Surprisingly warm water found on underside of Antarctica's 'Doomsday Glacier'

Jan 22, 2020
2
5
15
It is only a surprise to these frauds calling themselves scientists. There is no threat and this Doomsday Glacier is just a feeble attempt at fear mongering. There is no Doomsday anything and there is no climate crisis anywhere on this planet, at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Jan 30, 2020
0
1
5
Not sure why it's a surprise as it's the first time its been done. Surely anything else was a 'best guesstimate'. You guessed. You were wrong. That's all there is here. Nothing else can be inferred unless you've tested before and found a marked change. Even then, unless you have previous years of tests to compare, you still can't say too much. Everything here is inference. Not science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodkeh
Jan 23, 2020
0
1
5
Hi Rodkeh, can you present your data and or measurements, just saying it's not true may work with some folks but as an Engineer I need data.
Not supporting any others but its logical why only that glaciar is warm beneath while the surrounding area is freezing. Is it because of a potentially warm ground beneath?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Jan 31, 2020
0
3
0
Well Rodkeh we are here as a community appreciate solid evidences to prove or disprove something, so I'm not interested listening to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics unless it is accompanied by solid evidences and numbers supporting your idea. If you don't have it I appreciate that keeping silent or telling the truth based on evidence would be better at the end with all respect to your idea, your argument is weak
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPriems
Dec 26, 2019
218
50
130
It is only a surprise to these frauds calling themselves scientists. There is no threat and this Doomsday Glacier is just a feeble attempt at fear mongering. There is no Doomsday anything and there is no climate crisis anywhere on this planet, at this time.
If anything it is a manufactured crisis and yes a lot of fear mongering and fear porn. If you follow the money a lot of the money comes from George Soros and Billy Gates on the climate change scandal. And I don't know about you but you can just see the evil in those two guys eyes. They sure aren't doing it to help the world.
 
Dec 26, 2019
218
50
130
Well Rodkeh we are here as a community appreciate solid evidences to prove or disprove something, so I'm not interested listening to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics unless it is accompanied by solid evidences and numbers supporting your idea. If you don't have it I appreciate that keeping silent or telling the truth based on evidence would be better at the end with all respect to your idea, your argument is weak
Kind of hard to be part of a community if you have only posted one time on here. How are you part of the community here? I have never even seen you. I suggest maybe posting a little more here before you are going to tell someone to keep silent. People have a right to opinions and every post don't need to be backed up with evidence. He made a common sense statement the way I see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodkeh
Jan 31, 2020
0
3
0
Kind of hard to be part of a community if you have only posted one time on here. How are you part of the community here? I have never even seen you. I suggest maybe posting a little more here before you are going to tell someone to keep silent. People have a right to opinions and every post don't need to be backed up with evidence. He made a common sense statement the way I see it.
You have the right to say whatever you want of course that's why I said to him that his argument is weak only based on the scientific view but acceptable as any response.
I'm with you when you said that. Therefore, don't suggest me doing something first before replying to other people since you don't know me to judge me. However, the prestige nowadays is based not only on wealth but also on how many articles you write and comment without looking for the absolute truth. If you are looking for the truth for this issue then go ahead and look for data, otherwise you just come here to defend him without any common sense with all respect. Science is based on evidences and complete analysis not just on casual responses based on "2nd law of Thermodynamics" I respect your response and his response as well even though they are casual based on nothing and of course you can say what you want but that doesn't and will never change anything without proof
 
Jan 31, 2020
0
0
0
People (Humans) are so arrogant to always think they are important or powerful enough to control this planet. Someday maybe, but damn sure not now.
Yes climate change is real! People have been attempting to predict the climate and to find out what is "causing" the changes to our beautiful planet. Why is it that the "scientists" want to always find a way to blame people for climate change.
The doom and gloom sayers always get the headlines and the grant money. Many of the tow "scientists" do not think humans are "causing" global warming. And stating that doesn't make you a "Climate Change Denier"
When i was growing up in the 1960's i was told in school that by the rear 2000 the earth would be so cold that we would be heading into another ice age. How many of you remember that? And man was causing it because of his pollution, the evil humans were destroying the planet. Now we are being told the evil humans are causing the earth to warm up!
Let's all be good stewards of our planet, the only home we have. Instead of pointing fingers, how about we all work together to better humanity! (hey i learned something from Star Trek)
The Earth was around for over 4 billion years before the evil humans came onto the scene and i believe it will be around for probably another 4 billion years after the evil humans are gone.
We are not the center of the universe and we are not the cause of everything we perceive as wrong or bad.
But working together we can be a force of good for the planet and humans.
There are some truly evil people in the world but that doesn't make all people bad.

Okay.... so i don't get hammered... everyone screams about backing up what you say even in a opinion with some facts...
So here are mine...
2+2=4
The Earth is Round!
Taxes will always go up!

Have a great day people....
The future really does look bright....
 
Jan 31, 2020
0
1
0
Underwater Volcanoes activity from increasing number of hydrothermal vents?
There seems to be more geological activity lately. Earthquakes and volcanoes seem to be up from the normal expected levels. Magma heat increases in the Yellowstone Super Valcano has been reported as well as from undersea vents. Not saying that climate change is not involved, just that there are other factors to investigate. For example, where is this warmer water coming from? Is there a prevalent current that is bringing it under the glacier? Being under the glacier means direct solar heating is not the culprit nor is local atmospheric temperature able to heat the glacier shielded water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liam Lucas
Jan 31, 2020
0
7
0
Not sure why it's a surprise as it's the first time its been done. Surely anything else was a 'best guesstimate'. You guessed. You were wrong. That's all there is here. Nothing else can be inferred unless you've tested before and found a marked change. Even then, unless you have previous years of tests to compare, you still can't say too much. Everything here is inference. Not science.

The fact is that the oceans are warming, and where 90% of the excess heat from AGW has been going. Cold less heavy fresh meltwater is sitting on top of and trapping warm salty water below, which in turn is eating away at ice shelves from below.
---------
Polar Warning: Even Antarctica’s Coldest Region Is Starting to Melt

 
  • Like
Reactions: dan and PPriems
Jan 31, 2020
0
7
0
There seems to be more geological activity lately. Earthquakes and volcanoes seem to be up from the normal expected levels. Magma heat increases in the Yellowstone Super Valcano has been reported as well as from undersea vents. Not saying that climate change is not involved, just that there are other factors to investigate. For example, where is this warmer water coming from? Is there a prevalent current that is bringing it under the glacier? Being under the glacier means direct solar heating is not the culprit nor is local atmospheric temperature able to heat the glacier shielded water.
After seeing many "skeptic" comments claiming undersea volcanoes are causing the warming, I went to a couple of climate science websites and asked about it in comments. Here are some of the replies from scientists.
-----------
Steve Bloom said...
" IMO the easy argument is that the surface above the mid-ocean ridges, which are the where the action really is for ocean volcanism, shows no trace of heat whatsoever. The same applies to individual volcanoes. "
----
a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...
"Do the math. How much energy does it take to melt a couple of trillion tonnes of ice? How much energy will an average volcano put out? One of these numbers will be much, much bigger than the other. That ought to give you the answer--namely that anyone who trots out the undersea volcano argument is dumber than owlshit."

EliRabett said...
"Among other things the temperature and pH profiles are wrong. The excess is coming in from the top. "

Jim Eager said...
"Not just melt the ice, a_ray, it first has to heat the entire water column between these undersea volcanoes and the ice, and that's an even larger number.
As you say, dumber than owlshit. "

mitch said...
"Actually there is a trace of heat at about 200 m above the mid ocean ridges that can be traced away-about 0.01 deg. If there were near-human CO2 release at the mid ocean ridges , this would show up as a massive pH anomaly. It isn't there"
--------
comment by grindupBaker at Skeptical Science

"I compute that a total of ~0.00583 Zettajoules / year heat is added into the deep oceans at the sea bed by the annual 3 cubic kilometers of volcanic lava flow at an assumed average temperature of 1,000 degrees.
Current analysis is that 13.7 Zettajoules / year heat is added into the oceans from the surface down by the residual radiative imbalance
Thus, surface-down heat added = 2,350 times as much as volcano heat.

Also, just to hammer on the utter silliness of this "volcano heat" nonsense, note that the estimate of all geothermal heat is 0.085 w/m**2 (though not known very precisely) which is 1.37 Zettajoules / year. Thus, regular dull geothermal heat seeping up through the land surface and the sea bed is 1.37 / 0.00583 = 235 times as much as volcano heat. I expect that modellers would include this minor but not trivial heat, perhaps somebody else would confirm. The "volcano heat" nonsense is, quite frankly, extremely ignorant and it is beyond lazy not to at least attempt a 1st-order perhaps flawed approximation of the reference quantity for discussion as I have done. It is sadly indicative of a certain group of people that they vastly prefer anecdote and hyperbole to some attempt at analysis."
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPriems
Jan 31, 2020
0
7
0
People (Humans) are so arrogant to always think they are important or powerful enough to control this planet. Someday maybe, but damn sure not now.
Yes climate change is real! People have been attempting to predict the climate and to find out what is "causing" the changes to our beautiful planet. Why is it that the "scientists" want to always find a way to blame people for climate change.
The doom and gloom sayers always get the headlines and the grant money. Many of the tow "scientists" do not think humans are "causing" global warming. And stating that doesn't make you a "Climate Change Denier"
When i was growing up in the 1960's i was told in school that by the rear 2000 the earth would be so cold that we would be heading into another ice age. How many of you remember that? And man was causing it because of his pollution, the evil humans were destroying the planet. Now we are being told the evil humans are causing the earth to warm up!
Let's all be good stewards of our planet, the only home we have. Instead of pointing fingers, how about we all work together to better humanity! (hey i learned something from Star Trek)
The Earth was around for over 4 billion years before the evil humans came onto the scene and i believe it will be around for probably another 4 billion years after the evil humans are gone.
We are not the center of the universe and we are not the cause of everything we perceive as wrong or bad.
But working together we can be a force of good for the planet and humans.
There are some truly evil people in the world but that doesn't make all people bad.

Okay.... so i don't get hammered... everyone screams about backing up what you say even in a opinion with some facts...
So here are mine...
2+2=4
The Earth is Round!
Taxes will always go up!

Have a great day people....
The future really does look bright....
-------
So if you are not a denier, why are you repeating denier myths and lies about the science. Deniers believe dozens of flat out lies and myths abouts the science, with no skepticism whatsoever. - Not scientific skeptics by any stretch of the imagination. You can't even get your denier mantras straight.
---
"in the 1960's i was told in school that by the rear 2000 the earth would be so cold"
That was in the 1970s, and there were SIX TIMES as many peer reviewed papers on anthropogenic global warming 44 papers versus 7 on cooling
Compare that with the 13,950 peer reviewed papers published between 1991-2012. Or compare it with the 10,000 papers used in the 2007 IPCC report. There was never anything within a million miles of consensus on cooling.
Some popular magazine got the public's attention on what was a minor hypothesis, with only 7 published research papers.
Promoted by a magazine, not scientists.
Some scientists were researching what would happen if humans increased aerosols like sulfur oxides in the atmosphere Fourfold.
These aerosols are emitted when fossil fuels burn. They reflect sunlight back into space.
Some of these aerosols are what cause acid rain and smog.
That's why we have pollution controls on vehicles and smoke stacks. And why there never was a fourfold increase.
Stopping emissions of such aerosols would stop the cooling within a decade or two, because of their short resident time in the atmosphere. CO2's resident time is hundreds if not thousands of years. The resident time of the sulfur dioxide aerosols is about 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPriems
Jan 31, 2020
0
7
0
People (Humans) are so arrogant to always think they are important or powerful enough to control this planet. Someday maybe, but damn sure not now.
-------
The world is warming at least 10 times faster than when it came out of the last ice age. It took 11,000 years to warm by 5 C. That averages 2,200 years for each 1 C warming.
Global average temperature has increased by 1 C in the last 138 years. Do the simple arithmetic. I got 16 times faster now.

That is because CO2 has likely never increased this fast naturally.
We are increasing atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature has done in At Least the last 450,000 years and almost certainly in the last 800,000 years or more.
But I'm sure the following is having no impact. /sarc

Humans increased CO2 by over 80ppm in 58 years
Humans increased CO2 by 130ppm in 138 years
------
Nature caused CO2 increases over the last 450,000 years, from ice core data
80ppm increase -- took 50,000 years
110ppm increase -- 25,000 years
120ppm increase --- 20,000 years
60ppm increase --- 20,000 years
90ppm increase --- 15,000 years
100ppm increase --- 24,800 years

The numbers for 800,000 years would be similar, based on a graph, from ice core data going back that far.
Here it is, along with a graph of CO2 for the last 10,000 years.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: PPriems
Jan 31, 2020
0
7
0
Many of the tow "scientists" do not think humans are "causing" global warming.
----------
Many scientists? Not really, especially not Climate Scientists.

The scientific consensus about AGW is a consensus of EVIDENCE, from which scientists form their opinions. Like the following

Between 1991-2012 there were 13,950 peer reviewed research papers published. 24 of them reject AGW.
Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW - That's 1/10 of 1%

-----
In the one year + from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, -
there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW - That's a little over 1/100 of 1%
-----
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PPriems
Jan 6, 2020
163
54
180
Global temps have increased by 1 percent and the earth's magnetic field has decreased by 5 per cent ever decade since about 1947. Man created climate change not hardly on those that believe in fairytales they would cry out differently the Sky is Falling tales of Chicken little.
 
Jan 6, 2020
163
54
180
In the 1950s film Rodan . Mankind uses fire to kill a giant bird . Clear case of the Laws of Thermodynamics in action or you can rub two sticks together till they catch fire. To make a ice cube requires a bit more ingenuity.
 
Jan 22, 2020
2
5
15
----------
Many scientists? Not really, especially not Climate Scientists.

The scientific consensus about AGW is a consensus of EVIDENCE, from which scientists form their opinions. Like the following

Between 1991-2012 there were 13,950 peer reviewed research papers published. 24 of them reject AGW.
Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW - That's 1/10 of 1%

-----
In the one year + from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, -
there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW - That's a little over 1/100 of 1%
-----
Climate Science is anti-science and a science in name only! Climate Science is founded on opinion and consensus, the very things that science was invented to eradicate. Climate Scientists are just meteorologists that are scientist wannabes, because they think calling themselves scientists gives them more credibility but they are just weathermen and nothing more and to call themselves scientists, is a lie and a fraud, because they have no idea of what climate is! They have no idea of what science is and think that the Laws of Physics are negotiable or interpretive. The fools think that Physics is like weather forecasting. They are really stupid!
 
Jan 6, 2020
163
54
180
I agr
Climate Science is anti-science and a science in name only! Climate Science is founded on opinion and consensus, the very things that science was invented to eradicate. Climate Scientists are just meteorologists that are scientist wannabes, because they think calling themselves scientists gives them more credibility but they are just weathermen and nothing more and to call themselves scientists, is a lie and a fraud, because they have no idea of what climate is! They have no idea of what science is and think that the Laws of Physics are negotiable or interpretive. The fools think that Physics is like weather forecasting. They are really stupid!
I agree with your assertions that Climate science is attributed to anti-science as you call it. It is in fact tied to the governments and economics except for the United Nations which is in a league all their own. They are tied to Rome. In the end it boils down to economics and who pays their salaries. There is a difference between applied science and hard science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Jan 22, 2020
2
5
15
I agr

I agree with your assertions that Climate science is attributed to anti-science as you call it. It is in fact tied to the governments and economics except for the United Nations which is in a league all their own. They are tied to Rome. In the end it boils down to economics and who pays their salaries. There is a difference between applied science and hard science.
There is only one Math, one Physics and one Chemistry, whether or not they are being applied usefully or not, is irrelevant. The Laws of Physics never change, no matter where or when you are, in the universe!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts