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 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
#6803 05/10/06 04:10 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"the point is that there is evidence of meterologist that done agree with you."

I know you are hard of thinking ... but a geologist is NOT a meteorologist. Neither is a botanist. Neither is someone whose degree is in agriculture. Where do you get your ideas? Certainly not from reading.

And these people are NOT a source of serious information. They are paid shills for the energy industry. Do you understand the concept of paid lobbyists? Paid advocates? Prostituting ethics for money? Are you familiar with the concept?


DA Morgan
.
#6804 05/10/06 08:14 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"the point is that there is evidence of meteorologist that done agree with you."

I know you are hard of thinking ... but a geologist is NOT a meteorologist. Neither is a botanist. Neither is someone whose degree is in agriculture. Where do you get your ideas? Certainly not from reading.
so the ppl that the run the site are not meteorologist. if you check on who writes the articles, and who does the research, you ll find some of them are.

also botanist would know more about tree rings.


Quote:
And these people are NOT a source of serious information. They are paid shills for the energy industry. Do you understand the concept of paid lobbyists? Paid advocates? Prostituting ethics for money? Are you familiar with the concept?
do really believe they are any different than the ones that push the global warming scare. they refuse to see any thing that is not in their agenda as part of the cause of the problem. they refuse to see the sun as part of the cause, they refuse to accept that the fact that we are coming out of the "Little Ice Age" period (i put that into quotation so that you would see it as a full name instead of giving you ammunition to make yourself look foolish by breaking it down) and are heating up due to it. they refuse to see that the earth has been warmer in the last few millennium as that would mean that man and specifically Americans did not create it with their cars.

over the last few weeks Ive learned much, such as how the suns sunspots activities can create weather patterns that can cause ice ages. or that the El nino is millennium old and has been creating both short and long term weather patterns like the high temperatures of the last decade. Ive learned that the increase in the sunspot activities indicate that we will be having exceptional bad hurricane seasons.

Ive also did a lot of research on the theory of relativity, and all that is involved. mostly due to things said in this forum.

i have made a few mistakes, but i try to learn from them.

why don't you try to learn from some source other than the politically approved source you have. try reading something other than what proves what you already believe.

as far as a geologist not understanding how the changes in temperature and co2 and things are affecting things, who do you think would know more about things before the current ice age.

the earth has not always had ice. who would know this better than a geologist. a meteorologist? he only uses the data he gets to predict things like rain, wind, and related things for the near future. for that they required data that is not in ice cores, geological data, or tree rings.

as someone quote recently "its better to keep your mouth closed and have ppl think you are a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6805 05/10/06 09:59 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"so the ppl that the run the site are not meteorologist. if you check on who writes the articles, and who does the research, you ll find some of them are. also botanist would know more about tree rings."


School children know about tree rings. How that data is interpreted with respect to other information contained in historical and geological records is not their area of expertise.

Lets try this again ... you pointed not to a serious science web site you pointed to four people that are on the payroll of the energy industry. Of course they can dig up one or a dozen papers that support their claim. I can dig up paper supporting the fact that the invisibile purple rhinoceros created the universe. Paid shills are not a source of unbiased information. Wake up!


DA Morgan
#6806 05/11/06 03:28 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Paid shills are not a source of unbiased information. Wake up!
then why do you use them. all of your sites are the same. WAKE UP yourself. do you really think those ppl are doing that research with their own money. no, most of it is from government grants, and from sponsors. in other words, they are paid shrills.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6807 05/11/06 04:03 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
Interesting take on warming and hurricanes....

Monster hurricanes

Study questions linkage between severe hurricanes and global warming

New research calls into question the linkage between major Atlantic hurricanes and global warming. That is one of the conclusions from a University of Virginia study to appear in the May 10, 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

In recent years, a large number of severe Atlantic hurricanes have fueled a debate as to whether global warming is responsible. Because high sea-surface temperatures fuel tropical cyclones, this linkage seems logical. In fact, within the past year, several hurricane researchers have correlated basin-wide warming trends with increasing hurricane severity and have implicated a greenhouse-warming cause.

But unlike these prior studies, the U.Va. climatologists specifically examined water temperatures along the path of each storm, providing a more precise picture of the tropical environment involved in each hurricane's development. They found that increasing water temperatures can account for only about half of the increase in strong hurricanes over the past 25 years; therefore the remaining storminess increase must be related to other factors.

"It is too simplistic to only implicate sea surface temperatures in the dramatic increase in the number of major hurricanes," said lead author Patrick Michaels, U.Va. professor of environmental sciences and director of the Virginia Climatology Office.

For a storm to reach the status of a major hurricane, a very specific set of atmospheric conditions must be met within the region of the storm's development, and only one of these factors is sufficiently high sea-surface temperatures. The authors found that the ultimate strength of a hurricane is not directly linked to the underlying water temperatures. Instead, they found that a temperature threshold, 89?F, must be crossed before a weak tropical cyclone has the potential to become a monster hurricane. Once the threshold is crossed, water temperature is no longer an important factor. "At that point, other factors take over, such as the vertical wind profile, and atmospheric temperature and moisture gradients," Michaels said.

While there has been extensive recent discussion about whether or not human-induced global warming is currently playing a role in the increased frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes, Michaels downplays this impact, at least for the current climate.

"The projected impacts of global warming on Atlantic hurricanes are minor compared with the major changes that we have observed over the past couple of years," Michaels said.

He points instead to naturally varying components of the tropical environment as being the primary reason for the recent enhanced activity.

"Some aspects of the tropical environment have evolved much differently than they were expected to under the assumption that only increasing greenhouse gases were involved. This leads me to believe that natural oscillations have also been responsible for what we have seen," Michaels said.

But what if sea-surface temperatures continue to rise into the future, if the world continues to warm from an enhancing greenhouse effect?

"In the future we may expect to see more major hurricanes," Michaels said, "but we don't expect the ones that do form to be any stronger than the ones that we have seen in the past."


###
Michaels' co-authors are Robert E. Davis, associate professor of environmental sciences and Paul C. Knappenberger, former U.Va. graduate student in environmental sciences.

Reference:
Michaels, P. J., P. C. Knappenberger, and R. E. Davis, 2006. Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, doi:10.1029/2006GL025757.

#6808 05/11/06 09:31 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
nice find.

ill warn you, da will claim these are not real scientist, since they are not meteorologist.

after all "what would a climatologist know about climates?" according to da, its the meteorologist that know all about it. even then it has to be the political correct ones or they are not real scientist either.

as for me, i agree with you.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6809 05/11/06 01:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I don't comment on research until it is published, I've read it, and others have weighed in on the credibility of the conclusions.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


DA Morgan
#6810 05/11/06 06:01 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
no thanks, smoking is bad for your heath and it messes up your brain. maybe you should quit ... if its not too late....


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6811 05/16/06 05:26 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
... insects that carry disease are spreading into new areas, bringing the West Nile virus to Canada and malaria to high valleys.
hmm,

mosquito bites transfer it to birds that migrate to the south, in the winter the birds fly north then again in the summer...

this is a quote from http://westnilevirus.nbii.gov/
The West Nile virus (WNV) was first detected in the Western Hemisphere in 1999 and has since rapidly spread across the North Americcan continent into all 48 continental states, seven Canadian provinces, and throughout Mexico. In addition, WNV activity has been detected in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Guadeloupe and El Salvador.


I do not see how this has to do with global warming...

and what high vally's?
considering malaria is mainly in Africa, Asia and Latin America...

#6812 05/16/06 11:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
"I do not see how this has to do with global warming..."

The change in climate extends the range of the
parasite vector to new territory.

For West Nile in the Western Hemisphere though,
we can thank the airlines.

Pragmatist

#6813 05/17/06 12:11 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
As to the origional subject, "TheCO2 Science` Statement:
They limited their study to data from 1960 on.
I can recall a Sci. Amer. article , published in
the '50`s that linked freshwater flows in the
arctic to European climate.
The study was based on data from sediments and
historical records back several hundred years,
and showed a strong corelation.
I feel that D.A.s suspicions concerning this
group are well founded.
Pragmatist

#6814 05/17/06 02:38 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
the point Ive tried to make several time is that there is evidence that its not man that is creating this situation. man may be contributing to it, but to claim that its all man made is rather as far off as these ppl claiming that man is not at all responsible. if your going to find the true answers you cant turn off one side just because they are being funded by your opponents, unless your willing to look at who is funding and why the reports from your side.

i have stated more than once that there was a problem with accepting any reports from anyone, because most of them are political in nature. than means that any data that does not support their political beliefs are either ignore or discarded and discounted.

at one point da accused me of being a political patsy (my term not his), but the reality is i don't have a political leaning. I'm as likely to vote democratic as republican, because to me their all thieves. its just a matter of trying to get the one that is the likely to do the least damage.

the same is true of my view of global warming. i don't hide my head in the sand and say its not happening, but neither do i ignore data that says its one thing or not one thing.

these ppl are a good example. da decrees them because one of them is a botanist. who better than a botanist would be able to understand what tree rings and remains from animals and trees could tell. one of their articles was about tree rings in japan that showed signs that the "Little Ice Age" that plagued Europe was world wide. another showed the same thing from American and south America. proponents of the "man is the only cause of global warming" are ignoring the fact that we are still coming out of that. they also ignore the fact that preceding it there was a period of warming that was much hotter than it is now.

those who claim that man is causing the seas to raise are ignoring the fact that 30 thousand years ago, the seas were a little bit higher than now, then dropped (about 20000 years ago) to 120 meters lower than it is now, then shot back up. even assuming that in the early days of agriculture, man burned a large portion of the forest, something that has not been proven, this would have taken place several thousand years after the largest part of the rise of the seas.

i will not, nor have i ever said that man is not partially reponsible for it. but its a matter of how much did we do, and could we really have done anything but slow it down, even if we had known a long time ago about it. as far as the earth is concerned there is little difference bewteen us and insects. niether of us really matter to what the earth is doing or going to do. (no im not saying that the earth is thinking, but a boulder will role down hill without thinking and water will find its own lvl without thinking, so doing something does not require thought.)


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6815 05/17/06 02:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
not arguing or anything. just pointing something out.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the closest you are going to get is the british naval data and that is not much more than 200 to 300 years old. most of that is ignored since it was taken out at sea and only where the ships happened to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

these records were also taken from the ships decks,
not at sea level and not of water temperature.

the wind speed would also need to be known to have more correct measurements due to the chill factor of wind as the instruments used were affected by wind chill factors.

apx 13,000 years ago durring the last ice age
there was a massive methane ice release that set in motion the end of that ice age.
there are large pocks in the ocean floor where these methane ice releases occured.

the methane warmed the earth and more methane was released warming the earth even more.
coastal populations were wipped out by the waters from the melting ice.
these cities or there remains have been found around the globe hundreds of feet below current sea level.

those methane releases wipped out most of the human population on the earth at that time.

currently the U.S. is literaly surrounded by large methane ice deposits whos methane release is vulnerable to sea temperature changes.

what we are about to undergo has probably occured over and over again , we can find evidence of this every where.

we can argue and fuss and get all bent out of shape about climate change and what caused it
or we can try to learn from what history we actually have and do something about it.

those who work together to accomplish a goal
can accomplish that goal easier and faster than those who only complain and fuss about the goal or they just end up creating a goal of only fussing and arguing.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6816 05/17/06 09:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
what we are about to undergo has probably occured over and over again , we can find evidence of this every where.

we can argue and fuss and get all bent out of shape about climate change and what caused it
or we can try to learn from what history we actually have and do something about it.

those who work together to accomplish a goal
can accomplish that goal easier and faster than those who only complain and fuss about the goal or they just end up creating a goal of only fussing and arguing.
i fully agree with all of this. unfortunately, its much easier to get funding for studies, if you sensationalize it. blaming it on cars and big industry is quite sensational. that makes it very political. warning that ice is going to melt is not very sensational. it does not get the political push that big money funding gets. its hard to create a scare tactic based on ice melting, esp the ice we don't see. ice in antarctica and ice land is easy to do if there are other things going on with it.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6817 05/19/06 01:01 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
thanks for the approval ( not dissagreeing )

the problem is known , the cause is known , the results of the problem are known.

what we need is a solution to the known problem.

we cannot expect a government that is so highly dependant on the income from the problems source
to fund anything that will eventually remove that income.

the known problem is that the earth is warming.
the known results is certain catastrophy.

we cannot stop pumping out the oil.
we will lose coastal grounds if we do.

we need to find a way to stop the flooding and find it soon.

we need to find a way to cool the earth.

we need to try our best to control the climate.

you dont have to have ice when reflecting the suns rays.
ie...

white reflective roofing. streets. buildings.
paint the places where the ice was white.
paint the deserts white.

put up a shield between the earth and the sun.
the shield could be a gas.

use sand on the ocean floor for building purposes.

when we can control the flooding then we can stop pumping the oil.

otherwise we lose ground.

when trying to get funding remember to keep the oil flowing dont try to stop it.

try to work around it make the problems effects
less and you might get some funding.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6818 05/30/06 06:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Daniel,

This is where you disappeared to. The arguments you were using in the "Global Warming" discussion are rehashed here. The same counter arguments seem to be used as well.

I really have to agree with those that oppose your arguments. You make sweeping statements and when asked to back these with any reference to real research ignore the question.

I found this discussion fascinating by what was argued, not by whether it was of any assistance to anyone reading the argument at all.

Meteorologists really are not involved in global warming debates. The field of meteorology is by its nature, very short term. It is a very valuable field and in the last fifty years, the gains have been enormous. Meterologists can now predict the landfall of cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes (all the same thing but I like to be inclusive of various cultures here) and in moderate climates a great many areas have accurate weather forcasts three days out and some reasonable sense of reliability as much as seven days.

But what does this have to do with global warming? Or with the name of this thread "As the Earth Warms". I find the timing of this thread interesting. It was about the time that you were asked to put up or shut up in the main global warming thread by a number of people.

Tree rings, ice cores, deep ocean somethings, sea levels somehow are all said to have correlated. Huh! Where? What study or studies have shown any of this? Tree rings go back around 3,000 years, about a third of this interglacial period. Ice cores go back around 800,000 years. The rest, I have no idea what you are talking about. They were too vaguely put.

Tree rings tell you bugger all about climate. They tell you about seasons. They do not tell you much about CO2 levels. They can tell you whether there was volcanic activity or major forest fires but other than that they tell you only whether there was a good or a bad growing season. Not why. In other words you can have a cool summer but good rain and mild conditions and a really distinct growth ring or you can have extremely hot weather and good rainfall and another really distinct ring or hot weather and very dry conditions and a really crappy ring.

The rings indicate only whether the season overall was good or bad for the tree, not the variables that made it so.

Ice cores have their own problems but the science of that is much more complicated. This means that someone doing a study on ice cores can make assumptions about things that are rarely challenged. Talk about soft science. The other problem is that ice cores are precious and are not subject to scrutiny by just anyone who wants to have a look at them. So the accuracy of the data is only as good as the honesty or abilities of those that are reading them. But once again, ice cores do not tell you temperatures, humidity, maximums, minimums, wind speeds, ocean currents or anything else. They can be used to show trends but only in very relative terms.

I really didn't like your comment to dehammer concerning what the vast majority of "meterologists" have concluded since you offer no evidence to substantiate such a comment. Unfortunately, since you included "other scientists" your statement is valid, if snidley put.

Actually the vast majority of those scientists that work in the field of global warming do agree that global warming is a fact. I think the figure is around 85% presently but it could have changed since I last saw a report on it. Whether the majority agree on whether it is man made is a different question and I'm not at all sure you would be right in your statement.

But being in the majority does not make one right. A staggering 92% of Germans in 1938 through Hitler's policies were right for Germany. This was after the arrest of disadents, jews, the disabled (such as myself and my heritage is German, just a different time), the immoral etc. By your argument Hitler's policies must have been correct because the vast majority of those with the expertise to judge (the German people) agreed with it.

Science is riddled with very very big issues where the vast majority of scientists just knew that a particular view was wrong only later to be shown that the majority didn't have a clue. Actually, there is pretty much not a single major advancement of science which has occurred without it being against the majority that held opposing views.

So if you are going to argue that someone's ideas "float like a lead balloon" or are "laughingly foolish" perhaps you should try to stick to the science of the argument, not what others or even the majority think.

Daniel, I ask you to do a simple exercise. Find a major article published in the last three years that critisises the science of global warming. Now find how many articles are published each week that support global warming. It takes a very foolish person or a brave man to swim against such overwhelming numbers and that has become the self fulfilling prophecy of global warming as a fact and being man made.

Regardless of that immense tide I again offer to look at any study you wish to put up in support of global warming and point out the major flaws, if any. You might be really luck and actually find one that for once does not have major flaws. It would be a refreshing change.

But I have a huge advantage. I have sufficient academic background in various fields to understand how studies are conducted and the good fortune to have been granted sufficent intelligence to analyse both the studies and the underlying data. Over the years I have also developed the unpleasant ability to find fault in arguments where there is really a fault. That has never made me popular but in my previous fields it did make me a decent living!

But my biggest advantage is that I derive no income from the field of climatology (the word you should have used by the way), do not care if my views are published, have enough degrees to last a couple of life times and do not need any more, have no ability to teach at University and even if I did the last offer had nothing to do with global warming and so my "crackpot" ideas in this field would not affect that offer at all. But I really do feel for those that are committed to these fields, want to participate in them, and also have a family and earn some income, but just do not believe the current party line or worse have very good evidence to suggest the opposite to the current majority opinion.

How about offering some reference to research rather than insults to those that profer different views.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
#6819 05/30/06 06:55 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Paul,

I liked your comments about ships. You are right about just how inaccurate the figures are because of the various variables to the way the temperatures were recorded. There are many more but you made a good point and one that is often overlooked when figures for sea temperatures are used for the 20th century or air temperature above ships in the same period.

I have a problem with your proposition concerning methane deposits and this causing the end of the last ice age. I know the terminology gets messed up all the time but this Ice Age has been around considerably more than 1 million years. The glacial period that ended a little more than 11,000 years ago is probably what you are referring to.

Your methane theory is something I have not come across as the cause of the end of the last glacial period but a few of your comments can be directly addressed. There was not large loss of human life at the glacial/interglacial period boundary. Quite the reverse in fact. The populations of the world expanded around that time. There is a great deal of evidence as to populations of man from the transition from hunter/gatherer to agrarian societies and a vast amount of studies relating to populations around the times you mentioned.

There were pretty much no cities 11,000 years ago. The largest settlements were really quite small indeed.

While I am not an expert in methane deposits I had the luck to read about the methane that is available as perhaps an alternative energy source around the US only a week or so ago. This is not on the ocean floor. Because of salinity, the bottom of the oceans are not frozen wastelands at all. The methane is in sediment deposits and these have been around for geological periods (ie an awful long time more than one or two inter-glacial periods). They are not all that easy to extract because in order to exist at all they need a combination of factors that thus far have not been found other than beneath the ocean floors. From the science that was discussed in how they were formed and how they could be extracted it would appear that not even switches to or from full blown Ice Ages would dislodge the deposits. I understand there is a theory, based on reasonable evidence, that major methane release did occur and it is possible this was at the same time as climate change. This is around 55 million years ago. Just why it happened then, I have no idea, but that is the only reference to methane deposits being released I could find.

As to attempts at cooling the planet, do you really want to live in a glacial period? Only about 2% of the population would survive. Painting a few roofs white is not going to change a thing by the way as the grime that would build up on the roofs would drop their albedo (solar radiation reflectively) substantially fairly quickly and the percantage surfaces would be tiny in the scheme of things. But let's say you came up with a way to actually cool the planet. Do you really believe you are God? That you could work out a way to cool the planet by just the right amount without affecting the myriad of interconnected systems?

This is a science forum. Perhaps you could point out any reference to massive methane release 11,000 odd years ago. Methane would leave traces and would be well known. Surely you would have no difficulty in finding major references to it.

Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
#6820 06/03/06 10:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
try these they may not all be correct as this is just a google search I did.
I havent read them yet , I was working from memory.
I am not at all sure how you could even imagine that a person could be GOD.
I dont want to argue with you .. hopefully you will extend the same to me.
we can discuss this if you wish.
but if you resort to namecalling then you will find yourself discussing it without me.


methane ice release 11000 years ago


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6821 06/04/06 12:24 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Execelent place to browse... National Geophysical Data Center...entire earth + sea floor 2 minute color relief

The place Im refering to.
Huge Pock Marks Where the methane ice releases occured

I'll try and find an article that refers to the pock marks on the ocean floor.

here is (my) thoughts on this matter...

at the time before the earth warmed due to the methane release , everywhere that is now above the ocean was covered in ice.
nobody lived there...

thus no cities were there...
it makes sence to me.

look at the reliefs and see the old river beds under what is now the oceans.
Old Rivers
they are distinct you can follow the paths of these old rivers.

they run from what is now our shore line to deep in the ocean floor.

warm water would not do this only cold icy water would seek the ocean floor.

pay particular attention to the gulf of mexico it is criss crossed in an amazing pattern.

I believe that the reason for the methane ice release was that the oceans kept getting smaller and there depth became less and less , methane ice cannot survive at a depth less than apx 1500 ft , just a little over 1 lap around a 1/4 mile track...thats not far at all when you think of it.

as the ice built up the oceans receded and the water pressure was reduced.

one release led to another and another.
and the warming began.

think of trying to climb up very steep soaking wet mountains as seen in the imagery while torrents of melting water pushed against you.

most of those who tried to escape were probably washed back down into the oceans and drowned.

it all makes sense to me.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6822 06/04/06 01:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
they have discovered that about 22000 years ago or so, the ocean levels were 120 meters lower than they are now. that's about 400 feet. its been that low before. that's a lot of pressure off the sea floor.

also if you check out other threads here, they have discovered that the arctic was almost tropical several million years ago. it occurred rather suddenly apparently. that could have been caused by a major release in methane ice. the thing is, the temperature was a lot higher before that release than it is now.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

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