Remember me
▼ Content

More new data


More new data22-02-2017 19:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Looking up volcanoes yesterday with the intent on testing the theory that volcanoes are a source of CO2 with little to no 14C low and behold:

What we discovered was several things.

There are some 500 KNOWN volcanoes and not 200 as I before mentioned. But these 500 are those that have erupted sometime in recorded history and not those that are all presently active.

The exhaust plumes of volcanoes are almost entirely water vapor and CO2. Any black soot-like smoke is from the eruption burning either surface forests on the slopes of the volcanoes or burning through layers of subsurface fossil fuels.

It is thought that the water in the oceans is almost entirely due to the exhausting of H2O from volcanic activity.

Woods Hole tells us that the mid-oceanic ridge is totally built up from volcanic activity.

All of this confirms my ideas that although Dr. Crisp and I have calculated through separate means that man is adding perhaps all of the additional CO2 to the atmosphere that something else is occurring.

The oceans apparently under other conditions would be a CO2 sink. And man's puny addition to atmosphere (two hundred PPM or 0.0002%) would have been absorbed.

But we are sourcing CO2 from the oceans rather than sinking it. And this sourcing is from volcanic sources and volcanic sources are indistinguishable from man-made sources.

We have a major conundrum - during the end of the Cretaceous period, dinosaurs didn't disappear. Most of them had already become extinct or speciation had completely ended. Even in the deep ocean trenches in which you would not expect the conditions from a bolide strike (large meteor) to have little if any effects there had already been tens of thousands of years of species extinction.

This signals not this horrible collision event but climate change into a climate which was not of a positive nature for the existing species. Entire plant species were included in this having disappeared long before the iridium lines usually used as a sign of the bolide strike and the end of the Cretaceous.

While we may very well have had a bolide that caused extinction of some species it was plainly well underway before this ever occurred. The warm Earth was cooling and new species were being developed. Endothermic species that could survive the cooler weather. This meant much smaller and more diverse species to fill niches in the environment that the large exothermic dinosaurs could not.

Could this have been due to nothing more than continental drift?

Although we hear that continental drift will continue even today I have grave doubts. The Earth's continental positions before were never as they are today with a dispersion of the continents in such a way that we have a balance of land masses. I would expect them to merely move back and forth though these motions may be eons long.
Edited on 22-02-2017 19:28
22-02-2017 21:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Eh?

Are you saying that you think that the continents have been in the same shape that they are now for the last 3 billion years?

Edited on 22-02-2017 21:27
22-02-2017 21:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Eh?

Are you saying that you think that the continents have been in the same shape that they are now for the last 3 billion years?


I said exactly the opposite of that.
23-02-2017 20:14
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Wake wrote:
Looking up volcanoes.....eons long.


Some of the material you looked up is included in a first-semester geology course. Or at least it was in the community college course that I took. Took as a retirement activity. That course led to taking more geology courses at a local university. Got another framed piece of paper on the wall now.

If you have the time, consider taking a course.

Regarding volcanic gasses and volcano plumes....Yes, most volcanic gas is water vapor, with a fair amount of CO2 and smaller amounts of sulfur and sulfur compounds (that our noses are good at detecting) and traces of quite a few other gasses. Those large visible clouds emitted during a major eruption of some volcanos will include lots of volcanic "ash," tiny fragments of hot volcanic material. Not ash in the sense of the solid residue of combustion, but tiny fragments of erupted magma. Rising magma with dissolved gasses sort of fizz with decreased pressure, lots of bubbles result, bubbles in really sticky stuff. Can end up with a sort of champage-bottle fizz effect if the gas content is high. Except the fizzy stuff is tiny fragments of broken bubbles of molten rock. Volcanic ash. Can get bigger stuff too, cinders and "bombs." Sometimes liquid lava flows.

Regarding CO2 and oceans, are you saying that the oceans are now a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? That is contrary to the usual view. Could you provide a reference?

Regarding the KT extinction, there is ongoing discussion as to the relative importance of the bolide strike and the Deccan Traps eruptions of the same time period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Stay tuned.

Regarding future continental drift, nobody knows. A continuation of plate tectonic motion is expected though. Future configurations have been guessed at, but they're just educated guesses. As far as past motions are concerned, the relative motions back to when Pangea included most of the Earth's continental crust into one piece have been pretty well worked out. That there was an earlier accumulation called Rodinia is pretty well established too. An even earlier accumulation and breakup has been named too.
23-02-2017 20:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Eh?

Are you saying that you think that the continents have been in the same shape that they are now for the last 3 billion years?


I said exactly the opposite of that.


Although we hear that continental drift will continue even today I have grave doubts. The Earth's continental positions before were never as they are today with a dispersion of the continents in such a way that we have a balance of land masses. I would expect them to merely move back and forth though these motions may be eons long.


Are you saying that the continents have not changed shape much but have wandered about the place?
24-02-2017 00:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Eh?

Are you saying that you think that the continents have been in the same shape that they are now for the last 3 billion years?


I said exactly the opposite of that.


Although we hear that continental drift will continue even today I have grave doubts. The Earth's continental positions before were never as they are today with a dispersion of the continents in such a way that we have a balance of land masses. I would expect them to merely move back and forth though these motions may be eons long.


Are you saying that the continents have not changed shape much but have wandered about the place?


Tim, much to the contrary. Using several methods it appears that there have been one major continent several times with it breaking up and the pieces wandering all over the face of the planet.

But as far as I could make out it never had such a near perfect balance of masses. From the continents that formed they quite plainly were strongly imbalanced. Of course, this is all theoretical and although these things are worked out from geomagnetic fields you also have to dump in the Earth's magnetic poles not just reversing but wandering about as well. So to my mind I can only judge what has been theorized in text books.
24-02-2017 00:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]still learning wrote:
Regarding volcanic gasses and volcano plumes....Yes, most volcanic gas is water vapor, with a fair amount of CO2 and smaller amounts of sulfur and sulfur compounds (that our noses are good at detecting) and traces of quite a few other gasses. Those large visible clouds emitted during a major eruption of some volcanos will include lots of volcanic "ash," tiny fragments of hot volcanic material. Not ash in the sense of the solid residue of combustion, but tiny fragments of erupted magma. Rising magma with dissolved gasses sort of fizz with decreased pressure, lots of bubbles result, bubbles in really sticky stuff. Can end up with a sort of champage-bottle fizz effect if the gas content is high. Except the fizzy stuff is tiny fragments of broken bubbles of molten rock. Volcanic ash. Can get bigger stuff too, cinders and "bombs." Sometimes liquid lava flows.

Regarding CO2 and oceans, are you saying that the oceans are now a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? That is contrary to the usual view. Could you provide a reference?

Regarding the KT extinction, there is ongoing discussion as to the relative importance of the bolide strike and the Deccan Traps eruptions of the same time period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Stay tuned.

Regarding future continental drift, nobody knows. A continuation of plate tectonic motion is expected though. Future configurations have been guessed at, but they're just educated guesses. As far as past motions are concerned, the relative motions back to when Pangea included most of the Earth's continental crust into one piece have been pretty well worked out. That there was an earlier accumulation called Rodinia is pretty well established too. An even earlier accumulation and breakup has been named too.


Concerning the volcano ash - this occurs only in major eruptions. Of the 200 active volcanoes in the world I think I noted that there are only ten or so in major eruptions and they are not blowing ash as far as I know. Of the others they are exhausting large quantities of H2O and CO2. I noted that this CO2 cannot be differentiated from human generated material because it comes from the mantel and has been there almost from the inception of the Earth. Therefore there's no 14C in it exactly as that man generates by using fossil fuel.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

discusses how the surface water of the oceans presently is at or very near saturation for the temperatures. So the recent heating of the oceans is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, this sort of confuses me since Dr. Crisp computed the amount of man-made CO2 from the amounts of fossil fuel consumed and the amount of cement that is being used and outgases CO2 as it hardens.

I calculated the amount of CO2 by assuming the rise in CO2 is entirely due to man and then calculating the amount of added CO2 n the atmosphere by weight and dividing by the number of years. We arrived at close to the same number assuming that there is a curve in which we didn't burn so much per year earlier and have accelerated our energy needs.

This is NOT the way the growth in CO2 has been over the last 30 years. It appears to be a linear growth.

So if the oceans are near saturation and the combination of the thinning and cooling of the mantel and the cracking of fault lines along the mid-ocean ridges is actually happening where is this CO2 going?

One possibility is that the deeper oceans along the ridges are not in saturation. But this seems unlikely. Something has been holding CO2 much higher than could be accounted for by animal life. If indeed we have had 120 - 220 ppm over the last millennia, this could only be accounted for via saturation of the oceans which comprise some 70%+ of the surface area of this planet.

What do you think?
24-02-2017 06:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
New & old data is nice:
For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing).
24-02-2017 18:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Eh?

Are you saying that you think that the continents have been in the same shape that they are now for the last 3 billion years?


I said exactly the opposite of that.


Although we hear that continental drift will continue even today I have grave doubts. The Earth's continental positions before were never as they are today with a dispersion of the continents in such a way that we have a balance of land masses. I would expect them to merely move back and forth though these motions may be eons long.


Are you saying that the continents have not changed shape much but have wandered about the place?


Tim, much to the contrary. Using several methods it appears that there have been one major continent several times with it breaking up and the pieces wandering all over the face of the planet.

But as far as I could make out it never had such a near perfect balance of masses. From the continents that formed they quite plainly were strongly imbalanced. Of course, this is all theoretical and although these things are worked out from geomagnetic fields you also have to dump in the Earth's magnetic poles not just reversing but wandering about as well. So to my mind I can only judge what has been theorized in text books.


I am very unsure about this balance thing.

The Pacific ocean covers more than half the planet. That's a whole side (almost) with no decent land in it.

I also have no idea why the balance thing is important.
24-02-2017 18:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Tim the plumber wrote:
I am very unsure about this balance thing.

The Pacific ocean covers more than half the planet. That's a whole side (almost) with no decent land in it.

I also have no idea why the balance thing is important.


What happens to a spinning ball if one side is weighted?
25-02-2017 02:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote: What happens to a spinning ball if one side is weighted?

A spinning ball still rotates around its center of mass....... kind of like "Don'T rump's" mouth spinning around his anus.
25-02-2017 11:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
[b]Tim the plumber wrote:
I am very unsure about this balance thing.

The Pacific ocean covers more than half the planet. That's a whole side (almost) with no decent land in it.

I also have no idea why the balance thing is important.


What happens to a spinning ball if one side is weighted?


If it is free to find it's own axis of spin then it will just spin around without a wobble.

If the axis is offset to the center of mass you will have a problem.

The earth's axis of spin does not have a fixed point of spin.

How do you think the world managed when the continents were all together?
25-02-2017 16:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Tim the plumber wrote:
I am very unsure about this balance thing.

The Pacific ocean covers more than half the planet. That's a whole side (almost) with no decent land in it.

I also have no idea why the balance thing is important.


What happens to a spinning ball if one side is weighted?


If it is free to find it's own axis of spin then it will just spin around without a wobble.

If the axis is offset to the center of mass you will have a problem.

The earth's axis of spin does not have a fixed point of spin.

How do you think the world managed when the continents were all together?


Quite right. The uneven mass would simply set where the spin axis is. If the Earth were the shape of an teardrop spinning on its side, it would still spin smoothly, and not even the stars would be seen to have a wobble in their movements.

Balance is only important with something that has a fixed axis, like a wheel.

The wheel wobbles because it is trying to spin on its own axis, but you have effectively given it an offset one.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-02-2017 16:37
27-02-2017 01:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"tipped the leaky plunger" plugged:
The Pacific ocean covers more than half the planet. That's a whole side (almost) with no decent land in it.

Meanwhile, more new data:
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_polar_graph.png
Edited on 27-02-2017 01:15
27-02-2017 03:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
GasGuzler wonders if Ms. Litebeer is paid troll for George Soros. Not only does it not show any ability to think and reason, it is always there spewing CO2 and wasting oxygen, just as the paid protesters always do.

Ms. Litehead, may I ask what it is that you do to support yourself? Or are you a handout recipient from the D Trump?

[img][/img]


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:


Edited on 27-02-2017 03:07
27-02-2017 04:20
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gassed:... are you a handout recipient from the D Trump?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" speaks for "Don'T rump".....using its aft organ.
As mentioned elsewhere:
The actions of T-rump is to use other people's money, skip paying the blue collars, & other people he thinks can't beat him in court, & finally declares bankruptcy (tho he still has billions), while getting america to give him mo' money.
Edited on 27-02-2017 04:31
27-02-2017 15:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GasGuzler wonders if Ms. Litebeer is paid troll for George Soros. Not only does it not show any ability to think and reason, it is always there spewing CO2 and wasting oxygen, just as the paid protesters always do.

Ms. Litehead, may I ask what it is that you do to support yourself? Or are you a handout recipient from the D Trump?

[img][/img]


I suppose he would be just the type to be paid by Soros - sad and stupid and without the knowledge to tie his own shoes. A total inability to discuss anything and his only comebacks would be spewing hatred of anyone and anything.

I don't even read anything with his name on it anymore so he is well paid for his efforts but not on my part.
27-02-2017 19:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
When is my check coming through?

Have the Koch brothers payed up for the bollocks you post yet?
27-02-2017 22:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
When is my check coming through?

Have the Koch brothers payed up for the bollocks you post yet?


Do you mean the stuff I post that you have no answers for because the only thing that you understand is a political stance that is dissolving under your feet?
28-02-2017 00:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
When is my check coming through?

Have the Koch brothers payed up for the bollocks you post yet?


Do you mean the stuff I post that you have no answers for because the only thing that you understand is a political stance that is dissolving under your feet?


No it means this thread has already been derailed so far off topic and I am making a joke, they have those on that side of the Atlantic don't they?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 00:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
When is my check coming through?

Have the Koch brothers payed up for the bollocks you post yet?


Do you mean the stuff I post that you have no answers for because the only thing that you understand is a political stance that is dissolving under your feet?


No it means this thread has already been derailed so far off topic and I am making a joke, they have those on that side of the Atlantic don't they?


I'm wondering if you've gotten laughed off of British and Australian sites and so feel trapped on this one.
28-02-2017 00:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
When is my check coming through?

Have the Koch brothers payed up for the bollocks you post yet?


Do you mean the stuff I post that you have no answers for because the only thing that you understand is a political stance that is dissolving under your feet?


No it means this thread has already been derailed so far off topic and I am making a joke, they have those on that side of the Atlantic don't they?


I'm wondering if you've gotten laughed off of British and Australian sites and so feel trapped on this one.
You do know this site is Danish not American btw?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 23:47
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
spot wrote:this thread has already been derailed so far off topic...

How can you say that? More new data is always coming in that many (most?) AGW denier liar whiners are also old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs.




Join the debate More new data:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Data Mine28419-07-2019 04:56
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact