The debate is over! No point investing those resources in real issues like third world infrastructure. I'm sure those 100,000 dead in Myanmar are glad everybody is focussed on this catastrophe of 1.5C of warming

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Canuck Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Mike - here's the time series for global average ocean temps.
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_tim...Ocean_v03_1.txt

Nothing too scary there

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: paul
I understand that the surface temperature of the moon has also not changed because of global warming.

lets see suppose you were to relieve pressure under greenland , would this pressure relief tend to reduce the temperature of the earths magma?
....Interesting thought about the pressure

Paul,
I can be a bit of a scatterbrain at 2:00am, and mis-posted this on "Zealotry...."
It should'a been here:
Quote:
...btw, I think they can measure Global Warming on the moon.
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/Huang07ASR.pdf
Surface temperatures at the nearside of the Moon as a record of the radiation budget of Earth’s climate system ...Please cite this article in press as: Huang, S., Surface temperatures at the nearside of the Moon as a ..., J. Adv. Space Res. (2007), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.04.093

Canuk mentions, "These scientists go looking for a supposed "tell-tale" sign of global air temperatures increasing, the deep ocean getting warmer - as something to verify the surface record." -Canuk
While the oceans (plural!) are vast and interconnected, they are perhaps less well-understood than the moon.
As Canuk's NPR quotes graciously concede, it is "possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean."

The Earth's crust, however, does offer an independent measure of that "missing heat." See:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25277#Post25277
for a brief discussion (with a much simpler system) of this link:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf
...shameless self-promotion....
smile
...still need to look at the remss links....


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
Originally Posted By: paul

also we dont live on the ocean floor , we live up here where the temperatures are rising.


The oceans are the key. They are heat reservoir for the planet. Tney contain 1000 times the stored energy of the planet. The land is irrelevant as far as understanding global warming is concerned. If you want to get serious about understanding the planet, you need to try and understand whats going on with the oceans. Why sea surface temperatures have risen yet average ocean temepratures haven't (even slightly cooled ?) ... and yet sea levels have risen - often touted as due to "thermal" expansion. If you can work that out, you will have solved the puzzle and maybe we will give you a Nobel prize. Until you have solved it, there isn't even much point in worrying because, as Canuck quotes "its back to the drawing board".

Stop worrying - go out and send some mosquito nets to Tanzania. At least you'll be doing something useful.


Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Hi Canuck,
Thanks for the 'the time series for global average ocean temps'

But what really got to me was your brilliant quotation

No doubt if they did find the oceans warming, the alarmist crowd would be declaring this as further "proof". If there's nothing found - it's passed off as meaningless.
'Global warming is moving further and further away from being a science, and getting dangerously close to a religion'

LOL. I could not stop chuckling after I read that. For heavens sake lets hope Revlking dos'nt spot this, lest he takes over
this topic completely. LOL



.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Canuck

if I had a bowl of water , and there was a ice cube sitting atop a small island in the middle of the bowl of water , and the ice cube was melting because of a room temperature increase , wouldnt this melting ice water be cold?

and wouldnt the water in the bowl be cooled down due to the cold melting ice water entering the ocean?

now what happens after the ice melts.
will the water in the bowl heat up to room temperature?

as soon as the ice has melted and the water temperature catches up to the room temperature you will find a temperature increase in the water in the bowl.

also if the island is greenland then the ice that is melting is moving its mass from atop the island and thereby reducing the pressure to the bowl and cooling the water in the bowl at the same time.

Im sure that you can laugh and poke fun at those who do more than post other peoples articles on this forum , those who actually use their brain to think of reasons that things happen such as myself , why dont you do something other than post other peoples ideas and thoughts , its people like you that have stretched the climate to its breaking point and of course you continue and chuckel as the proof mounts up in your face and sucks every spare cent out of your wallet.

____________________________
.
Fools arent born they just become fools mainly because they listen to other fools.
.





Last edited by paul; 05/14/08 04:02 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Canuck Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Hey Paul - if you have a problem with the theory that the deep ocean should be carrying the warming signal that we're seeing in the air temperature, take it up with the scientists in the article, not I.

I'd suggest debating them using your completely appropriate metaphor of a bowl of water with an ice cube.
I'm sure you can explain away such nasty little "complications" like ENSO, PDO, NAO, El Nino, La Nina, solar fluctuations, convection, turbulence, radiative transfer, ocean currents, cloud cover, etc... as simply trivial. Who needs GCMs, paul has a bowl of water!!

Although, I sure would like to hear your theory on how Greenland glaciers melting would reduce the water pressure within the oceans, therefore making it cooler. I'm sure that would be a blast.

Sorry to disappoint paul, I don't laugh and poke fun of people who discuss topics intelligently on this forum. Although, I do, get a great laugh out of people who seriously put forth an idea, that is so absurd, even a minuscule amount of logic and critical thought would render it baseless.

Oh, by the way, have you figured out how many fish would have to be taken out of the ocean to offset global ocean level rise due to glacier melt?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Canuck
Quote:
Although, I sure would like to hear your theory on how Greenland glaciers melting would reduce the water pressure within the oceans, therefore making it cooler. I'm sure that would be a blast.


here is what I wrote.

Quote:
lets see suppose you were to relieve pressure under greenland , would this pressure relief tend to reduce the temperature of the earths magma?


I dont even think you can comprehend what you read , when you actually do read.

this explains why you only post articles that others write.

you left yourself open to this one canuck !

since the below was an attempt to verify your inteligence or pump your ego up a bit , lets let the hot air out and verify your inteligence at the same time.

Quote:
Sorry to disappoint paul, I don't laugh and poke fun of people who discuss topics intelligently on this forum. Although, I do, get a great laugh out of people who seriously put forth an idea, that is so absurd, even a minuscule amount of logic and critical thought would render it baseless.



yes I thought about what you wrote , it was absurd considering the basis of what you were writing about.
and I did get a big laugh out of your reply , and am still laughing as I write... thanks canuck.

Quote:
Oh, by the way, have you figured out how many fish would have to be taken out of the ocean to offset global ocean level rise due to glacier melt?


Uh ... hmmm ... the same volume of fish?

well if I have a fish tank and it will hold 1 cu ft of fish
and 9 cu ft of water or 10 cu ft of water and no fish.

____________________________
.
Fools arent born they just become fools mainly because they listen to other fools.
.





Last edited by paul; 05/15/08 03:50 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Canuck Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: paul


here is what I wrote.

Quote:
lets see suppose you were to relieve pressure under greenland , would this pressure relief tend to reduce the temperature of the earths magma?


Actually, Paul, no, that is not what you wrote.
This is what you wrote.
Originally Posted By: paul

also if the island is greenland then the ice that is melting is moving its mass from atop the island and thereby reducing the pressure to the bowl and cooling the water in the bowl at the same time.

If you're going to change your statement after the fact, at least be smart enough to go back and edit your post.
Regardless, no I don't believe if we lost all the ice on greenland, that it would cause a de-pressurization of the earth's magma, (or oceans for that matter) thereby reducing the temperature of the oceans. How do I know? The two things I mentioned in my previous post; 1)critical thought; and 2) logical thinking

Originally Posted By: paul

I dont even think you can comprehend what you read , when you actually do read.

this explains why you only post articles that others write.

you left yourself open to this one canuck !

Left myself open to what? You've altered your quote after my post, and you're accusing me of reading comprehension problems?
If you're going to change your quote to make it seem like you know what you're talking about, at least make it believable.

Originally Posted By: paul

since the below was an attempt to verify your inteligence or pump your ego up a bit , lets let the hot air out and verify your inteligence at the same time.

Quote:
Sorry to disappoint paul, I don't laugh and poke fun of people who discuss topics intelligently on this forum. Although, I do, get a great laugh out of people who seriously put forth an idea, that is so absurd, even a minuscule amount of logic and critical thought would render it baseless.



yes I thought about what you wrote , it was absurd considering the basis of what you were writing about.
and I did get a big laugh out of your reply , and am still laughing as I write... thanks canuck.

Not sure what exactly the point of these paragraphs. Not sure how you've let the "hot air out". But hey, whatever works for you.
By the way, it's "intelligence" not "inteligence". Isn't irony grand?

Originally Posted By: paul

Quote:
Oh, by the way, have you figured out how many fish would have to be taken out of the ocean to offset global ocean level rise due to glacier melt?


Uh ... hmmm ... the same volume of fish?

well if I have a fish tank and it will hold 1 cu ft of fish
and 9 cu ft of water or 10 cu ft of water and no fish.

and this explains why we haven't seen ocean levels rise right? Because of the removal of fish. If only the oceans held 10% of their volume as fish, or 1% or 0.1%, 0.01% or even 0.001%.

Originally Posted By: paul

Fools arent born they just become fools mainly because they listen to other fools.

Which fool did you listen to paul? How did listening to that fool make you lose all sense of scale, reality or logic?

In hopes to keep this forum civil, I will no longer be responding to you paul. I suggest that you do the same in return.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Canuck

Well I guess the hot air is out now!!!

that was a long responce , heres mine.

I did not know that you were writing of the anology ( the bowl ) I thought that you would have thought about it awhile and maybe realized that I was writing about greenland.

it was my intention to relay to you that the pressure relief in the general area under greenland is causing a temperature decreases in the magma under greenland.

of course if you dont think that physics is correct then have YOUR own way...

Normaly when there is pressure applied , there is a proportional amount of heat generated and if that pressure is released there is a proportional amount of resulting coolness.

and in this case the release would cool down the magma under greenland , and the coolness would transfer to the oceans.

and since the magma is liquid , the pressure inside the earth would be reduced , resulting in an overall cooling of the oceans.

now I am going to use another annology... OK.

if you have a steel globe , that is hollow , and it has an internal pressure of 100 psi , with a temperature of 100 F
and you hit it with a hammer and cause a dent in it.

the pressure in the globe will increase and the temperature in the globe will increase proportionately.

if you pull the dent out again the pressure and temperature will both decrease inside the globe , this is the way physics tells it but you may have a theory we dont yet know of.

Quote:
Regardless, no I don't believe if we lost all the ice on greenland, that it would cause a de-pressurization of the earth's magma, (or oceans for that matter) thereby reducing the temperature of the oceans. How do I know? The two things I mentioned in my previous post; 1)critical thought; and 2) logical thinking


1)critical thought

so when/as the ice on greenland melts.

the supportive magma under greenland would not feel any pressure release which would result in any temperature decrease that would cause any cooling.

not only are you doing away with physics , you are also doing away with gravity at the same time.

that is critical thinking...

2) logical thinking

I believe there really is no point in discussing logic.
your critical thinking speaks for your logic.

................................

I think that the main problem here is that you are skeptic
and I am not concerning Global Warming.

and I get a little ticked off when I see the stupidity that caused Global Warming even now when the effects of Global Warming are showing more and more.

................................


if I spelled something wrong and you caught it it just means that I dont use a spell checker like yourself.

and as to keeping the civility of this forum , you might try that by avoiding the types of replies that you are so accustomed to.


Quote:
In hopes to keep this forum civil, I will no longer be responding to you paul. I suggest that you do the same in return.


I would listen to your sudgestions if I thought you were a viable source of information.

and as far as your responding , you dont have to respond , it doesnt matter.

I know Im right.


____________________________
.
Fools arent born they just become fools mainly because they listen to other fools.
.



Last edited by paul; 05/15/08 05:30 PM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: paul
I know Im right.

Paul, I followed through this and, while there are places where it's awkward to understand, I think technically this all stands up. I can see why Canuk interpreted your writing the way he did, though.

As to the magnitude of the effects that you wonder about, I'd think these would be dwarfed by some of the main climate/anthro- forcers and influences.

But you never know 'till you think about it and ask, eh?
Who knows? Maybe magmatic influences will be found to predominate. Maybe magmatic currents will shift due to tectonic changes as ice melts, and ocean currents and atmospheric pressures shift.

...as an aside....
Did you know that man now stores about as much water in reservoirs as the amount of (missing) predicted sea-level rise?
Where did I read something like that recently?
smile

p.s. I'll bet that water is a lot warmer than it would be if it were in the oceans! (there is some missing heat....)

Last edited by samwik; 05/18/08 08:14 PM. Reason: added p.s.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Samwik


Great catch
Quote:
man now stores about as much


re:
Quote:
Did you know that man now stores about as much water in reservoirs as the amount of (missing) predicted sea-level rise?


we can consider the water that is pumped into the oil wells as a future resouvior also.
however that water was probably not accounted for.
still it counts.

Quote:
A rough rule of thumb is it takes a barrel of water to get a barrel of oil.


its needed to grow food and its scarce but guess who is putting it where it cant be used

Samwik I believe someone is questioning the known facts and doing a little thinking for himself.

what would really put a clamp on fossile fuel useage would be a visible sea level rise...wouldnt you think.

what types of things could be done to prevent a visible sea level rise?

Quote:
Did you know that man now stores about as much water in reservoirs as the amount of (missing) predicted sea-level rise?
Where did I read something like that recently?


where can I read about this?
this sounds like something I would be interested in...



Last edited by paul; 05/19/08 01:20 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Paul,
I usually don't waste my time responding to fantasy...

The oceans have been cooling for years. Even if your "ice cube in a bowl" brainstorm was correct...Last years Arctic melt couldn't affect the cooling of previous years. Not here in the real world. You need to consider the real world when fantasizing about science. It's fascinating to imagine that the effects of a melting ice cube in a bowl can be capable of time travel.

"we live up here where the temperatures are rising."
Please check your "facts" for the last 10 years.

By the way...Trenberth is the lead author of the IPCC reports. Pay attention to who is talking. If the IPCC claims that there is missing heat and it's "back to the drawing board", then you guys should take their word for it. AGW is their boogie man.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Max: Time travel? I saw how Canuk interpreted Paul's writings, but where do you get time travel (retroactive cooling?) out of this?
...
So, do you think, "Back to the Drawing Board," means they erase everything and start over; or do they go back to it and try corrections and additions?

Occasionally science erases everything, but usually just modifications are required to make advances.

...meanwhile....
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Did you know that man now stores about as much water in reservoirs as the amount of (missing) predicted sea-level rise? Where did I read something like that recently?
where can I read about this?
this sounds like something I would be interested in...

Originally published in Science Express on 13 March 2008
Science 11 April 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5873, pp. 212 - 214
DOI: 10.1126/science.1154580

Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level
B. F. Chao,* Y. H. Wu, Y. S. Li
By reconstructing the history of water impoundment in the world's artificial reservoirs, we show that a total of 10,800 cubic kilometers of water has been impounded on land to date, reducing the magnitude of global sea level (GSL) rise by –30.0 millimeters, at an average rate of –0.55 millimeters per year during the past half century. This demands a considerably larger contribution to GSL rise from other (natural and anthropogenic) causes than otherwise required. The reconstructed GSL history, accounting for the impact of reservoirs by adding back the impounded water volume, shows an essentially constant rate of rise at +2.46 millimeters per year over at least the past 80 years. This value is contrary to the conventional view of apparently variable GSL rise, which is based on face values of observation.
===
Paul, ...I found it!
smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Max
Quote:
Paul,
I usually don't waste my time responding to fantasy...


neither do I


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Samwik

Quote:
10,800 cubic kilometers of water has been impounded on land to date


as of 2008 the world oil consumption is at 76 million barrels per day.

1 barrel = 48 gallons

that equals 3.684 billion gallons per day.


1.344 trillion gallons per year
310 trillion cubic inches per year
179 billion cu ft per year

1 cubic mile
5280 ft x 5280 ft x 5280 ft = 147,197,952,000 cu ft

current world oil consumption = 1.216 cu miles per year

I believe I read that the water flooding method is used apx 95% of the time so you can estimate that there is apx 1.15 cu miles of water going into the oil wells per year.

also you can estimate that an area of 63,360 sq miles at a depth of 1 inch per year is being removed from the picture when the picture is sea level rise.

in the ballpark..

..............................................

and now the 10,800 cu kilometers = 6,696 cu miles

Earth's Diameter at the Equator: 7926.28 miles

Approximately 79% of the Earth's surface
(an area of some 140 million square miles)
is covered by ocean.

6,696 cu miles x 5280 ft x 12" = 424,258,560

so they have dropped the sea level by 3.02 inches storing water.

or a sq mile all the way through the earth just above the equator.
thats a lot of stored water !!!

water is cyclic if they store that much water it can be said that the water came from the ocean , because it was not allowed to flow into the oceans.

..............................................

we dont see all this as a sea level decrease , why?

maybe they dont want us to...

maybe its thermal expansion , if its thermal expansion then they are setting us up for the biggest methane release since the one that ended the last ice age...

water expanded still presents the same pressure to the methane ice...

if water is removed from the oceans then the oceans expanded thermaly little by little it might appear the same but it weighs less and presents less pressure at the ocean floor.

every year were getting closer and closer to a release.

and large methane releases trigger other releases.

it dominoes.

of course as it stands there are several reasons that there is not much thermal expansion today , but what happens when the ice stops melting and the magma stops cooling , and the waters begin to heat up?

it might be better to lose some shore line than to keep covering up the rising sea levels.


Samwik: thanks

BTW: 1 cu mile of fresh water only weighs 9.1 gigga tonnes.

and there is supposed to be apx 300 gigga tonnes melting each year?

thats 32 cu miles of water per year.

or 2,027,520 sq miles 1 inch high.



Last edited by paul; 05/21/08 11:19 PM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Samwik,
The "ice cube in a bowl" analogy was hilarious. I was just adding to the humor. How could last years melting of Greenland or the Arctic explain the cooling of the oceans that started in 2003? Time travel? lol.

My opinion…The so called scientists who have been preaching climate catastrophe for the last 40 years should be decertified and put out to pasture. No, they shouldn't start over. They should just give up and let real scientists take over. We might get accurate predictions if we get rid of the politics and the preconceived notions of CO2.

Paul,
What if the water in the bowl was the same temperature as the East and West Greenland Currents? (0°Celsius and colder) Would Greenland’s melting ice water lower, or raise the temperature of the water in the bowl?


Let's use the real world. What would cool the oceans more?

1. A little bit of ice melt runoff into the frigid East and West Greenland Currents during the summer months when the sun is heating the oceans in the northern hemisphere.
2. The hundreds of miles of icebergs and sea ice flowing from the Arctic for the rest of the year, with less solar energy warming the oceans.


(One small hint...Greenland's glaciers give birth to icebergs for about 5 months during the annual iceberg season....and not during the summer melt months.)

Would pressure relief on the magma cool the frozen and frigid East and West Greenland Currents?

It’s best to stick to real world science over fantasy. CT? Where?

Here's the scam...
Pass a law based on pseudoscience to tax Americans $1.2 TRILLION over 20 years.
Claim that GW is real, but will be masked by natural climate forces and we won't see the warming until 2030. (20 years)
They can now tax Americans for 20 years for AGW with a promise that we won't see the warming during the tax timeframe.
In 2030, claim that the taxes worked and we prevented catastrophe.
Another successful "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" with much more to be made from carbon credits.
Gosh! The exact same people did the exact same thing with CFC's.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Canuck Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: samwik

Paul, I followed through this and, while there are places where it's awkward to understand, I think technically this all stands up. I can see why Canuk interpreted your writing the way he did, though.

As to the magnitude of the effects that you wonder about, I'd think these would be dwarfed by some of the main climate/anthro- forcers and influences.

exactly samwik - of course there would be some pressure relief as the glaciers receded. In fact we're seeing this, where in many places, land is actually rising due to isostatic rebound from the last ice age.
Would the removal of glaciers cause some localized pressure relief? Yes. Would this pressure relief cause the core of the earth to be significantly reduced? Nope. Would this imperceptible decrease in core temperature cause the oceans to cool? Nope.
Glad to hear there are some with some ability to discern what is "possible" versus what is "probable".

As Max accurately pointed out, one of the lead authors went looking for another "fingerprint" of AGW. And he came up empty. People should take note.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
p.s. Gotta run now, but looking forward to more tonight or Friday.

Originally Posted By: paul
Samwik
Quote:
10,800 cubic kilometers of water has been impounded on land to date

as of 2008 the world oil consumption is at 76 million barrels per day.

1 barrel = 48 gallons
that equals 3.684 billion gallons per day.
1.344 trillion gallons per year
310 trillion cubic inches per year
179 billion cu ft per year
1 cubic mile
5280 ft x 5280 ft x 5280 ft = 147,197,952,000 cu ft
current world oil consumption = 1.216 cu miles per year
I believe I read that the water flooding method is used apx 95% of the time so you can estimate that there is apx 1.15 cu miles of water going into the oil wells per year.
also you can estimate that an area of 63,360 sq miles at a depth of 1 inch per year is being removed from the picture when the picture is sea level rise.

in the ballpark..

..............................................

and now the 10,800 cu kilometers = 6,696 cu miles

Earth's Diameter at the Equator: 7926.28 miles
Approximately 79% of the Earth's surface
(an area of some 140 million square miles)
is covered by ocean.
6,696 cu miles x 5280 ft x 12" = 424,258,560
so they have dropped the sea level by 3.02 inches storing water.
or a sq mile all the way through the earth just above the equator.
thats a lot of stored water !!!

water is cyclic if they store that much water it can be said that the water came from the ocean , because it was not allowed to flow into the oceans.

..............................................

we dont see all this as a sea level decrease , why?
maybe they dont want us to...
maybe its thermal expansion , if its thermal expansion then they are setting us up for the biggest methane release since the one that ended the last ice age...
water expanded still presents the same pressure to the methane ice...
if water is removed it might look the same but it weighs less.
every year were getting closer and closer to a release.
and large methane releases trigger other releases.
it dominoes.

of course as it stands there are several reasons that there is not much thermal expansion today , but what happens when the ice stops melting and the magma stops cooling , and the waters begin to heat up?
it might be better to lose some shore line than to keep covering up the rising sea levels.

Samwik: thanks
BTW: 1 cu mile of fresh water only weighs 9.1 gigga tonnes.
and there is supposed to be apx 300 gigga tonnes melting each year?
thats 32 cu miles of water per year.
or 2,027,520 sq miles 1 inch high.


Paul, I have to say that both you and Max seem to have equally extreme conspiracy theories.
But at least your theory fits the facts (not that "fitting" proves anything, but....), and you are concerned with the work, measurements, and observations of scientists; trying to fit eveerything together into a "big picture."
I applaud your dedicated time and efforts in delving into this very big picture; it's humanity's future that we're talking about here!

I'm glad you edited your calculations and added the comparison with kilometers.

I'm wondering more about the heat stored in those reservoirs. That water was once (often recently) evaporated, before it precipitated to then be collected in the reservoir, so that should count as "missing heat."

I tried looking for an average "temperature of reservoirs globally" but didn't find anything yet.
Actually, I only googled "temperature of reservoirs" so far.
Let me know if you try this route.

I enjoyed all your calculations and need to ask if that was just "an inch" out of the Atlantic (between those points you mentioned), or is it all oceans between those latitudes?

I can't easily check the last part of your calculations where you translate it into sea-level rise (or lack thereof), but I'd like to try a different approach.

The paper relates the 10,800 cu.km. figure to a change in sea-level of about 30 millimeters, doesn't it?
Can't we use that figure directly and then compare the ~1 or 2 cu.km. of oil displacement to the ~11,000 cu.km in reservoirs.

...
Up to 2000, temperature rise in the oceans was detected (whether real or not) and was related to sea-level rise in terms of the thermal expansion; being about half the cause of sea-level rise. (Levitus, 2003)

But now I don't know if that was calculated empirically, or by looking at the measured sea-level rise (whether mistaken or not), and then calculating the thermal expansion contribution based on the observations (which did not account for this missing water in reservoirs).

...
But whatever....
I think that with Levitus's calculations of the heat capacity of the oceans, along with information about the global average temperature of reservoirs, that we could calculate how much of this "missing heat" is stored in reservoirs.

...if that missing heat is not just 'lower in the oceans' as Trenberth suggests in his statement.
~Later
smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul,
What if the water in the bowl was the same temperature as the East and West Greenland Currents? (0°Celsius and colder) Would Greenland’s melting ice water lower, or raise the temperature of the water in the bowl?


when you think of 300 giga tonnes (32 cu miles) of barely above 0°Celsius water ( 32 F) entering the waters off greenland as it melts its not hard to think that maybe there is more cold water being pushed out further into the oceans.

Quote:
Let's use the real world. What would cool the oceans more?

1. A little bit of ice melt runoff into the frigid East and West Greenland Currents during the summer months when the sun is heating the oceans in the northern hemisphere.
2. The hundreds of miles of icebergs and sea ice flowing from the Arctic for the rest of the year, with less solar energy warming the oceans.


your real world has been doing this for 12,000 years now , why all of a sudden is your real world collapsing in the last 10 years or so?

Quote:
Let's use the real world


I am














3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Max
How could last years melting of Greenland or the Arctic explain the cooling of the oceans that started in 2003?
Oh, now I understand the confusion around the "time travel" comment.
....But that level of melting didn't just start last year. It's been approaching that for over a decade now.

Originally Posted By: Canuk
People should take note.
Yes, people should note this shiningly normal example of science, incrementally progressing forward, having to re-examine every step along the way; and never getting it "right" on the first try, learning more from the unexpected results than from confirmation of the expected, etc., etc.

Originally Posted By: paul
thats 32 cu miles of water per year.
or 2,027,520 sq miles 1 inch high.
So that's some fraction of a millimeter (just from melting ice) globally, isn't it?

Paul, I hope you noticed my question about the "missing heat," posted just before your last post.
smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Samwik

I see what you were talking about.
I googled the units conversion and got .62 cu km per cu mile I think !!! big difference there.

anyway Im glad that you pointed to a discrepancy in my calculations , I drifted again...
when I came up with the below results.


Quote:
..............................................

and now the 10,800 cu kilometers = 6,696 cu miles

Earth's Diameter at the Equator: 7926.28 miles
Approximately 79% of the Earth's surface
(an area of some 140 million square miles)
is covered by ocean.
6,696 cu miles x 5280 ft x 12" = 424,258,560
so they have dropped the sea level by 3.02 inches storing water.
or a sq mile all the way through the earth just above the equator.
thats a lot of stored water !!!

water is cyclic if they store that much water it can be said that the water came from the ocean , because it was not allowed to flow into the oceans.

..............................................


this is how the results should have looked.

Quote:
..............................................

and now the 10,800 cu kilometers = 2,591.057 cu miles

Earth's Diameter at the Equator: 7926.28 miles
Approximately 79% of the Earth's surface
(an area of some 140 million square miles)
is covered by ocean.
2,591 cu miles x 5280 ft x 12" = 164,165,760 sq miles

using the 140,000,000 sq miles of oceans area.

stored water / area of oceans = 1.17 inches
so they have dropped the sea level by 1.17 inches storing water.

thats a lot of stored water !!!

water is cyclic if they store that much water it can be said that the water came from the ocean , because it was not allowed to flow into the oceans.

..............................................


water has a high thermal mass and can store heat better than concrete , even better than the earth istelf.
just one cubic meter, can store 334 MJ (317 k BTUs, 93kWh or 26.4 ton-hours).
just one cubic meter, can store 334 MJ

I would think that a good place to find any missing heat from the waters of the oceans would be these reserviors.

exactly how to arrive at a number to use would be extremely hard to come about without actually taking measurements of the reservoirs temperatures at varying depths and having actual gathered data to base any calculation on , you would need to take into consideration everything that would affect the water temperature.

almost a hard thing to accomplish , but could be done with proper data and proper programming to give a close result.

maybe there is a grad student that needs a project?

maybe theres funding available for that project?

anyway , I have given a lot of thought to the missing heat question of yours and find that this is something that should be included in any climatic prediction software that is being developed.

Great find Samwik !!!

Quote:
Can't we use that figure directly and then compare the ~1 or 2 cu.km. of oil displacement to the ~11,000 cu.km in reservoirs.


what would really be nice to have , and should be somewhere would be to have a close number as to the volume of water that has been used to displace the oil in the oil wells.

I suspect that that volume would be close to the 10,800 cu km !!!
depending on the depth of the wells and the height of the reservoirs. SBT LOL...

not saying that the volume of oil that has been removed from the ground is 10,800 cu km , but that water would seep into areas where oil is not and that given the profits that oil makes when it gets to ground level the cheapest and most effective method of getting oil to ground level is by far the water flooding method.

surely the 1 barrel of oil to 1 barrel of water is not correct in my own personal opinion...

steam is also being used to strip the walls of wells of the precious oil and as the oil laden walls were providing a barrier to any escape of the water out of the wells cavity , the use of steam would remove any such barrier.






Last edited by paul; 05/25/08 04:37 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Paul,
I had some fun surfing. Nothing definitive, but it seems they re-use a lot of their water.
I can see what you're saying about cracks and fissures holding more water, but it still must be about the same volume as what is removed (maybe doubled or tripled, but not increased by orders of magnitude).

I couldn't believe the water/Btu figures!
...and we generate heat to create the energy to heat the water to get the oil to generate the heat to create the end=ergy....
...save that typo, it seems appropriate....

...anyway, I'm posting" all" of that little surfing journey on another thread here on Climate Change:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26199#Post26199
It's very disjointed, but it all "relates" to this stuff.
A lot of it is promo stuff from the oil companies, but the few figures that they quote can be used to convert to some net totals, I think. Between their "total saved" and the percentage of "reduction" you should be able to get a total used. But notice that all they use does not go underground.

I especially liked:
...Congressional Testimony:
The area proposed for drilling is the coastal plain that has been called the "biological heart" of the [ANWR] Refuge because it is the primary calving grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd. Unlike the Prudhoe Bay area, the coastal plain narrows significantly in the Arctic Refuge, inviting a direct conflict between the untouched wilderness and proposed oil and gas drilling, pipeline infrastructure, and related industrial activities. In addition, because it appears that oil and gas reserves in the Arctic Refuge are spread out in several pools, rather than in one large formation like Prudhoe Bay, additional "footprints" and pipeline connections may be required to develop oil and gas resources in the area. Finally, water resources are much more limited in the coastal plain area of the Arctic Refuge, as compared with the Prudhoe Bay region. Substantial water consumption is required for oil and gas activities; utilizing the limited available water supplies would likely negatively impact the existing ecosystem. (The construction of ice roads requires approximately 1.35 million gallons of water per mile and 30,000 gallons of water per day is necessary to support a drilling rig. Exploratory wells require approximately 15 million gallons of water per well.)
Enjoy....

...Later,
~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Samwik
I will read the other post tomorrow but wanted to make a quick
comment on the amount of water that is wasted in the exploratory wells.

Quote:
Exploratory wells require approximately 15 million gallons of water per well


247,500,000 8 oz glasses of drinking water.

Quote:
end=ergy....
...save that typo, it seems appropriate....


it fits







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
The levels of large inland lakes are going down. Lake Superior, Lake Victoria, Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron are all down considerably. Those are the 4 largest lakes in the world. That counteracts some of the reservoir water retention. How many others have been reduced world wide? There were also stories about water reservoirs being close to running dry in the USA until this winter that was full of record breaking snowfalls.

On the other hand, the huge Caspian sea is below sea level. Its water level has been risen 2 m over the past 15 years and it is still rising. That could also be seen to lower the oceans' water levels. All of this speculation is fun but ultimately pointless. The slight cooling of the oceans would still be enough to account for any lack of water level rise.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Samwik

lots of information there that gives a broader picture of the amounts of water required in energy production.

I think they are using up too much water , I know they are trying to use as much waste water as they can , but still where did the waste come from?

industry?

anyway thats another topic.

one of the articles states that nuclear energy uses 2400 gallons per british therm and that fossil plants use 1100 gallons per therm.

at least the 2400 gallons can be used again...

I wonder if the 1100 gallon number includes the water used
to produce the fossil fuels?

I doubt that it does.

I doubt also that there should be that much water used in cooling , it seems that the people who design the power plants are wasting a lot of water that could be cycled.

this also goes for the drilling stations and refineries , they seem to be throwing away a few natural cooling methods if you ask me.

anyway I guess that while they are producing waste and pollution they just fall in with the crowd and make much more so that they will look like the rest of them.

they need us to design these things so that they really wouldnt look so bad and they could pay us 1/10 of what we could save them as our salary.

LOL

of course then that would prevent me from doing any further research on free energy.


and we all really dont want that.













Last edited by paul; 05/28/08 07:16 PM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
John
Quote:
The slight cooling of the oceans would still be enough to account for any lack of water level rise.


exactly..

and if the slight cooling is only temporary then the lack of water level rise would no longer be lacking.

when the cooling stops that is caused by depressurization of the magma under greenland and the added volume of cold water entering the oceans from melting ice , then the thermal expansion will begin again , and sea levels will rise to that degree.

I kind of hate to say this but as the depressurization continues there will be less pressure available to large heavy land masses
and this will cause more and more sinkage of the heavy land masses such as mountain ranges.

these will be accompanied by many large earthquakes in the vicinity of the sinkage.

SBT ... thats the way it is.




Last edited by paul; 05/28/08 07:44 PM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
But Paul, that brings us full circle. Where did the heat of the oceans go? That heat is still missing. Until it is found, your "... if the slight cooling ..." is a pretty big if.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
John

Quote:
Where did the heat of the oceans go?


since the magma has gotten cooler , its heat does not heat the oceans as well.

also: when water evaporates the water vapor absorbs heat.
we have had loads of storms with rain that came from the oceans , the heat that the water vapor absorbs might come from the oceans , wouldnt you think?

Im certain the missing heat didnt all go into one place.





Last edited by paul; 05/28/08 08:31 PM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
The earth's crust is thinnest at the bottom of the ocean. It has been like that for a long time. Magma will not suddenly cool over 5 years allowing the ocean to cool. Convection currents keep the magma at a more uniform temperature. Further, if the ocean does cool, it would be the area just by the ocean floor that was not monitored.

About the rain, are you suggesting that the amount of evaporation suddenly increased without an associated increase in solar energy reaching the oceans and lakes?

Why in all this supposition did you not conjecture that increased cloud cover reflected more of the sun's rays to space? That is the most obvious and most likely. Instead, you go toward the extreme suggesting sudden changes in magma temperature over short time scales and large increases in evaporation when the temperature has not increased.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
This thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Lets get some geoloical fact straight.
1) Continental crust has a thickness of ~30km (up to 70km in orogenic zones). Oceanic crust has a thickness of 10km. Yes thats 10km !!!

2) There is no 'liquid' magma under the earths crust : There is the "mantle" which is a solid - (although it has a rheology more like a liquid due to the high P and T). It is comprised mainly of a material called peridotite (mainly of the mafic minerals of olivine and pyroxene)

3) In places, due to "upwelling" of the mantle, there is a process called "fractional melting", related to phase changes (as the P decreases but T doesn't) which produces a liquid commonly called magma. Under oceanic crusts, such upwelling occurs in plumes (like Hawaii or Iceland) or under Mid Ocean Ridges (MOR). The magma generated eventually escapes through the crust to the surface where it cools and forms a rock called basalt.

4)As an aside, the amount of magma produced at MOR's is the major driver (over geological timescales) for sea levels. This is why, during the Cretaceous period, when the Atlantic was opening so fast with massive volumes of mid ocean ridge basalts being produced, sea levels were 500m higher than today.


Some of the commentary above is so random and knowledgeless that it reminds me of the saying that if you leave a monkey with a keyboard for long enough, eventually you will get the entire works of Shakespeare. Eventually.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
ImranCan:

Quote:
This thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Lets get some geoloical fact straight.
1) Continental crust has a thickness of ~30km (up to 70km in orogenic zones). Oceanic crust has a thickness of 10km. Yes thats 10km !!!

2) There is no 'liquid' magma under the earths crust : There is the "mantle" which is a solid - (although it has a rheology more like a liquid due to the high P and T). It is comprised mainly of a material called peridotite (mainly of the mafic minerals of olivine and pyroxene)

3) In places, due to "upwelling" of the mantle, there is a process called "fractional melting", related to phase changes (as the P decreases but T doesn't) which produces a liquid commonly called magma. Under oceanic crusts, such upwelling occurs in plumes (like Hawaii or Iceland) or under Mid Ocean Ridges (MOR). The magma generated eventually escapes through the crust to the surface where it cools and forms a rock called basalt.

4)As an aside, the amount of magma produced at MOR's is the major driver (over geological timescales) for sea levels. This is why, during the Cretaceous period, when the Atlantic was opening so fast with massive volumes of mid ocean ridge basalts being produced, sea levels were 500m higher than today.



do you type in http://www.google.com

or do you have a program that finds this information for you?

there was a program called search wolf I believe that was very good for finding articles about things that "might be of interest to others".

Quote:
Some of the commentary above is so random and knowledgeless that it reminds me of the saying that if you leave a monkey with a keyboard for long enough, eventually you will get the entire works of Shakespeare. Eventually.


OK go ahead and post the rest of the books.

shakespear wasnt it?

I guess what Im trying to say is that well... if I were talking about the atmosphere in general , I wouldnt categorize each individual layer !!








Last edited by paul; 05/30/08 04:03 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Canuck Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
ImranCan - don't bother trying to reason with some people on here. It's hopeless.

Quite honestly, you have to wonder about some people's mental stability

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
The earth's crust is thinnest at the bottom of the ocean.


OK...

Quote:
It has been like that for a long time.


OK...

Quote:
Magma will not suddenly cool over 5 years


Just a minute there , are you sure of that?

2002 ice melts in the artic

Quote:
Konrad Steffen arrived on the Greenland Ice Sheet for the 2002 summer fieldwork season and immediately observed that something significant was happening in the Arctic. Pools of water already spotted the ice surface, and melting was occurring where it never had before. “That year the melt was so early and so intense — it really jumped out at me. I’d never seen the seasonal melt occur that high on the ice sheet before, and it had never started so early in the spring,” said Steffen, principal scientist and interim director at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado.

By the end of the 2002 season, the total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet had broken all known records. That same summer, Mark Serreze and his colleagues at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, began noticing unusually low levels of sea ice in the Arctic, based on remote sensing data. “I was really surprised by the change,” Serreze said. “By the end of the summer, sea ice levels in the Arctic were the lowest in decades and possibly the lowest in several centuries.”

Seasonal melt areas on the Greenland Ice Sheet are generally located along the edges of the ice sheet at its lowest points. In 2002, however, the melt started unusually early and progressed higher up the ice sheet than at any time in the past 24 years. Surface melting extended up to 6,560 feet (2,000 meters) in elevation in the northeast portion of the island, where temperatures normally are too cold for melting to occur. In addition, the total melt area covered 265,000 square miles (686,350 square kilometers), representing a 16 percent increase above the maximum melt area measured in the past 24 years.

Serreze’s team coincidentally discovered that in September 2002, Arctic sea ice extent was approximately 400,000 square miles (1.04 million square kilometers) less than the long-term average of 2.4 million square miles (6.2 million square kilometers), and that much of the remaining sea ice was unusually thin and spread out.



decrease in solar activity since 1997

Quote:
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm.



Quote:
In terms of the underlying rates of change, the warming of the late 20th century appears to be no more “unusual” than the warming during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Both appear to have their origin in a solar cycle phenomenon in which the sinusoidal pattern in the underlying smoothed trend is modulated so that annual rates of change remain strongly positive for the duration of the third cycle, with the source of this third cycle modulation perhaps related to long term trends in oceanic oscillations. It is purely speculative, of course, but if this 66 year pattern (3 Hale cycles) repeats itself, we should see a long descent into negative territory where the underlying smoothed trend has a negative rate of change, i.e. a period of cooling like that experienced in the late 1800’s and then again midway through the 20th century.





Greenland is rising

Quote:
Greenland appears to be floating upwards – its landmass is rising up to 4 centimetres each year, scientists reveal.

And the large country's new-found buoyancy is a symptom of Greenland's shrinking ice cap, they add.

"The Earth is elastic and if you put a load on top of it, then the surface will move down; if you remove the load, then the surface will start rising again," explains Shfaqat Khan of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen.


a pressure relief causes rock to melt


Quote:
Pressure relief melting - very important!

Magma occupies more space than rock does

Therefore, in order to melt, the rock needs room to expand

This may not be possible where the pressure is too great

That's why the interior of the earth is probably not liquid

A reduction in pressure can cause local melting of rock to form magma



I cant seem to find anything on this one whilst googling...
perhaps we havent ran into this one yet , until now.
all I know is what physics teaches me , and it teaches me that reduced pressures and especially large ones would result in decreased temperatures , that would transfer into the oceans "their surroundings".

Quote:
allowing the ocean to cool.




Convection currents keep the magma at a more uniform temperature. Further,

Quote:
if the ocean does cool,


what was this thread about anyway?


Quote:
it would be the area just by the ocean floor that was not monitored.


How handy that one was !!

I would think that the cooling would transfer to the water above the water just above the ocean floor also...

at least thats what physics teaches me... of course I could be wrong and physics could be wrong also.

I would like to point out that I am basing my conclusions on the pratical side of physics , not the theoretical side , as usual.








Last edited by paul; 05/30/08 05:37 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Canuck

Quote:
Quite honestly, you have to wonder about some people's mental stability


who is einstein?

and tesla?

to name only two...

genuises who were believed to be mentaly un-stable



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: ImranCan
This thread has gone from the sublime....
Under oceanic crusts, such upwelling occurs in plumes (like Hawaii or Iceland) or under Mid Ocean Ridges (MOR). The magma generated eventually escapes through the crust to the surface where it cools and forms a rock called basalt.

4)As an aside, the amount of magma produced at MOR's is the major driver (over geological timescales) for sea levels. This is why, during the Cretaceous period, when the Atlantic was opening so fast with massive volumes of mid ocean ridge basalts being produced, sea levels were 500m higher than today.

Some of the commentary above is so random and knowledgeless that it reminds me of the saying that if you leave a monkey with a keyboard for long enough, eventually you will get the entire works of Shakespeare. Eventually.

Good point about #4; I'd been wanting to mention that about the MOR also.
===
Imran, I don't think we should criticize the knowledge level of folks on the fora here; this is a great place for everyone to learn more. Some people just have deep knowledge in some rare areas, other have broad or unique, shallow or esoteric... etc.
I think, even if it sometimes seems a bit tedious or pointless, that the diversity enriches things, in the long run.
We all try to be perfect, but with varying degrees of success.
smile

p.s.
I'll pencil-in those links, Paul; thanks, they look interesting!


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
Paul, you are using a quote from the IPCC report that appeared on Watt's blog. Then you included his graphic that showed that the atmospheric temperature trend has decreased since 1998. The trend is still positive in that graph, but decreasing. I don't get your point you are trying to make with the first half of your #26316 comment. This is in response to my suggesting that there could have been a solar influence. Are you suggesting that mankind has somehow slowed the amount of warming or that there are indeed some natural causes?

About Greenland, you seem to be trying to link two different ideas: ice melt and mantle melt. You have Greenland's new-found buoyancy is "a symptom of its shrinking ice cap." You suggest that will lead to reduced pressure below the continent as the land mass rises. As a result, the lower pressure on the mantle "... can cause local melting of rock to form magma." Can cause? Hmmm. I wonder what the probability is. How much goes to cooling the mantle vs how much goes to increasing volume?

And what about how Greenland's ice has been thickening or there has been no change in the center. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html

Greenland's glaciers have been accumulating for a long time. That extra pressure may have been partially relieved by the coastal melting recently causing the continent to rise. And with all the extra ice from this winter, it is likely to stop rising if not sink somewhat if the scientists are correct that the new-found buoyancy is due to melting ice. The glaciers on Greenland are quite old. For how many millenia has it been bobbing up and down?

I am also now lost as to how this magma/Greenland discussion relates to the missing heat in the oceans of the original post. If you point is that the amount of ice in the north is decreasing which puts cold water into the oceans, then you have to reconcile that with the south pole which has been doing the opposite.

Instead of attempting to fisk people using disjointed quotes, it would be nice if you just wrote down your thoughts in a coherent manner.

By the way, there has been another response on this topic elsewhere:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/29/new-information-from-josh-willis-on-upper-ocean-heat-content/

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
This is an interesting idea Paul, about the isostatic changes influencing the mantle and earthquakes, etc.
Didn't Iceland just have a 6.1....
Anyway, wish I could spend more time on this thread, but I did want to weigh in on this continuing reference to "increasing ice" here and there.

John,
...from your own nasa/greenland link on this "increasing ice."

"By comparing changes in ice thickness taken in 1999 to measurements made earlier in the decade, they concluded that the continent is giving up nearly 50 gigatons--that's 50 billion tons--of water per year...."
"As it turns out, the thickening ice in the center is itself evidence of disappearing ice over the rest of the continent."

...and in 2007 that number was about 150 gigatons/yr. (compared with 1999) [GRACE data].

I'd like to point out that the same phenomenon is happening in the Antarctic (explaining the often cited "increase" of ice in Antarctica -thanks RicS); but that is just true for Eastern Antarctica. For the continent as a whole, GRACE data shows a net loss of over 100 gigatons there also.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/
"Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists." -Last Modified: Tue Apr 15, 2008

RicS (and I think others), and now you John, casually throw these sweeping comments about "the ice" of the world increasing, when making some other point about the climate change debate. As an aside, in my replies, I always point out that the net figures do not support such statements. Perhaps this point gets lost in the effort to stick to the main subject, but it's long past time that "increasing icepack" anywhere should still be used to support claims that global warming seems to be reversing itself.

"Global Warming" is called climate change to prevent this misconception that cold events, or locally increasing ice levels, are a sign that things are getting better. In a warming world (with increasing water vapor) locally cold areas are the ones that will get the extra precipitation.
This explains: "As it turns out, the thickening ice in the center is itself evidence of disappearing ice over the rest of the continent."
===

In a warming world, the occasional cold event, or just an average year, probably will seem "record breaking" by comparison.
For instance:
Originally Posted By: JMR
....There were also stories about water reservoirs being close to running dry in the USA until this winter that was full of record breaking snowfalls.

Well, kind of....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080314175834.htm
Quote:
U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average – yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

It's not as if our reservoirs have recovered yet, or anywhere close....

So many of your points, based on these "recent cooling" arguments, are not standing up very well. You can't just dismiss the idea of Greenland's influence on ocean temperature by saying, "then you have to reconcile that with the south pole which has been doing the opposite."

Not the opposite (see above)....

...but thanks John, I learned a new word!
===
Ha, I had to look up fisking:
fisking: n.
[blogosphere; very common] A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment. See also MiSTing, anti-idiotarianism

I think this forum falls mostly on the "stylish" side of the fisking moire.
smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
Originally Posted By: samwik

Imran, I don't think we should criticize the knowledge level of folks on the fora here; this is a great place for everyone to learn more. Some people just have deep knowledge in some rare areas, other have broad or unique, shallow or esoteric... etc.
I think, even if it sometimes seems a bit tedious or pointless, that the diversity enriches things, in the long run.
We all try to be perfect, but with varying degrees of success.
smile


Indeed, a very fair point. I apologise for being facaetious. It was not warranted.

I did some extra digging around and can confirm the crustal thickness of the ancient craton which is Greenland is ~ 35-40km. However it does vary and heatflow from the mantle will also vary. The attached link provides is an 'interesting' view.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm

But it hides a massive (and unfortunately typical) flaw in thinking. It is always seductive to use geological phenomena (which occur on timescales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years) to explain variation seen in the human timescale (years and decades). The ridiculous article gives an impression that some recent observation about variations in mantle heatflow can be used to explain annual or decadal variations in ice metling. The quotes below :

"Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland 's ice is melting"
“The complete melting of these continental ice sheets would put much of Florida, as well as New Orleans, New York City and other important coastal population centers, under water,” von Frese said.


This is patently absurd. It implies a link between the discovery of a geographcal variation in heatflow with a temporal variation in ice melt. Yes, whilst there will no doubt be geographical variation in heatflow which may mean glaciers in some areas move more quickly than other, the inference that recent annual changes in ice melt might be due to this are rubbish. It's just typical media reporting - implying there is something else we have to worry about.




Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
Yes, there has been a loss of ice in the Eastern Antarctic. This is likely due to volanoes warming the shallow ocean water. Your link said the likely cause was warmer ocean waters. Simply saying that the speeding up glaciers is due to global warming is misleading the reader. The air temperature trend in Antarctica has been negative for the past 30 years. It is also interesting to note that both the north and south have increased their ice extent significantly this year. The north is almost in the positive region. Greenland has had a problem with polar bears this winter due to too much ice between Labrador and Greenland.

None of this explains the missing heat though.

Global warming was supposed to affect the polar regions the most because the cold temperatures do not allow the air to hold much moisture. Without water vapour, CO2 was supposed to be a more dominant factor there. Antarctica did not conform to this theory, so they changed it to climate change. I will leave any more discussion about this to the 'human caused' thread.

Fisking, when done properly, refutes the examples given. Here, fisking has been to take sentences apart removing their context.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
ImranCan,
If I called your post "ridiculous," "patently absurd," and just plain "rubbish," would it carry as much weight as when you call a published article, about some scientific research, those same things?

btw...also from that article, fyi (...von Frese, leader of the project and a professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University) ...must be an elitist. smile
"Crustal heat flow is still one of the unknowns -- and it's a fairly significant one, according to our preliminary
results."

JohnMR,
You've not responded to any of the points about the most recent, comprehensive, GRACE data on net ice-mass gain/loss.
I'm still looking into the thermodynamics of CO2, but I could look through some old (Fall/Winter, '07/08) Threads to find the links, if you're interested. Please feel free to fisk my few, clearly defined, points (post #26337) above, about ice. I think that would be a lot easier than me trying to fisk that host of unrelated points you've made (again, and previously addressed) about ice extent, height, humidity, and location (and polar bears? LOL).

Melting came into this thread with the point about it cooling the oceans. Levitus (2003) has accounted for this in his Ocean Temp. calculations, as I've noted on another Topic.

But you're right; "melting theory/observations" is fairly off-topic, and should be continued elsewhere on either a new Topic or one of the older Topics on ice/melting/extent/etc., but not bears!

~Later
smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Samwik

Quote:
This is an interesting idea Paul, about the isostatic changes influencing the mantle and earthquakes, etc.


It really is isnt it...
I didnt know there was so much relative information on the net
that points to this , but its easy to piece together once you find a place to start.

and then by applying unhindered physics to most problems there can be a solution found.


Quote:
Didn't Iceland just have a 6.1....


yes , 6.1 to 6.2 10 km deep.

Iceland sits on two tecktonic plates and is basicaly subjected to the same types of actions found along the tecktonic plates deep in the oceans.

I wouldnt want to be there myself , I can think of a better place to be.

I wish I had a map of greenlands land mass and a recent map showing the ice cover along with elevation data.

I have been troubled about the hot spots in general.

ie.. local heating might expand the locking mechanism that is holding large ice masses in place.

I know this sounds far fetched and even twilight zoney but just thinking about what would happen if a large ice mass were to lose its grip on the surrounding mountains or land mass due to expansion...and begin a quick slide into the ocean.

this type of event could set in place an enormous amount of depressurization to the earths mantle and the resulting magmatic expansion from the decreased pressures could caldera.

and I have wondered if this has happened before and that is why
I wish I had the mapps as mentioned above.

I just thought this might entertain some for awhile until I can find some resources of information.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
Originally Posted By: samwik

"Crustal heat flow is still one of the unknowns -- and it's a fairly significant one, according to our preliminary
results."


As an illustration of my point .... indeed I'm sure crutal heatflow is an unknown in understanidng ice distribution, thickness and glacier speed. The point I was making is that the article (note the use of the word 'article', ie. not published paper) IMPLIES that there is some link to climate change observations. Just read the opening sentence : "Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland's ice is melting".

Since when can a mantle "hotspot" which will have been there for a timescale only measurable in geological terms sudenly be stated as the cause for a very recent change in icemass in Greenland ?

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
"This is within the margin of error for both techniques, each of which has its strengths and limitations." The GRACE study does not seem settled to me.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 4
Anyone mind explaining to me why Mar's glaciers are melting at the same rate as the Earth's?

---- some people say its because the sun is going through a regular cycle of expansion next it may contract a little......

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Glaciers receding? According to most folks around here on this forum, glaciers are increasing, and/or the measurements are inaccurate. Do you have a link to the rate on Earth and/or Mars?
...just kidding
....


SolarD,
If the sun really is changing our climate on a short time scale, shouldn't we take steps to counteract these effects if we want to maintain our civilization, which is so dependant on a moderate, predictable climate?

Controlling atmospheric CO2 levels presents an opportunity to "adjust the thermostat" of our planet (within a range that still preserves favorable ocean chemistry, etc.).

Regardless of whether or not the glaciers are disappearing (or perhaps because of it), shouldn't we apply our knowledge and try to manage our planet sustainably; and not be subject to the inevitable whims of planetary and cosmic forces?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25569#Post25569

...or perhaps... just pray to cosmic forces?

Thanks ...catch you later,
smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I found this , and data , the data is in strips that offer the depth of the ice on greenland as a flyover that contains time , lat , lon , height , pitch , roll , heading.

but you can use excell and arrive at a estimate for yourself until you can program a visual representation yourself.

the downloaded files are in motion.quick they are ascii and can be renamed with the .txt extention and opened in excell.

the web site has some imagery of scanned data where you can see the land under the ice on greenland in the pdf file below.

Global Ice Sheet Mapping Orbiter
GISMO

here are a few of the charts and images with course plots of the data on greenland.

a pdf file of the greenland flyovers of GISMO sep 07

the nasa esto report has a section about GISMO in it.

apx half the way down in the file "Toward NEW Ice Sheet Measurements"

http://esto.nasa.gov/files/2007_ESTO_Annual_Report.pdf

has a 3D view of GISMO data.


someone remarked earlier in some post about trillion dollar projects.
I Truly believe that finding out just how much mass
could remove from atop greenland and the antarctic
and the results of that movement and most importantly the
speed of that movement would be a
feasible
use of a trillion dollars.

let the projects begin !!!


Last edited by paul; 06/05/08 05:18 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Regarding the NPR report,

From one of the guys who actually did the study, Josh Willis at NASA:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/

"It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

"Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread….

"It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work."

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

I was listening to some conservative talk-show host a few weeks ago on the radio ... can't recall who it was, but he had on a guest who noted that temperatures had actually gone done for a couple years and asked sarcastically exactly how many years of cooling had to take place before scientists acknowledged that GW was wrong.

My 16 yo daughter unprompted recognized how ridiculous this "argument" was before I had even finished explaining what I had heard. Really - it's asinine. I could guess the person making it was not a scientist - but probably it's just some tripe that's being uncritically circulated. But people don't have to be scientists to talk about science with an air of authority.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I was listening to some conservative talk-show host a few weeks ago on the radio ...


I have listened for the last year or so , and they seem to have
slowly been comming apart at the seams.

there is a big difference in the message they put across , and in the way the message is put across , from the time I started listening to recently.

honestly , I sometimes question if their sanity is in jeopardy!

I sometimes feel sorry for them while listening.

when these guys try to comment on GW , its like I'm experiencing your
favorite saying...comic book understanding of science...




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Canuck
Deep ocean measurements have not found any warming of the world's oceans (actually a bit of cooling). Where's all this extra heat, which the surface monitoring network tell us is in the air???
Just a physics, my dear Watson. Thermal capacity of oceanic water is roughly 5.000 times higher, then the thermal capacity of atmosphere. Furthermore, the main source of heating is just a surface. When surface is heated, the so called convection occurs in atmosphere, because hotter air tends to circulate in vertical direction.

But at the case of water in ocean exactly the opposite effect occurs: the heating of surface layers effectively inhibits the existing underwater convection, for example the thermohaline convection, which drives the Gulf stream.

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
K
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
global warming is evident.. soon, plants would die because of severe intense heat. i think this planet is dying, we have to prepare. but not in our time though.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5