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"...
PEAT
(facepalm so hard it hurts)
You know, you might be right, except for the question not being climate patterns, but the melting of glaciers, which are not entirely the same thing.
Aroint thee, troll.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
What if Pete is a really fat boy?
Ezekiel 23:20
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...
--#
Rocket science is complex, but we (maybe not you) model it adequately.
Pete and Bogs* may be Bart Simpson's school mates for all I know, but it is clear as hell you do not understand the concept of science, and need to investigate that before you go on to find what science tells you.
*The stuff that forms boggy ground is called peat.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
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.
The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid.
Yes, we can model complex systems, however that doesn't mean it's an easy task by any means, or that correct model predictions can be assumed. I spent years modeling and simulating the power grid, which is arguably less complex than climate, and that modeling was always a matter of constant tuning, refinement, and working toward making the models accord with known results so that we would have at least some confidence about predictions.
By all means we need to model climate and climate change and attempt to make rational predictions. We should be able to continuously refine our models and get better and better results. But the purpose of such modeling, similar to what we did with the power grid, is to make predictions that have reasonable credibility so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken.
What I describe is honest science and engineering, which should be completely independent of politics and generating headlines or supporting viewpoints, whether "denier" or "supporter."
It's like that dictum, "Don't tell me what I want to hear, tell me what I need to hear."
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
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/
These are ice sheets not glaciers. If an ice sheet is already stressed with summer heat a large mass of heated water will be enough to set the dominoes of pushing the ice out to sea with the heavy water pushing against it and melting it in the process.
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
The last ten years were on average warmer than the previous ten, which were warmer than the previous ten. Where on earth do you get the idea that there hasn't been any warming? The trend agrees well with the models from the 1980s, let alone more recent one
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.
Modeling climate isn't an easy task, but that isn't a reason to discredit the models. The same modeling techniques used to forecast weather are also used to model climate. In some cases, they're the same models. Although the skill in forecasting weather rapidly diminishes after a few days, the statistical properties are valid over much longer time scales. Weather and climate models are numerical solutions of fundamental equations governing the behavior of the atmosphere, such as the Navier-Stokes equations.
If you're forecasting weather, your model needs to simulate incoming and outgoing radiation. These aren't directly simulated, but are parameterized with increasingly complex and more accurate schemes. The parameterizations have to account for aerosols and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If your model poorly simulatedls incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation, it won't accurately predict the temperatures. The validity of those parameterizations are demonstrated by forecasting weather. Some longer-term processes like changes in the cryosphere don't really apply to weather models, but understanding how aerosols affect the cryosphere can improve those predictions. Also, just because the models are still being improved doesn't mean the predictions should be ignored.
Weather models are also continuously being improved. Shall we ignore their predictions because they're imperfect? That's absurd, because they have a lot of skill in predicting the weather. Likewise, the need to improve climate models is not a valid excuse for altogether rejecting their predictions.
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
1. So, was there a temperature rise in the last 20 years?
2. If so, what caused that temperature rise?
3. Did your modeling predict that rise accurately? If not, according to your own terms, you are completely, and utterly, wrong.
The same applies to climate. If the modeling is good, then we have an accurate representation of the future direction which is between the best and worst case scenario. If the modeling can't be trusted, then the worst case scenarios become possible, which means we need to mitigate against those as well - some unpredicted secondary effect that causes runaway warming, for example. That means immediate, and drastic, and expensive, action.
If the models are bad, then this should be proven, and then we'll move on to immediately closing down all our sources of emissions.
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.
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. " There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other. But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
Really? So how did your own modeling perform?
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
No: thats you.
You are the one saying "The climate is changing rapidly but we don't know why or what's going to happen next". In your scenario, anything could happen. The climate could keep warming until we reach Venus like conditions.
Talk about panic inducing!
If you truly believe your own assertions, you should be advocating that all our funds be immediately diverted to climate science:
1. To find the cause of the recent, rapid change
2. To identify and model what will happen next
3. To identify and implement the fix, which we can assume will be far more expensive than replacing our emitting technologies (which we were going to replace anyway, given how inefficient they are).
Proof finally that evil people in their volcanic lairs are causing global warming.
Likewise, the need to improve climate models is not a valid excuse for altogether rejecting their predictions.
I agree completely, and the goal is to continuously improve the models so that the predictions become more accurate and provide a better basis on which to base corrective action. As the poster below points out, poor models leave us at the mercy of everyone; we may need to plan for the worst-case scenario, because we can't rule it out, yet the opposition can easily build a case against it by saying the models are unreliable. But the option of just doing nothing until the models are proven to everyone's satisfaction doesn't seem very good.
...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
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. " There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other. But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
Really? So how did your own modeling perform?
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
No: thats you.
You are the one saying "The climate is changing rapidly but we don't know why or what's going to happen next". In your scenario, anything could happen. The climate could keep warming until we reach Venus like conditions.
Talk about panic inducing!
If you truly believe your own assertions, you should be advocating that all our funds be immediately diverted to climate science:
1. To find the cause of the recent, rapid change
2. To identify and model what will happen next
3. To identify and implement the fix, which we can assume will be far more expensive than replacing our emitting technologies (which we were going to replace anyway, given how inefficient they are).
I believe this , E- learning methods are developed nowadays more than any time they help you to learn every thing as soon as possible for example i used these mobile apps for learning English Doulingo,memrsie http://oxinchannel.com/
first they come up with the conclusion, and then try to find evidence to back it up. That's not how science works.
That's actually exactly how science works. Except the proper term is hypothesis.
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
Because something includes unknown variables from poorly-understood inputs, we can't model it with precision greater than X.
You might know what direction it's going and the general order of magnitude, but not the precise number. The order of magnitude may be based in channels of 30 or 40 width--30, 900, 27,000 and so forth. So maybe you point somewhere up and to the right and say it's out there somewhere, but not out way straight up, and not out more horizontally.
That's the difference between not knowing what you're doing and not having the greatest scientific understanding of the whole system.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You posted as AC but then signed your post????
>> my major complaint is that it is impossible to get correct information from anywhere ... they come up with the conclusion, and then try to find evidence to back it up. That's not how science works.
AC, I agree with you entirely. It's a real problem. I've found one person who speaks about this in an honest data driven way, that is willing to cut through the hype and hyperbole. His name is Dr. Richard Muller at http://berkeleyearth.org/
Here's why I find his arguments compelling.
1. He disassembles the "97% of scientists agree" argument as the BS it is.
2. He exposes and calls out legitimate and questionable data fiddling.
3. He calls out BS not-based-in-science predictions.
4. He calls out the politicking in the IPCC report.
5. He, and team, went back and redid analysis without data fiddling and came back with reasonable results.
6. He's willing to talk about what we don't know.
His presentation "How to convert a climate skeptic" is absolutely worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The good bit starts about 6:00 in with the quote: 'The skeptic says "What about data selection bias?" You have to have an answer for that. You can't just say the data is overwhelming, because as it turns out the evidence is not overwhelming. I'll show you that.'
FTFY, "5. He, and team, went back and redid analysis without data fiddling and came back with the same results as the IPCC."
Actually, no, you didn't FTFM. The last IPCC report, the one that was marched into the Paris Accords, makes a number of claims that are not based in scientific fact, and he debunks them quite thoroughly. Mr. Muller asserts, and I agree, that you will not convert climate skeptics by lying to them or throwing out doomsday scenarios with million-to-one odds against them happening. The facts are what they are; trying to make them look worse only hurts your credibility.
He speaks about this specifically here:
https://youtu.be/VbR0EPWgkEI?t...
The entire presentation is worth watching, whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.