East Antarctica may be just as unstable as West

[SSDD]

sorry, but the evidence that undersea volcanic activity has been grossly underestimated has become undeniable unless you are a raving anti science denier. Clearly you prefer to believe your quarter century old outdated pseudoscience over modern research.

The point is that the discussion is about climate change. If the number or intensity of volcanoes is changing, that contributes to climate change. It doesn't matter what the real number of volcanoes is. You haven't demonstrated that the number is increasing. You missed the point.
.

I don't need to demonstrate that the number is changing....again, you fail to get the point...the point is that volcanic activity has always been present, and has always been grossly underestimated..the point is that climate change has always been due to natural variability...not your fantastical magical and quite impossible radiative greenhouse effect. Climate science, having been bought by politics since its early days has failed to adequately consider natural variability...claiming instead to have examined all possible natural variables (which they clearly didn't) and jumped straight to demonizing capitalism and CO2...

There is nothing within the climate today that could be even remotely construed as unprecedented, or even moderately unusual...climate has always changed and it is, and remains, due to natural variability. Most of the modern warming can be attributed to el nino events, and el nino events are attributable to under sea volcanic activity. Unless you care to explain how atmospheric conditions might result in el nino events always originating from a precise geographical location which just happens to be at a location known for its undersea volcanic activity.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming

www.omicsonline.org

So I provided you with peer reviewed publications supporting my position...now how about you provide some peer reviewed publications that support yours and empirically show how much or how little varying CO2 concentrations over bodies of water in volumes of parts per million (0.000001) cause changes in heat over said bodies of water. It is what you believe...lets see the empirical evidence to support it.

No ... this paper only supports the correlation ... you've been claiming proof-positive ... you're using the exact same flawed logic to endorse geothermal forcing as the Hysterics use to endorse CO2 forcing ... "proof-by-graph" as it were ... Viterito (2016) doesn't even try to present any quantitative values for the amount of energy released along these mid-ocean ridges, and cleverly omits areas that don't show any correlation at all ...

One fairly serious question arises with the zonal nature of the El Nino phenomena being cause by a meridional oceanic ridge structure ... also the warming along the eastern half of the Pacific equatorial area occurs along with a cooling along the western half ... what is sinking the energy in the western Pacific? ...

"Earth’s climate is a remarkably “noisy” system, driven by scores of oscillators, feedback mechanisms, and radiative forcings."

Climatology is the study of 100 year averages ... your paper is describing weather ... also noteworthy is that this paper fully endorses radiative forcings, please expand on your disagreements with this in the thread dedicated to such a discussion ...

 

[Wuwei]

I don't need to demonstrate that the number is changing..

Yes you do.

the point is that volcanic activity has always been present, and has always been grossly underestimated.

If the volcanic activity is not changing, then it is not a factor in climate change, grossly underestimated or not. You have not told us what the history of volcanic change actually is.
.

 

[SSDD]

The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming

www.omicsonline.org

So I provided you with peer reviewed publications supporting my position...now how about you provide some peer reviewed publications that support yours and empirically show how much or how little varying CO2 concentrations over bodies of water in volumes of parts per million (0.000001) cause changes in heat over said bodies of water. It is what you believe...lets see the empirical evidence to support it.

No ... this paper only supports the correlation ... you've been claiming proof-positive ... you're using the exact same flawed logic to endorse geothermal forcing as the Hysterics use to endorse CO2 forcing ... "proof-by-graph" as it were ... Viterito (2016) doesn't even try to present any quantitative values for the amount of energy released along these mid-ocean ridges, and cleverly omits areas that don't show any correlation at all ...

One fairly serious question arises with the zonal nature of the El Nino phenomena being cause by a meridional oceanic ridge structure ... also the warming along the eastern half of the Pacific equatorial area occurs along with a cooling along the western half ... what is sinking the energy in the western Pacific? ...

"Earth’s climate is a remarkably “noisy” system, driven by scores of oscillators, feedback mechanisms, and radiative forcings."

Climatology is the study of 100 year averages ... your paper is describing weather ... also noteworthy is that this paper fully endorses radiative forcings, please expand on your disagreements with this in the thread dedicated to such a discussion ...

Really? Where did I claim proof positive? A quote from me will suffice.

dlimatology today is 100 pounds of BS in a 25 pound bag.

now, about that empirical evidence that shows how much or how little varying CO2 concentrations over bodies of water in volumes of parts per million (0.000001) cause changes in heat over said bodies of water. Got any source that even pretends to demonstrate such a phenomenon empirically. And the el nino / geothermal connection is pretty much undeniable unl s of course you can explain how an atmospheric phenomenon could cause a terrestrial phenomenon to start over and over in the exact same geographical location...

Climat change has always been due to natural variation...an imaginary radiative greenhouse effect is, and always was a political campaign, not science.

 

[SSDD]

I don't need to demonstrate that the number is changing..

Yes you do.

the point is that volcanic activity has always been present, and has always been grossly underestimated.

If the volcanic activity is not changing, then it is not a factor in climate change, grossly underestimated or not. You have not told us what the history of volcanic change actually is.
.

it is if it has been underestimated by orders of magnitude....which it has.. Again, do you ever listen to yourself?

 

[flacaltenn]

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

Natural variability....take the citrus crop for example..it is very sensitive to cold. At 32 degrees the fruit freezes and at 29 degrees, the trunk of the trees will split...killing the trees.

In 1895, citrus was grown everywhere in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. By 1960, due to colder winters, then citrus crop had moved south and the northernmost line of commercial citrus was Macintosh, Florida. By 1980, the northernmost line of commercial citrus growing was Leesburg. Today the northernmost line is Kissimmee, Florida.

In 124 years, the no freeze line has moved south by 200 miles, and goops like you are screaming about global warming. If global warming is real, why has the no freeze line moved south by 200 miles in less than 150 years. There is your actual climate change...your warming is not real..it is an artifact resulting from heavy manipulation, homogenization, and infilling of the completely meaningless global average temperature data base.

You are conflating the Florida freeze line with Florida's average temperature.

In the last 20 years I have seen 3 major frosts that last only one or two days. They will damage many native plants overnight. The rare frosts are moving southward because of the unstable polar vortex. The short infrequent freezes does not mean that Florida is getting colder on the average. It means that there is a wider range of outlier temperatures.

Yes the citrus crops suffer from an occasional frost, but the main problem for decades is the expanding "greening" problem. Ninety percent of the state’s groves are infected by a bacterium. I have seen a large neighboring grove disappear in just a few years, but not by frost.

Right...the freeze line has nothing to do with climate or temperature...do you ever actually listen to yourself?

How does the freeze line and it's time distribution NOT be climate change over long periods of change? You tend to blurt stuff out that's not well considered...

 

[flacaltenn]

and el nino events are attributable to under sea volcanic activity.

Here's another one that just resonates ignorance of the science..

 

[SSDD]

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

Natural variability....take the citrus crop for example..it is very sensitive to cold. At 32 degrees the fruit freezes and at 29 degrees, the trunk of the trees will split...killing the trees.

In 1895, citrus was grown everywhere in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. By 1960, due to colder winters, then citrus crop had moved south and the northernmost line of commercial citrus was Macintosh, Florida. By 1980, the northernmost line of commercial citrus growing was Leesburg. Today the northernmost line is Kissimmee, Florida.

In 124 years, the no freeze line has moved south by 200 miles, and goops like you are screaming about global warming. If global warming is real, why has the no freeze line moved south by 200 miles in less than 150 years. There is your actual climate change...your warming is not real..it is an artifact resulting from heavy manipulation, homogenization, and infilling of the completely meaningless global average temperature data base.

You are conflating the Florida freeze line with Florida's average temperature.

In the last 20 years I have seen 3 major frosts that last only one or two days. They will damage many native plants overnight. The rare frosts are moving southward because of the unstable polar vortex. The short infrequent freezes does not mean that Florida is getting colder on the average. It means that there is a wider range of outlier temperatures.

Yes the citrus crops suffer from an occasional frost, but the main problem for decades is the expanding "greening" problem. Ninety percent of the state’s groves are infected by a bacterium. I have seen a large neighboring grove disappear in just a few years, but not by frost.

Right...the freeze line has nothing to do with climate or temperature...do you ever actually listen to yourself?

How does the freeze line and it's time distribution NOT be climate change over long periods of change? You tend to blurt stuff out that's not well considered...

i guess you missed the heavy sarcasm...wuwei thought that it had nothing to do with climate...I was mocking him.

 

[SSDD]

and el nino events are attributable to under sea volcanic activity.

Here's another one that just resonates ignorance of the science..

So you can provide an explanation for how an atmospheric phenomenon can cause an undersea event to always originate from an exact geographic location....which just happens to be over a geothermal active zone?

Im all ears...let’s hear it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

Natural variability....take the citrus crop for example..it is very sensitive to cold. At 32 degrees the fruit freezes and at 29 degrees, the trunk of the trees will split...killing the trees.

In 1895, citrus was grown everywhere in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. By 1960, due to colder winters, then citrus crop had moved south and the northernmost line of commercial citrus was Macintosh, Florida. By 1980, the northernmost line of commercial citrus growing was Leesburg. Today the northernmost line is Kissimmee, Florida.

In 124 years, the no freeze line has moved south by 200 miles, and goops like you are screaming about global warming. If global warming is real, why has the no freeze line moved south by 200 miles in less than 150 years. There is your actual climate change...your warming is not real..it is an artifact resulting from heavy manipulation, homogenization, and infilling of the completely meaningless global average temperature data base.

You are conflating the Florida freeze line with Florida's average temperature.

In the last 20 years I have seen 3 major frosts that last only one or two days. They will damage many native plants overnight. The rare frosts are moving southward because of the unstable polar vortex. The short infrequent freezes does not mean that Florida is getting colder on the average. It means that there is a wider range of outlier temperatures.

Yes the citrus crops suffer from an occasional frost, but the main problem for decades is the expanding "greening" problem. Ninety percent of the state’s groves are infected by a bacterium. I have seen a large neighboring grove disappear in just a few years, but not by frost.

Right...the freeze line has nothing to do with climate or temperature...do you ever actually listen to yourself?

How does the freeze line and it's time distribution NOT be climate change over long periods of change? You tend to blurt stuff out that's not well considered...

i guess you missed the heavy sarcasm...wuwei thought that it had nothing to do with climate...I was mocking him.

Guess I should have read deeper.. But anyone that's been in this forum for a year or more knows the diff between climate and weather... Or SHOULD..

 

[flacaltenn]

and el nino events are attributable to under sea volcanic activity.

Here's another one that just resonates ignorance of the science..

So you can provide an explanation for how an atmospheric phenomenon can cause an undersea event to always originate from an exact geographic location....which just happens to be over a geothermal active zone?

Im all ears...let’s hear it.

You ever hear of Ocean currents?? Not JUST the surface ones but the DEEPER ones?? These are critical to both weather and climate.. There are rivers of hot and cold exchanging heat from the poles and DOWN to poles.. And tropical currents flowing more east-west..

Actually a LOT of hot currents make it down to the southern ocean. And a lot of cold currents from the poles make it to equator or beyond...

That AND POOLING creates periodic hot spots.. El ninos are the "emergency valves" for LOSING heat from the deeper layers...

Occam's razor... Except "volcanoes" is just TOO damn simplistic...

 

[SSDD]

and el nino events are attributable to under sea volcanic activity.

Here's another one that just resonates ignorance of the science..

So you can provide an explanation for how an atmospheric phenomenon can cause an undersea event to always originate from an exact geographic location....which just happens to be over a geothermal active zone?

Im all ears...let’s hear it.

You ever hear of Ocean currents?? Not JUST the surface ones but the DEEPER ones?? These are critical to both weather and climate.. There are rivers of hot and cold exchanging heat from the poles and DOWN to poles.. And tropical currents flowing more east-west..

Actually a LOT of hot currents make it down to the southern ocean. And a lot of cold currents from the poles make it to equator or beyond...

That AND POOLING creates periodic hot spots.. El ninos are the "emergency valves" for LOSING heat from the deeper layers...

Occam's razor... Except "volcanoes" is just TOO damn simplistic...

Here...read something to challenge your faith...by the way, the origin of el nino is to precise even be the result of ocean currents alone.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

 

[flacaltenn]

and el nino events are attributable to under sea volcanic activity.

Here's another one that just resonates ignorance of the science..

So you can provide an explanation for how an atmospheric phenomenon can cause an undersea event to always originate from an exact geographic location....which just happens to be over a geothermal active zone?

Im all ears...let’s hear it.

You ever hear of Ocean currents?? Not JUST the surface ones but the DEEPER ones?? These are critical to both weather and climate.. There are rivers of hot and cold exchanging heat from the poles and DOWN to poles.. And tropical currents flowing more east-west..

Actually a LOT of hot currents make it down to the southern ocean. And a lot of cold currents from the poles make it to equator or beyond...

That AND POOLING creates periodic hot spots.. El ninos are the "emergency valves" for LOSING heat from the deeper layers...

Occam's razor... Except "volcanoes" is just TOO damn simplistic...

Here...read something to challenge your faith...by the way, the origin of el nino is to precise even be the result of ocean currents alone.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

This is ONE GUY with a theory.. It's HIS personal site... And I have NO DOUBT he's correct in some SMALLER sense of "heat distribution".. It's happening close to shore in the WestAIShelf... THat's why the Southern Ocean temperatures have hardly CHANGED in 50 years, but the temperature adjacent to the CONTINENT have...

But that heat does not "convect" vertically.,. It gets distributed and mixed with all the other pools of heat at various spots on a WHOLE ocean basis... And the task for this guy to determine WHICH HEAT came from where is not something he's gonna solve by himself or in his lifetime...

 

[SSDD]

and el nino events are attributable to under sea volcanic activity.

Here's another one that just resonates ignorance of the science..

So you can provide an explanation for how an atmospheric phenomenon can cause an undersea event to always originate from an exact geographic location....which just happens to be over a geothermal active zone?

Im all ears...let’s hear it.

You ever hear of Ocean currents?? Not JUST the surface ones but the DEEPER ones?? These are critical to both weather and climate.. There are rivers of hot and cold exchanging heat from the poles and DOWN to poles.. And tropical currents flowing more east-west..

Actually a LOT of hot currents make it down to the southern ocean. And a lot of cold currents from the poles make it to equator or beyond...

That AND POOLING creates periodic hot spots.. El ninos are the "emergency valves" for LOSING heat from the deeper layers...

Occam's razor... Except "volcanoes" is just TOO damn simplistic...

Here...read something to challenge your faith...by the way, the origin of el nino is to precise even be the result of ocean currents alone.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

This is ONE GUY with a theory.. It's HIS personal site... And I have NO DOUBT he's correct in some SMALLER sense of "heat distribution".. It's happening close to shore in the WestAIShelf... THat's why the Southern Ocean temperatures have hardly CHANGED in 50 years, but the temperature adjacent to the CONTINENT have...

But that heat does not "convect" vertically.,. It gets distributed and mixed with all the other pools of heat at various spots on a WHOLE ocean basis... And the task for this guy to determine WHICH HEAT came from where is not something he's gonna solve by himself or in his lifetime...

you keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night....can’t help much when it comes to looking in a mirror though...

take pride...your faith is strong...

takes a lot of faith to disregard evidence like this...

Additional information supporting the cause-and-effect relationship between high-magnitude Solomon Island area earthquake swarms to El Niño onset comes from three separate, and well documented, rewarming events that occurred during 2014-2017 El Niño.

Rewarming event one occurred in the April 2014 to June 2014-time frame, event two happened from February 2015 to May 2015, and event three just occurred in the December 2016 to January 2017 time frame. Each of these events is substantiated by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Shallow Sea Surface Temperature Maps (SST Maps). The first two rewarms are detailed in a previous Climate Change Dispatch article (see here).

coincidence?....hardly....

 

[mamooth]

So YOU and YOU alone KNOW the charts of volcanic activity under Antarctica for THOUSANDS of years

And there you go again, invoking your usual "YOU CAN'T PROVE WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT IT'S NOT MY SPECIAL BRAND OF FAIRY MAGIC, THEREFORE IT IS MY SPECIAL BRAND OF FAIRY MAGIC!" logic.

You kind of suck at this science thing.

 

[flacaltenn]

So YOU and YOU alone KNOW the charts of volcanic activity under Antarctica for THOUSANDS of years

And there you go again, invoking your usual "YOU CAN'T PROVE WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT IT'S NOT MY SPECIAL BRAND OF FAIRY MAGIC, THEREFORE IT IS MY SPECIAL BRAND OF FAIRY MAGIC!" logic.

You kind of suck at this science thing.

You're a pro at projection -- because that's ACTUALLY what you did to me.. All ready went down this rabbit hole doing STRAIGHT reporting of the findings of volcanic activity under the WAIS that YOU simply didn't want to accept or made excuses for... PRETENDING TO KNOW whether this finding was NEW or is a continuing pattern is some kind of "fairy magic" that OBVIOUSLY you alone only know...

 

[Wuwei]

I don't need to demonstrate that the number is changing..

Yes you do.

the point is that volcanic activity has always been present, and has always been grossly underestimated.

If the volcanic activity is not changing, then it is not a factor in climate change, grossly underestimated or not. You have not told us what the history of volcanic change actually is.
.

it is if it has been underestimated by orders of magnitude....which it has.. Again, do you ever listen to yourself?

Your comment is nonsense. You have not addressed the fact that the history of volcanic change over the past 100 years or so is important. in understanding it's effect on climate change. You keep missing the concept of change and reiterate the non sequitur of how large the activity is now, but not compared to what it was in the past. Your continual insults are not valid logic.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not true, as growing seasons changes are already very obvious.

Natural variability....take the citrus crop for example..it is very sensitive to cold. At 32 degrees the fruit freezes and at 29 degrees, the trunk of the trees will split...killing the trees.

In 1895, citrus was grown everywhere in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. By 1960, due to colder winters, then citrus crop had moved south and the northernmost line of commercial citrus was Macintosh, Florida. By 1980, the northernmost line of commercial citrus growing was Leesburg. Today the northernmost line is Kissimmee, Florida.

In 124 years, the no freeze line has moved south by 200 miles, and goops like you are screaming about global warming. If global warming is real, why has the no freeze line moved south by 200 miles in less than 150 years. There is your actual climate change...your warming is not real..it is an artifact resulting from heavy manipulation, homogenization, and infilling of the completely meaningless global average temperature data base.

Since it's not global warming, it must be climate change

 

[mamooth]

You're a pro at projection -- because that's ACTUALLY what you did to me..

Really? I proposed that some bit of magic with no evidence to back it up had to be correct because it couldn't be absolutely disproved? Funny. I don't remember doing that.

All ready went down this rabbit hole doing STRAIGHT reporting of the findings of volcanic activity under the WAIS that YOU simply didn't want to accept or made excuses for...

You're getting more delusional. I never said I didn't accept the data, and I never made excuses for it, because I wouldn't need to make excuses for data that I accept.

PRETENDING TO KNOW whether this finding was NEW or is a continuing pattern is some kind of "fairy magic" that OBVIOUSLY you alone only know...

So, according to you, finding a few volcanic features over the span of a whole continent, something expected, means that there has to be recent new vulcanism there at a scale found nowhere else on earth. That's definitely some strong fairy magic you're invoking there.

Me I'm pointing out that finding the expected doesn't mean you should expect to find it at levels completely unprecedented on planet earth. That would be common sense, the opposite of fairy magic.

 

[SSDD]

I don't need to demonstrate that the number is changing..

Yes you do.

the point is that volcanic activity has always been present, and has always been grossly underestimated.

If the volcanic activity is not changing, then it is not a factor in climate change, grossly underestimated or not. You have not told us what the history of volcanic change actually is.
.

it is if it has been underestimated by orders of magnitude....which it has.. Again, do you ever listen to yourself?

Your comment is nonsense. You have not addressed the fact that the history of volcanic change over the past 100 years or so is important. in understanding it's effect on climate change. You keep missing the concept of change and reiterate the non sequitur of how large the activity is now, but not compared to what it was in the past. Your continual insults are not valid logic.
.

Sorry, as with your inability to differentiate between weather and climate, you fail to differentiate between a factor that has been accurately assessed and disregarded and a factor that has been underestimated by orders of magnitude and disregarded.

go learn something and come back then.