Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 96

Thread: Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not...

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    BTW, I studied biology, chemistry, and microbiology in college. But I'm not a biologist, a chemist, nor a microbiologist. The difference between us is that I don't try to offer informed opinions on those topics while portraying myself as some sort of expert because I studied them in college
    So you spent time and money on learning something and won't use that knowledge in conversations?
    Only want to establish certainty on things you know nothing about?
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stretch For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (07-20-2019), Into the Night (07-22-2019)

  3. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Why do you have a need to believe that there is no climate change?
    Because it's the truth.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Stretch For This Post:

    Into the Night (07-22-2019)

  5. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Okay then, dummy. I'm not surprised, given your other beliefs in mythology, that you've embraced this one as well. Hope you have flood insurance, living in FL. lol
    You're so misguided. Just believe what you want.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Stretch For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (07-20-2019)

  7. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    You're sort of like the catholics who refused to believe their priests were kiddie didlers. The email dump back in 2009 ... you know what, it's not worth my time. You warmers are a cult. Can't wait to see the next 30 years as we head into the cold phase of the AMO. By 2050 they will be back to ice age doomsay
    Oh, don't worry; because liberals will claim that the reason it never happened, is because of the "changes" they've pushed for.

    We could enter an ice age tomorrow and they will never admit that they fucked up; because they just climbed on the band wagon for no other reason, then it FELT good.

    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  8. The Following User Says Thank You to USFREEDOM911 For This Post:

    Stretch (07-20-2019)

  9. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,989
    Thanks
    12,115
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

    Figure 1: Lake Hazen with ice clinging to its shore during the summer.

    Recent changes to Lake Hazen, the world’s largest high-Arctic lake, are from increased heat flow from the area’s known geological features, and not from global warming as per the many alarmist media reports.

    Evidence supporting this is abundant and reliable.

    Northeast Canada’s Lake Hazen lies adjacent to the world-class Greenland/Iceland mantle plume (Figure 2).

    Mantle plumes are narrow streams of deep inner earth sourced hot rock that spread like a ‘mushroom’ cap beneath the Earth’s surface.

    They act to significantly warm overlying rocks, warm and chemically alter overlying oceans, and melt overlying ice masses.

    Research by the University of Kansas has confirmed the results of three previous studies all indicating that geothermal heat flow from the Greenland/Iceland mantle plume is the dominant and likely sole cause of anomalous Greenland ice sheet melting. (see here, here, here, and here).

    The ground-warming and ice-melting power of this geological feature are estimated to cover 720,000 square miles extending from the northern edge of Ellesmere Island to the eastern shore of Iceland.


    Figure 2: Location map of high-Arctic Lake Hazen and surrounding major heat flowing geological features, most notably the massive deep inner earth reaching Greenland/Iceland mantle plume.

    Lake Hazen is located within and owes its very existence to a highly faulted portion of the Arctic (see here). Movement along one of these faults, known as the Lake Hazen Thrust, acted to down drop and form an enclosed long linear valley that is home to Lake Hazen.

    Other geological indications of high heat flow in the Lake Hazen area include: Surface Lava Flows in northern Ellesmere Island, High Surface Temperatures in southern and northern Ellesmere Island, the Wegener Left Lateral Fault, and the Borup Fiord Pass Sulfur-Rich Hot Spring(Figure 2).

    There are a total of four mineral-rich springs located in the Lake Hazen area (see here, here, here, here, and Figure 2). It should be noted that the springs are geothermally sourced from deep, inner-earth geologic features.

    Although the temperature of the spring’s water is cool at its surface-discharge points, it is likely that at slightly deeper depths the spring’s water is warmer, the result of deep, inner-earth geothermal heat flow.

    The low temperature of the spring’s surface-discharge water is almost certainly related to the cooling effect of overlying surface glacial water.

    The unusually hot spring-like mineral and biological content of the spring’s surface water and position of the springs above the faults supports this interpretation.

    Discovery of two liquid freshwater lakes beneath 1,500 feet of glacial ice in the Devon Ice Shelf is even more proof that bedrock heat flow is at work in the greater northeast Canadian Arctic region (see here).

    These subglacial lakes are likely generated by geothermal heat flow from deep, inner-reaching faults.

    The long, linear shape and orientation of the subglacial lakes perfectly match the surface trend of faults that abut the Devon Ice Sheet (Figure 3).



    Figure 3: Geological map of Devon Island (left) and subglacial bedrock topographic map of newly discovered freshwater lakes (after Okulitch 1991, see here, here, and here).

    Geologists had for many years suggested the well-documented existence of several subglacial liquid freshwater lakes beneath Antarctica’s 7,000 feet of glacial ice was proof of a significant, underlying heat-flowing geological feature.

    Recent research by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and others has proven that there is, in fact, a 620,000-square-mile mantle plume beneath Antarctica (see here, here, and here).

    Other recent research has shown that this giant mantle plume is responsible for generating a continent-wide and interconnected system of subglacial liquid freshwater lake and streams (Figure 1 below).



    Figure 4: Illustration of Antarctica’s massive subglacial liquid freshwater flowing system of interconnected lakes (light blue dots) and streams (medium blue lines). NASA research has proved what most geologists suspected for years, that this subglacial water system is the result of bedrock geothermal heat flow emitted from an underlying deep-earth “mantle plume.”

    The discovery of two subglacial lakes in the greater Lake Hazen area may be the ‘tip of the iceberg’ involving the influence of geological heat flow and the vast interconnected system of lakes and streams in other Arctic regions.

    In summary, the evidence in this article strongly supports the notion that geologically induced high-heat flow is affecting ice extent and biological systems of the world’s largest high-Arctic lake — not global warming.
    http://www.plateclimatology.com/larg...global-warming
    The plateclimatology article’s title is a lie. None of the articles they referenced made the claim that they are. From one of their references:

    “We give the slight disclaimer that this is just another model — it’s our best statistical model — but we have not reproduced reality,”

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (07-21-2019)

  11. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Okay then, dummy. I'm not surprised, given your other beliefs in mythology, that you've embraced this one as well. Hope you have flood insurance, living in FL. lol
    Here is your chance to put your money on the table. I have asked numerous warmists on here and not one is either willing, or indeed able, to answer this question. So then which of the four Representative Concentration Pathways outlined in the IPCC AR5 (2013) do you believe to be the most realistic scenario? Maybe you'll be the first to answer, but I won't hold my breath?

  12. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Industrial Age. Still not interested in joining your cult or Stretch's either.

    I AM interested in your opinions on how we should deal with climate change, rising sea levels, large displacements of human populations, droughts in former fertile areas, food shortages, famine, and other consequences of a warming planet. Or does your denial of such changes give you blinders to ignore them?
    The rise in CO2 levels has resulted in substantial regreening of the Earth, that's a fact. NASA themselves state that they average sea level rise is around 1.8mm per year or less than 6 inches by the end of the century!!

  13. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,313
    Thanks
    145,734
    Thanked 82,541 Times in 52,753 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    So you spent time and money on learning something and won't use that knowledge in conversations?
    Only want to establish certainty on things you know nothing about?
    I learned those subjects because 1) they are part of my degree, and 2) they enable me to better provide patient/family teaching. They are the underpinning of how our bodies function. One semester in chemistry, however, does not make me an chemist, any more than reading Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" makes me a physicist. Learning the names of clouds does not make you a climate scientist or a meteorologist. You are, however, clever at finding pseudo-scientific stuff purporting to back up your claims, like all of your kind.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    moon (07-21-2019)

  15. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,313
    Thanks
    145,734
    Thanked 82,541 Times in 52,753 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    The plateclimatology article’s title is a lie. None of the articles they referenced made the claim that they are. From one of their references:

    “We give the slight disclaimer that this is just another model — it’s our best statistical model — but we have not reproduced reality,”
    Oops.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Phantasmal (07-21-2019)

  17. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    I learned those subjects because 1) they are part of my degree, and 2) they enable me to better provide patient/family teaching. They are the underpinning of how our bodies function. One semester in chemistry, however, does not make me an chemist, any more than reading Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" makes me a physicist. Learning the names of clouds does not make you a climate scientist or a meteorologist. You are, however, clever at finding pseudo-scientific stuff purporting to back up your claims, like all of your kind.
    Always a personal insult. Hate females or something? Never see you deliver the personal attacks to
    men in here who've devoted a lot of time and study to this like Havana Moon or lived out their
    knowledge in their profession like Sailor or put together an excellent compilation of NASA reporting
    like USF911. We all shared good information with you.
    Or is it just easier to deliver the personal insult of "all of your kind" to only me in order to
    include others "of my kind" I'm in agreement with so you don't have to say it to a man?
    So again, believe what you want.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Stretch For This Post:

    Sailor (07-21-2019)

  19. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Centerleftfl View Post
    No one believes IT ISN'T TRUE anymore! NO ONE! Even YOU.

    Carter warned us. REAGAN ignored it. Simultaneously BIG OIL (the BIGGEST OIL) wrote their reports. (Their accuracy was beyond anything I would have believed could be predicted with such precision almost 40 years later).

    Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings


    Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.

    Benjamin Franta - The Guardian

    Wed 19 Sep 2018 06.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 19 Sep 2018 19.55 EDT



    A Royal Dutch Shell logo. Photograph: Anna Gowthorpe/PA
    One day in 1961, an American economist named Daniel Ellsberg stumbled across a piece of paper with apocalyptic implications. Ellsberg, who was advising the US government on its secret nuclear war plans, had discovered a document that contained an official estimate of the death toll in a preemptive “first strike” on China and the Soviet Union: 300 million in those countries, and double that globally.

    Ellsberg was troubled that such a plan existed; years later, he tried to leak the details of nuclear annihilation to the public. Although his attempt failed, Ellsberg would become famous instead for leaking what came to be known as the Pentagon Papers – the US government’s secret history of its military intervention in Vietnam.


    America’s amoral military planning during the Cold War echoes the hubris exhibited by another cast of characters gambling with the fate of humanity. Recently, secret documents have been unearthed detailing what the energy industry knew about the links between their products and global warming. But, unlike the government’s nuclear plans, what the industry detailed was put into action.

    In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels).



    Exxon’s private prediction of the future growth of carbon dioxide levels (left axis) and global temperature relative to 1982 (right axis). Elsewhere in its report, Exxon noted that the most widely accepted science at the time indicated that doubling carbon dioxide levels would cause a global warming of 3°C. Illustration: 1982 Exxon internal briefing document. Later that decade, in 1988, an internal report by Shell projected similar effects but also found that CO2 could double even earlier, by 2030. Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections.

    Shell’s assessment foresaw a one-meter sea-level rise, and noted that warming could also fuel disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, resulting in a worldwide rise in sea level of “five to six meters.” That would be enough to inundate entire low-lying countries.

    Shell’s analysts also warned of the “disappearance of specific ecosystems or habitat destruction,” predicted an increase in “runoff, destructive floods, and inundation of low-lying farmland,” and said that “new sources of freshwater would be required” to compensate for changes in precipitation. Global changes in air temperature would also “drastically change the way people live and work.” All told, Shell concluded, “the changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”

    For its part, Exxon warned of “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.” Like Shell’s experts, Exxon’s scientists predicted devastating sea-level rise, and warned that the American Midwest and other parts of the world could become desert-like. Looking on the bright side, the company expressed its confidence that “this problem is not as significant to mankind as a nuclear holocaust or world famine.”...


    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hange-warnings
    CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. The UK Guardian is a liberal newspaper. It is not a science textbook.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    Stretch (07-22-2019)

  21. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guno View Post
    Because the cable installer with gook wife knows science!!
    The Guardian, like you, and like the rest of the Church of Global Warming, denies science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

    * You can't create energy out of nothing.
    * You can't store or trap heat.
    * You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
    * You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
    * You can't trap light.
    * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

  22. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    We could stop global warming by capturing the heat: Through the use of nanotubes we can cause the energy to form photons which we can capture with solar tech. Steal the energy that's melting the poor ice cap and use it to reduce CO2

    True story
    https://phys.org/news/2019-07-carbon...-channels.html
    It is not possible to store or trap heat (2nd law of thermodynamics).

  23. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    I’m not an expert by any means but it’s common knowledge that there’s more energy locked-up in the earth’s mantle [in the form of heat] than humans could ever hope to use.

    And it’s hardly surprising it could affect polar ice. Unfortunately, climate science is locked into CO2-–as the cause of pretty much everything.
    It is not possible to store or trap heat. Earth's mantle is hot due to nuclear radiation, not heat. Heat has no temperature. Thermal energy does.
    It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

  24. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    So what happened since then? Science was too hard and skeery and got liberal all over it?

    Sometimes bedrock is exposed -- in Antarctica. It is not exposed under the Arctic polar ice cap because -- wait for this -- the bedrock is 17,000 feet below the surface where the ice is. You have absolutely NO scientific explanation for why the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, nor can you explain why permafrost is melting across the entire Arctic region other than "oh, that happened before and it's happening now."
    Permafrost isn't melting. Some areas do melt from time to time, but then they return to permafrost.

    I guess you figure that volcanoes don't heat the water. when they erupt.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    I've seen your other nonsense about CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone who rejects scientific reality doesn't deserve to have their opinion considered --
    Science isn't 'reality'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    no matter how many claims they make about "studied ____ in college."
    Science isn't a class, a study, or a research. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    BTW, I studied biology, chemistry, and microbiology in college. But I'm not a biologist, a chemist, nor a microbiologist.
    Paradox. In my opinion you studied none of these. Oh, you might have taken some classes in them, but that is not a study.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    The difference between us is that I don't try to offer informed opinions on those topics while portraying myself as some sort of expert because I studied them in college.
    Science isn't 'experts'. Science isn't a university degree. It isn't a course of study. It does not use consensus. It is not even people at all.

    Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2018, 02:37 AM
  2. Polar Melting Scam In Complete Collapse
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 06-26-2018, 05:00 AM
  3. Studies confirm that racist fears are driving the Trump train
    By Legion Troll in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-07-2016, 11:18 AM
  4. NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-23-2014, 05:44 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-05-2013, 04:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •