The Tale of Two Warmings

“The Arctic sea ice is melting, …… the Arctic sea ice is melting, …… and the Polar Bears will be drowning”.

Why just ask any dummy and they will tell ya that.

And it is “human caused” ……. because humans are releasing too much CO2 into the atmosphere and a causing that thar Global Warming thingy, ….. right?

Ain’t that what the dummies will tell ya? ….. Sure nuff will.

And the Science proves it, …… right?

Sure nuff, ….. to wit:

The Northwest Passage, the long-sought shipping route through the Arctic, opened up briefly for the first time in history.

Scientists worldwide are trying to figure out why the Arctic is warming and melting faster than computer models predict.

"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer — it's not happened before," said Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, one of the first civilian scientists to sail beneath Arctic sea ice in a British Royal Navy submarine.

The summer of 2007, like the summer of 2005, broke all records for loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean and the Greenland ice sheet.

In September 2007, the Arctic Ocean had 23 percent less sea ice than the previous record low and Greenland's ice sheet melted 19 billion tons more than its previous record.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372542,00.html

And the dummies hafta believe what the pro-Global Warming scientists tell them, …… right?

But now “what about” what they ain’t telling the dummies?

Like “what about” a lot of that Arctic ice melting is the result of Mother Nature “building a fire” underneath that ice …… and a heating up the water a causing the ice to melt?

Do ya suppose those pro-Global Warming scientists don’t want the dummies to know that …… or do those pro-Global Warming scientists really believe that even if Mother Nature did “build a fire” underneath that ice …… and heat up the water there under it still wouldn’t cause the ice to melt?

YUP, I’m sure that is what they believe, …. to wit:

New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests that a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

Hidden 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes can range up to more than a mile (2 kilometers) in diameter and a few hundred yards (meters) tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.

"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Robert Reeves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."

The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/

YUP SIREEEEE, ….. Mother Nature’s “fire” heated up the water column underneath that Arctic ice, ……… but all that hotter water had no affect whatsoever on the melting of the Arctic ice.

Why now I just betcha that those pro-Global Warming scientists believe that "warm water sinks" and "cold water rises" ..... and that's why they don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice.

“I believe, …… I believe”, …… all the dummies will acclaim, ….. “Human caused Global Warming isa causing the Arctic ice melting …… and don’t be trying to tell us different.”



.

I find this posting interesting. Volumes of science support the theory of global warming. The vast majority of those scientists would be by the most conservative estimates to be far from "dummies".

As a matter of fact their collective credentials I am sure say just the opposite.

The arctic may be free of ice for the first time in known history. The scientific community is saying that it is because of global warming.

Polar bears of course can swim and will not drown. But that does not mean that their habitat and existance is not threatened. They are now as a matter of fact considered threatened.

Telling the "unbelievers" different is useless. They will believe whatsoever they choose.

I choose however to take the matter of global warming seriously and adjust my lifestyle accordingly. It is as much my right to do so, as it is the "unbeliever's" right not to do so.

Are you denying these underwater volcanoes are heating up the water and causing ice to melt?

The Earth does what the Earth will do and has warmed and cooled without human activity for billions of years and will continue to do so long after humans are gone.

Yes I am actually denying that the volcanoes are melting the sea ice.

We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice,

Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience,

but they seem to to have had a major impact on the overlying water column.

This scientist from one of the most prestigious oceanographic study institutes in the world says no. I accept the rest of the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/ If I accept the rest of what he had to say why would I reject that one piece. Because I don't believe in global warming?

tanithbear wrote:I find this posting interesting. Volumes of science support the theory of global warming. The vast majority of those scientists would be by the most conservative estimates to be far from "dummies".

As a matter of fact their collective credentials I am sure say just the opposite.

tanithbear, your mimicked "theory of global warming" is akin to the "theory of creation".

Neither is based on factual evidence, .... but solely on misunderstood observations, propaganda, hype, fear of dying and "junk science".

Thus to call either one "a theory" ....... is foolish at best.

tanithbear, in that you state, to wit:

tanithbear wrote:I choose however to take the matter of global warming seriously and adjust my lifestyle accordingly.

Let me ask you a serious question.

tanithbear, .... have you, ..... or any other like minded person, ... or Al Gore and/or any of those intelligent scientists ..... that believe in "human caused CO2 Global Warming" ....... ever suggested to anyone that CO2 should be utilized by everyone to decrease their own "carbon footprint" ...... by using said CO2 to decrease their usage of fossil fuels to heat their homes?

tanithbear, hows come all you smart people are not "pushing" the use of CO2 as insulation for homes and buildings?

Why in the world would "smart people" want to sequester all that CO2 at the bottom of the ocean or deep underground ......... when the sensibile thing to do with it is to use it as INSULATION.

I mean like, .... iffen that ole CO2 gas .... isa powerful "greenhouse gas" ....... that is capable of trapping the re-radiated Solar energy that isa heating up this ole Earth a causing Global Warming, ........ then surely that CO2 gas would help keep my house warm during the winter months if I used it to INSULATE my home.

And the warmer my house stays ...... the less carbon based fuel it requires to keep it warm.

Whatta ya think tanithbear, if that CO2 can keep this ole Earth warm, .... it sure as hell ought to be able to keep my house warm, ...... RIGHT?



And don't be telling me ..... "NO, ... CO2's heat holding properties are only good for keeping the Earth warm".

.

tanithbear wrote:Yes I am actually denying that the volcanoes are melting the sea ice.

We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice,

Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience,

but they seem to to have had a major impact on the overlying water column.

This scientist from one of the most prestigious oceanographic study institutes in the world says no. I accept the rest of the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/ If I accept the rest of what he had to say why would I reject that one piece. Because I don't believe in global warming?

tanithbear, you really don't comprehend what that dude meant by "major impact on the overlying water column", ........ do you.

.

Actually Sam I do believe that I comprehend quite well. I also believe that no one here comprehends as well as Mr. Reeves-Sohn. Not only is this his field of expertise, he was involved in the actual conducting of the research that went into the findings.

So when he says "We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice." I see no reason not to believe him number one.

Number two you are the one who cited this reference. Do you have another reference from reputable scientists which dispute this finding? If so please post the link so I can access it.

Until you do I see no reason to accept any other conclusion than the one that you listed here.

tanithbear wrote:Yes I am actually denying that the volcanoes are melting the sea ice.

We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice,

Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience,

but they seem to to have had a major impact on the overlying water column.

This scientist from one of the most prestigious oceanographic study institutes in the world says no. I accept the rest of the article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/ If I accept the rest of what he had to say why would I reject that one piece. Because I don't believe in global warming?

Then perhaps Mr. Reeves-Sohn should at least make an attempt to explain why all that CO2 can heat the water and cause ocean temperatures to rise but not melt the ice.

Experiment with it yourself. Put an ice cube in a bowl of water that is 33 degrees F and another in a bowl of water that is 35 degrees F. Which melts faster?

He needs to demonstrate why this ice allegedly defies the laws of science as are currently accepted.

tanithbear wrote:Actually Sam I do believe that I comprehend quite well. I also believe that no one here comprehends as well as Mr. Reeves-Sohn. Not only is this his field of expertise, he was involved in the actual conducting of the research that went into the findings.

So when he says "We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice." I see no reason not to believe him number one.

Number two you are the one who cited this reference. Do you have another reference from reputable scientists which dispute this finding? If so please post the link so I can access it.

Until you do I see no reason to accept any other conclusion than the one that you listed here.

AAAWWW GEEEEZE, .... and I even highlighted critical text in both those reference,

tanithbear, I believe ..... that you only believe what you want to believe that best suits your agenda.

And it appears you do that by "picking n' choosing" specific segments of text from within a published article(S) ........ and ignore all other relevant data that is contrary to that segment you chose. Of course, you can do as you wish ..... and all I can do is point out the fallacy in your actions, ....... to wit:

(Ref #1) Scientists worldwide are trying to figure out why the Arctic is warming and melting faster than computer models predict.

(Ref #2) We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Robert Reeves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts told LiveScience

So, tanithbear, the scientists DON'T KNOW why the Arctic ice is melting so fast, ..... but scientist Robert Reeves-Sohn KNOWS those volcanoes are not a contributing factor.

POPPYCOCK, if Reeves-Sohn doesn't know what’s causing the melting ...... then he can't rule out the volcanoes as being the cause of it, especially since they have been erupting for possibly 10+ years before he even knew they existed.

(Ref #2) Hidden 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes can range up to more than a mile (2 kilometers) in diameter and a few hundred yards (meters) tall.

The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.

Robert Reeves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."

tanithbear, it appears Reeves-Sohn does believe there have been extremely large volcanoes UNDERNEATH the Arctic ice .... spewing great amounts of CO2 and heat into the water over long distances from where the volcanoes are. And he even ADMITS that all that heat has had a MAJOR IMPACT on the column of water that the Arctic sea ice is floating on.

And "DUH" what other "major impact" could it have other than to warm up that column of water?

And "DUH" what else is there for sea ice to do but melt ...... if it is floating on warm water?

(Ref #2) New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests that a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

(Ref #1) The summer of 2007, like the summer of 2005, broke all records for loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

In September 2007, the Arctic Ocean had 23 percent less sea ice than the previous record low.

tanithbear, do you know hold long a decade is? Ten (10) years right.

And 10 years cover those summers of 2005 and 2007, ...... RIGHT?

So tanithbear, those monster volcanoes had been erupting AT LEAST five (5) years prior to those RECORD BREAKING summers of sea ice loss, ..... RIGHT.

So what about the sea ice melt the two (2) decades prior to the volcanic eruptions?

Well, loooky here, tanithbear, ...... and yea shall see, to wit:

The graph of sea ice melt shows the five-day mean sea ice extent for June through September, based on NSIDC’s Sea Ice Index. It compares values from 2007 with those from 2005 and the average (1979-2000). Although the 2007 melt season started out with slightly greater sea ice extent than 2005, melt accelerated in the second half of June, especially in the East Siberian Sea, where warm temperatures and clear skies hastened the ice’s retreat. From early July onward, ice extent remained below the levels of 2005. By early August—more than a month before the end of the melt season—the extent had already dropped below the minimum reached at the end of the 2005 melt season. The Arctic started to regain ice in mid-September, as summer came to a close.
Graph courtesy Walt Meier, National Snow and Ice Data Center.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17782

tanithbear, it is pretty damn obvious from the data on that graph that the "summer melt" of the Arctic sea ice was stable and consistent for the two (2) decades (1979 to 2000) prior to the eruption of those sea floor volcanoes.

But I assume Reeves-Sohn would just call that a coincidence of no importance.



Oh, and I almost forgot, iffen Reeves-Sohn is one of them "CO2 heat-trapping greenhouse gas believing scientists", .... just how can he be denying that it is not trapping the heat from the volcano and exacerbating the Arctic sea ice melting?

Aawwww Sam...........

I banned Tanithbear. It's a great post and a terrific graph. Keith would be proud. I know this because it's over my head, but I like it!