Slashdot Mirror
Study Links Rapid Ice Sheet Melting With Distant Volcanic Eruptions (upi.com)
schwit1 quotes UPI:
New research suggests volcanic eruptions can trigger periods of rapid ice sheet melting... "Over a time span of 1,000 years, we found that volcanic eruptions generally correspond with enhanced ice sheet melting within a year or so," Francesco Muschitiello, a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a news release. The volcanoes of note weren't situated next-door, but thousands of miles from the ice sheet, a reminder of the unexpected global impacts of volcanic activity.
The new research -- detailed this week in the journal Nature Communications -- suggests ash ejected into the atmosphere by erupting volcanoes can be deposited thousands of miles away. When it's deposited on ice sheets, the dark particles cause the ice to absorb more thermal energy and accelerate melting... Some scientists have even suggested melting encouraged by volcanic eruptions could trigger even more eruptions, a positive feedback loop. As glaciers and ice sheets melt, pressure is relieved from the planet's crust, allowing magma to rise to the surface.
The new research -- detailed this week in the journal Nature Communications -- suggests ash ejected into the atmosphere by erupting volcanoes can be deposited thousands of miles away. When it's deposited on ice sheets, the dark particles cause the ice to absorb more thermal energy and accelerate melting... Some scientists have even suggested melting encouraged by volcanic eruptions could trigger even more eruptions, a positive feedback loop. As glaciers and ice sheets melt, pressure is relieved from the planet's crust, allowing magma to rise to the surface.
It contradicts climate change "science"...
Democrats and their "scientist" (as if) accomplices are scrambling to figure out a way to blame this on "anthropogenic global warming".
MY BALLS!!! Suck 'em, nerds!
Maybe PHDâ(TM)s donâ(TM)t study history? Or maybe PHDâ(TM)s are poor people also; and will spew volcan scat, for a price?
By using science that looks elsewhere for more causes and insists it will be buried (despite hearing about it) by science you want to pretend is wrong.
And instead goes blamestorming democrats "and their scientist"....
ISIS has claimed responsibility for the ice melting. You can't blame anyone else and we can now kill them all. ae911truth dot org
The problem with climate science is that the climate is exceptionally complex, and to believe you can accurately model it is absurd. There was an article in the journal Pete and Bogs that said that peteland was spreading. Pete absorbs large amounts of carbon and the article said that if it weren't for increased carbon output we'd be entering the next ice age. Do climate models take into account the growth in the areas of peteland? I expect not. Here we see another example of the complexity of the climate, where volcanic erruptions are having an impact on ice sheets thousands of miles away. There are likely countless other factors influencing the climate that these models are not accounting for.
As we know, in complex systems minor changes have major effects. It's there's one input you're not accounting for then the result can be completely invalid. Indeed, the climate models have been shown to be highly inaccurate, as their predictions have not matched with reality.
I'm not anti-climate change, and my major complaint is that it is impossible to get correct information from anywhere. The problem is made worse by the fact 100% of people who work in the field of climate science want climate change to be a reality, so first they come up with the conclusion, and then try to find evidence to back it up. That's not how science works.
The whole field has become so politicized that all we here is "the science is decided!" where "the science" is a series of models that are gross simplifications of the actual climate, that are often manipulated to give the desired result. While this remains the case, the field of climate science will never progress.
I just wish people would understand and accept that there are exactly the same kind of problems with evolution, too. Like climate science, the field of biology science has been anti-religion but for much much longer. So long so that evolution is now regularly called a "fact" instead of the shitty and inconsistent theory that it actually is. Biologists today spend less time doing the hard work of science to prove evolution than they do pushing ridiculus claims about how morality itself can be determined from "scientific" principles.
Aroint thee, troll.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
An open shipping lane across the top of the world would unlock the Siberian landmass for the Russians, and then who knows what happens next...
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wa...
--#
China's particle emissions from their coal plants are reaching the arctic and causing faster melting. THis is on top of their massive CO2, lead, mercury, uranium, etc. etc. etc.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The accusation is accurate. Deal with it, cupcake.
What's being done about Yellowstone? It's the real danger here and everyone is dancing around car emissions and other crap.
The guy who wrote this paper is a climate racist! He is trying to mansplain away climate change caused by the sexist men of the rape culture. He is just trying to smut-shame volcanoes for his own sexual assault and rape of mother earth.
Of course volcanic eruptions can cause ice sheet melting. Put soot on snow and it's more likely to melt. They also cause temporary warming. Hydrogen Sulfide is a green house gas. And they can add lots of CO2 to the atmosphere.
BUT The "year without a summer" was caused by a volcano eruption. So don't try to make this a global statement. It depends on the particulars.
If you go back a few centuries volcano eruptions were one of the big driving factors behind temporary climate changes ... temporary meaning they didn't last more than 20 years, except for trailing effects, like a lake flooding or a grassland turning into a desert, which tended to persist. Even today there *are* volcanoes that could swamp everything people do. Yellowstone is an example, but not the only one. And that isn't new knowledge.
The feels like somebody rehashed things that everybody knows, and got a reporter to call it news.
Actually, when I read the article it sounds as if they do have some no findings, but nothing that wouldn't have been predicted ahead of time. It sounds as if the actual research is valid, but the write-up is hyperbolic shit.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Change:
Actually, when I read the article it sounds as if they do have some no findings, but nothing that wouldn't have been predicted ahead of time. It sounds as if the actual research is valid, but the write-up is hyperbolic shit.
to:
Actually, when I read the article it sounds as if they do have some new findings, but nothing that wouldn't have been predicted ahead of time. It sounds as if the actual research is valid, but the write-up is hyperbolic shit.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So there are 29 comments. It looks like 14 are currently at -1.
I think it really highlights how far this site has fallen. There's so little discussion to begin with, and a good chunk of the comments aren't even visible by default because of the atrocious moderating.
I don't see why people asking legitimate questions about the role, or rather the lack of the role, of humans in climate change should be downmodded here.
Questioning theories, claims, observations and evidence is the very foundation of science. It's shameful to see the practice of proper science being shunned here through this terrible downmodding.
Whoever is responsible for modding all of those comments to -1 isn't engaging in science, and this stifling of perfectly fine discussion is destroying this site.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's the editors themselves who have done this bad modding. Regardless of who is doing it, it's seriously ruining this site when 50% of comments are at -1 and most of the others are at 0, effectively making them invisible.
If you want to discuss "the lack of human involvement" you're pretty solidly ignoring 95+% of the evidence we have. Just because your grandpappy died of natural causes doesn't mean murder isn't possible. Nor does it mean we should not do anything about deaths caused by avoidable actions.
But that's all you want to do: avoid looking at the problems so they don't exist.
Lol
If you're against people asking questions then you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
It is utterly insane to compare modeling a rocket, which is complex and all variables can be directly measured and tested in practice, with the climate where it is impossible to test anything - only to come up with models to try and explain what is happening.
Since as stated, the models have all been drastically wrong, the huge problem you face is WHAT is wrong about the models? You cannot change one aspect of the Earths climate twenty years ago to test. You can't even measure a specific subset of the Earth to get a more focused view because changes even very far removed can have impacts on any one region of the world, as moisture and upper air currents travel vast distances, and seasonal differences utterly swamp overall change.
I'll start believing climate science is a real science, when they start acting like scientists. Until then I'm a lot more prone to consider a physicists opinion on the matter, because at least they understand fundamental forces in a way climate scientists do not seem to.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
AT&T aNd Berkeley In any way related metadiscussions share, this news to deliver what,
When snow sticks temperatures drop 15 degrees or 7 for those on the Celsius scale as the snow reflects the heat of the sun back into space. Air is not heated by the sun. It is heated by the surface of the ground.
If black ash were on the snow it would warm up rather than reflect the heat back into space.
It also explains why Antarctica is so much colder than the northern equivalent which is ice free in the summer. Alaska can get warm in the summer and is the same latitude as the shores of Antarctica which never gets above freezing.
http://saveie6.com/
Here is proof you're entirely and utterly wrong, repeating BS from the echo chamber of denial:
http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
1. Make 100s of climate models
2. Pick out the ones that correspond to current temperatures
3. Tell everyone how well you predicted the future
4. Profit
Meanwhile, not one of the computer models matches reality.
This is a simple fact.
Bingo. Anyone who uses the world 'Denier!' to refer to people who dispute a scientific point is no scientist.
Climate models have been largely correct, not drastically wrong, for the last thirty years. What wasn't modelled well initially was particularly regional detail, and the detailed effects of clouds, aerosols, and land coverage, but all are somewhat improved, but haven't much changed projections on a global scale. If you look at Hansen's projections against BAU emissions (broadly RCP 8.5 from the IPCC), the agreement with current temperatures is good. Year-to-year variations in detail cannot be predicted, as the system is chaotic, but annual variations from models look like the ones seen in practice.
The climate models by 4 of the "non-skeptics" (the only exception is Kellogg) match the data to within 0.25C or thereabouts. The climate models by 5 of the "skeptics" don't match the data at all - even the trend is wrong. Despite being rebased or having a shorter end prediction, their mean error is more than 0.5C.
I'm happy when a lefty 'climate scientist' calls me a Denier. Yes, it's true, I do deny that their faux-science religion has any basis in reality. I am a Denier.
Then when shown wrong in that claim insists "there are hundreds of others, so they're wrong, you cherrypicked".
Nope, not only is your claim about unstated others wrong (I will provide as much evidence as you did: ), but the original claim was proven wrong. Oh, and you denier retards downvoted to -1, so much for your persecution by "the man", amirite?
Trump is Volcano god
I call bullshit.
Not unexpected at all. Just inconvenient... an inconvenient truth.
Proof finally that evil people in their volcanic lairs are causing global warming.
95% of the so called evidence is corrupted by people (not scientists because they're not) like Michael Mann and the boys from Email Gate in the U.K.
When the basis of your beliefs (because it is t science) is based on clean data from scientists not self proclaimed propagandists then we can talk about the other 5%.
But, we do not have clean data. We do not have data from scientists. Thus, all 100% is open to discussion.
97% of scientists believed the earth was flat, too, if you go back far enough. Science is not by consensus but by fact.
Seriously? You're going to use the "all real Irishmen" argument?
No. They post anti-sky-is-falling-crap because the sky isn't falling. AGW is a religion. The very wording you nutballs use to describe real scientists (deniers) speaks volumes. Science doesn't require belief. That's the realm of religion.
...it's almost like we have a feedback system in which there are infrequent but regular 'spikes' of temp and CO2, which are then almost equally counteracted* by a comparable more-or-less sudden drop thereafter?
You know, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (look at the 'pulse' beat of spikes every 120k years or so, for certainly the last million years, more like 2-3 million).
*curiously, nobody seems to be talking/studying this mechanism - how or why it happens? Personally my bet is on cloud cover and albedo: warming atmosphere drives higher % of water vapor aloft, increasing clouds, and raising the planets apparent albedo significantly. PARTICULARLY as the IPCC reports have mostly ignored both water vapor (acknowledged as really the main driving factor in warming, but considered too short-term and variable to be successfully and reliably modeled) and cloud cover (although more recent IPCCs may have included it, it was basically absent from everything before 2013).
-Styopa
It's nothing whatsoever to do with global warming of course, just the normal ebb and flow of the planet. Good to see some confirmation for what seemed to be a reasonable hypothesis.
Ferret
"Skeptical Science"? Really?
One of the shilliest websites out there...basically Soros-funded and filled with armchair scientists.
Not credible, sorry.
Ferret
And no matter how mean "the other side" are to you, this proves NOTHING other than those people are mean. Not that they're wrong. Just mean. But ad hom is all youv'e got: you're wrong because you called me a deneir1!!!1!".
If you're against people asking questions then you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
No one is against people asking questions. We are against people ignoring the science which disputes the concerns raised by those questions and people asking irrelevant questions. Let's look at every single modded -1 comment I found without going too deep into each comment hierarchy. Where are the suppressed insightful comments you are concerned about?
1. Let's bury that one. It contradicts climate change "science"...
2. Just tax the volcanoes. More taxes solve all problems, according to leftists.
3. Lets pretend science is wrong. By using science that looks elsewhere for more causes and insists it will be buried (despite hearing about it) by science you want to pretend is wrong.
4. Why fingerpoint when you can BLAMESTORM? Democrats and their "scientist" (as if) accomplices are scrambling to figure out a way to blame this on "anthropogenic global warming".
5. You know what else erupts? MY BALLS!!! Suck 'em, nerds!
6. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the ice melting. You can't blame anyone else and we can now kill them all. ae911truth dot org
7. Climate Racism! The guy who wrote this paper is a climate racist! He is trying to mansplain away climate change caused by the sexist men of the rape culture. He is just trying to smut-shame volcanoes for his own sexual assault and rape of mother earth.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
You posted as AC but then signed your post????
Anytime somebody uses the term "lefty", it usually confirms my suspicion that I'm reading something written by a troll who is using their own faux-science opinions to lie and dissemble about the subject.
That someone may have a liberal political philosophy seems to bring out the pathological nature of many ill-informed knee-jerking conservative pundits who need no other evidence to shut off their critical thinking skills.
I've just been told in another thread that the difference between now and what was happening 800,000 years ago is the rate of change, and what we're doing doesn't occur without us being responsible for it.
And now this article is telling me volcanoes can throw everything massively out of whack within a year?
No wonders the skeptics keep doubting everything that's being said, no matter what evidence is being presented.
You fucking retard, again with this bullshit.
China is using less coal. They are closing down old coal plants faster than they are opening new ones. The new ones are more efficient. Chinese coal plants are more efficient than American ones. American people emit far more CO2 than Chinese people.
Is your Google not working or something? Or is it your brain that fails to understand simple facts?
American use of coal is increasing and it's mining of coal by 19% in the first half of the year!!
What makes you entitled to pump out twice as much CO2 as a Chinese person?
Why do you get free pass? You make more pollution even though they make all your stuff !!