Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I did try to dig into a bit. I spent an hour plus trying to find some basic numbers. How many vents are in that ridge? How much heat is transferred into the ocean by a typical vent? Multiply the first number by the second, and one might get the amount of heat said vents put into the Arctic Ocean. How does this compare with the amount of heat absorbed into the ocean from sunlight and the atmosphere, and how much leaves by IR black body radiation?

Also, is there any evidence at all that the amount of heat from geothermal sources is changing? As the submarines cruise the various ridges, how many old vents do they discover inactive, and how many new vents open up?

Much of this data doesn't exist yet for the Arctic.

Exactly.

You don't fucking know. (my 1%)

I don't know; Rani doesn't know; at this point nobody knows.

And yet the first response of the AGW dogmatist is to deny that their abject ignorance of the effect of alternate mechanisms on the observed results is at all significant.

No science without numbers? Holy ----! (why, oh why did I use up my 1% already)

Ever done... um... cardiology? hell, even anatomy?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... No science without numbers? Holy ----! (why, oh why did I use up my 1% already)

Ever done... um... cardiology? hell, even anatomy?

Are you suggesting that either of these pursuits consitutes science? Like engineering, medicine is an applied science (note the modifier). Medicine applies the tools of science to achieve goals, but those goals are not the same as the goals scientists set for their work.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Omigod. The lengths that some people will go to in order to keep their minds closed to new information is truly amazing. No such thing as non-numerical science? Well let's see ...

I'm in too. Vince can take a swing when he gets around to it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... Anatomy. Not an applied science. A study of the human body based on dissection and direct observation. Perv, did you ever use math or numbers in an anatomy class? I sure didn't.

Do you quantify anything? Do you observe color, weigh organs or measure femurs?

Originally Posted by The Rani

... Another, simpler and more applicable example. Most people know that different wavelengths of light are refracted at different angles by water in order to create a rainbow. Whether or not we know the numerical measurements of the different angles and wavelengths, the scientific concept remains the same, and most importantly, valid.

Valid? Sure. Validated? No.

I'll back off the 'no science without numbers' comment. It is possible to learn, observe, theorize and confirm without numbers.

But I am really dubious about Rani and Justin hanging what is left of their 'scientific' reputation on geothermal melting of the Arctic ice cap. So far as I know, the Rani had never heard of geothermal vents. She reads one lay article on the issue, and is ready to use this as sufficient evidence to throw out the entire science of climatology. Further, it seems that she puts the burden of proof on others. Her theory is good without numbers. It is up to others to come up with the data to disprove her theory and defend the scientific mainstream.

I'm tinking away at it. I found an entry saying a geothermal vent outputs from less than 1 to nearly 100 MW of heat. I'm having less luck finding a bell curve showing how that is distributed, and finding out how many vents is typical per mile of mid ocean ridge.

But the Rani is apparently asserting a heat increase has occurred from geothermal sources sufficient to melt... just how many cubic miles of ice? This would be an increase in heat production, as those vents have been there for centuries, and it is only now that the ice is melting.

Have I got your claim right, Rani? Would you care to provide any evidence for your claim?

I'll spend a little time on and off seeing if I can find the numbers.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not ONE serious response to that so far, other than his, which was sarcastic in tone but still made a serious point.

It's kinda hard. Someone shows a picture of melting ice. Someone suggests maybe a big volcano is melting it. Maybe it's the hand of God?

Then something about underwater vents gets posted. I guess that is supposed to be sorta like a giant volcano?

But then it's The Semo and Pink Splice Show, with special guest star the Rani. And then Justin starts tossing around the f-bomb while the Perv is doing what comes natural and it's just a merry melee.

A serious response to this circus?

Originally Posted by The Rani

M&L,
Nobody measured anything in anatomy class. Ever.

I won't argue that, but class is study, and science is practice. Based on the current trends, anatomy is looking a lot like engineering to me. For example, finitie element analysis is an engineering tool.

But whatever.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Anatomy. Not an applied science.

Funny you pick that example.
Actually, the way I've seen it taught and have taught it myself, it very much is an applied science. People are in my anatomy classes to get into nursing school; it has a very practical application for them, which means they are overall my best and most motivated students. Also, it is the least scientific of all the courses I have taught on a regular basis. It is the only one in which the scientific method is not part of the curriculum.

A study of the human body based on dissection and direct observation. Perv, did you ever use math or numbers in an anatomy class? I sure didn't.

Yes, I do use numbers when I teach anatomy, usually as part of measurements of the dimensions of organs, cells, and organelles, but also in such things as blood composition, the different kinds of respiratory volumes, and effectiveness of contraceptives. Furthermore, I also teach in a tradition where the class is paired up with physiology, as anatomy (form) makes no sense without physiology (function). There is quite a good deal of math in physiology.

Another, simpler and more applicable example. Most people know that different wavelengths of light are refracted at different angles by water in order to create a rainbow. Whether or not we know the numerical measurements of the different angles and wavelengths, the scientific concept remains the same, and most importantly, valid.

You'd have been better off using Einstein instead of Newton. The concepts of relativity can be explained without math--I know, I've done it. However, they cannot be tested without math. It is the ability to test a proposition that makes that proposition scientific. If a proposition is untestable, then it's not scientific. That's why Freud's ideas are not scientific.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The ringleader has left the tent, and the circus is over. You are usually snark-proof anyway, so what's the problem ... stumped for a response this time?

I couldn't find the relevant thread at first and was frustrated. I did give a response though.

at this point, wouldn't the more important question be what are the consequences of action on the issue, and what are the consequences of inaction?

Originally Posted by The Pervert

[COLOR=White]You'd have been better off using Einstein instead of Newton. The concepts of relativity can be explained without math--I know, I've done it.

The principle of relativity (that the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are) can be explained without math. The theory of special relativity (Einstein's attempt to preserve relativity in the face a constant speed of light) requires some mathematical concepts (e.g. addition) to explain, it seems to me.

As for general relativity, the basic observable fact it tries to explain (that gravitational and inertial mass are the same) can be explained without math, but the theory itself cannot.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Then something about underwater vents gets posted. I guess that is supposed to be sorta like a giant volcano?

More like an underwater geyser. Magma is awful close to the sea floor along the mid ocean ridges, where the tectonic plates are getting pushed out. Water will seep down near the magma, get superheated, then vents out into the ocean loaded with minerals at impressive temperatures and velocities. Google 'black smokers.'

Such underwater hot springs do vent a lot of heat into the ocean, but enough to melt the Arctic ice cap? I am most dubious. I've scanned the usual list of 'how to talk to denialist' threads, and it seems The Rani and Justin have come up with a brand new one.

I'm trying to find some papers showing how much heat is put out by a typical smoker field, but most of the articles focus more on the highly exotic no photosynthesis, high temperature, high pressure life forms.

In your climate work, have you ever encountered geothermal heat sources as a factor in ocean temperature models?

Originally Posted by beautifulcartoon73

at this point, wouldn't the more important question be what are the consequences of action on the issue, and what are the consequences of inaction?

Actionable Consequence (The Progressive Pattern) in which--

the Wealthy Man/ under the influence of a questionable admonitioner/ delivers up a folly of the Romantic Idealist sort:

The Triumvir/ the Arab Ariamnes' advice/ Carrhae

The POTUS/ the Iraki Chalabi's counsel/ C>A>R>R>H>A>E (aka Reform of Eurasia)

The Irenic Nobel Laureate/ the Commonwealthy Butler's inquisition/ A Climatic Carrhae

HTH

-----

or
Wu-wei under Taoist philosophy, inaction is the Way

Originally Posted by Tao Te Ching

...practice not doing and everything will fall into place

#3 (trans. Mr. Stephen Mitchell)

Originally Posted by Tao Te Ching

...practice not doing and everything will fall into place

Taoism, like most of the old Agricultural Age religions, had a strong element of 'opium for the masses.' There is a strong streak of passivity, and attempting to achieve much with little effort. The butcher is praised who knows precisely the right angle to cut the meat, such as no effort is required to cut. One is admonished not to sharped an blade excessively, as this will hasten the speed in which it dulls. A young man should avoid showing his strength and health, as otherwise his lord will draft him into the military, and he will be injured. A woman should not show her beauty, as this will draw unfavorable attention from the lords.

By one account, this streak of passivity doomed China. A relatively strong dynasty was infected by a Taoist emperor. At the time, China had a big trade fleet that had gotten as far as the Red Sea. In the name of doing nothing, the fleet was grounded, ordered not to sail again. As a result, it was the Europeans ships that came to establish the trade routes, and the Europeans who gained the wealth and power resulting. Up until that time, China had been significantly ahead of the west in many technologies. Abandoning the trade fleet was a key point in reversing the advantage.

This was also a time when the horse barbarians were gathering strength to the north. Some advocated preemptive action. At that point, China was still stronger than the north. But no, inaction was chosen, and thus the dynasty soon fell.

The Tao that can be known is not the Eternal Tao. As with many of the Agricultural Age religions, there are multiple schools, multiple ways of reading it. To my mind, in seeking the Tao, one must embrace both the yin and the yang. One can definitely be too active, but one can equally easily be too passive. At times, a butcher might need his strength. There is a place for beauty. Not all young males should cripple themselves to avoid military service.

The Tao ought to involve balance. Those who confuse yin -- the feminine, soft, dark flowing aspect -- with Tao -- which balances yin and yang both -- know not the Tao.

I would say the same of tradition and progress. There is much of value in our culture to be preserved and carried forward, but clinging too tightly to the past is not the whole of wisdom.

Originally Posted by beautifulcartoon73

at this point, wouldn't the more important question be what are the consequences of action on the issue, and what are the consequences of inaction?

That's always been my POV, but neither side here seems willing to adopt it. I'll wager the 4T Millies will go for it.

Sometimes Virgil loses me.

Originally Posted by beautifulcartoon73

at this point, wouldn't the more important question be what are the consequences of action on the issue, and what are the consequences of inaction?

Ah. A secular version of Pascal's Wager. Agreed.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Sometimes Virgil loses me.

Don't feel lonely. He blows 'em past all of us once in a while. I missed the point of one on Tuesday. My response was unresponsive, but why change it? I still said something I wanted to say.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

More like an underwater geyser. Magma is awful close to the sea floor along the mid ocean ridges, where the tectonic plates are getting pushed out. Water will seep down near the magma, get superheated, then vents out into the ocean loaded with minerals at impressive temperatures and velocities. Google 'black smokers.'

Such underwater hot springs do vent a lot of heat into the ocean, but enough to melt the Arctic ice cap? I am most dubious. I've scanned the usual list of 'how to talk to denialist' threads, and it seems The Rani and Justin have come up with a brand new one.

I'm trying to find some papers showing how much heat is put out by a typical smoker field, but most of the articles focus more on the highly exotic no photosynthesis, high temperature, high pressure life forms.

In your climate work, have you ever encountered geothermal heat sources as a factor in ocean temperature models?

I haven't seen anyone claim black smokers had an effect on climate. For them to do so they would have to be big enough to change the temperature of large amounts of surface waters. In doing so they would also necessarily change the chemistry of the surface waters as well. As far as I can tell (doing a quick back of the envelop check) the chemistry change associated with significant warming would be less that that has occurred as a result of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. So black smoker warming could occur without producing easily noticeable surface effects such as a clearing of the Sargasso Sea caused by altered seawater chemistry.

However the number of black smokers to affect climate would have to be huge (~10^5) and we should have seen a lot more of them than the 95 we have. So it is unlikely smokers would have much of an effect which probably explains why I've not seen anything about them.

Besides, any contribution by smokers would be part of the background natural level. A significant short-term effect would require the sudden appearance of several new smokers per mile of ridge all at once where none had been present before. Such a coordination is most unlikely and we should have seen some of these smokers emerge even from the limited exploration we have done over the past 3 decades.

But the Rani didn't hypothesize that smokers were melting the ice. She hypothesized a giant volcano, a single HUGE smoker under the pole that produces local transient while it erupts. Since volcanos do appear sporadically, producing transient effects, this eliminates the coordination problem. Of course, this particular volcano is of the "stealth variety" that erupts without leaving any seismic signature.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Of course, which is why I'm not wasting any sweat looking up ocean temperatures right now, arctic or otherwise. There's no way to "prove" anything about those vents anyway, since historical data on them just does not exist.

Either vents do produce significant warming or they do not. Such a question can be answered at present.

The source of warming is exposure of the Earth's innards to seawater. This exposure occurs as a result of tectonic plate movement, for which we do historical data. So what are you talking about?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Action on environmental issues is always a good idea, regardless of whether global warming is happening or not.

Ahhhhhh, thank you Rani. For a while back there I thought you had gone off the deep end

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Either vents do produce significant warming or they do not. Such a question can be answered at present.

Strictly speaking, the comment wasn't about their contribution to warming; rather Rani noted that the supposedly-Global-Warming-caused thaw of the polar icecap all was sort of concentrated in one area -- and that maybe the proximate cause of that particular event was something a bit less far-fetched. You know, like an increase in thermal activity right under the spot that melted? It turns out she's not the only one to wonder about that, and that actual science is taking place.

Of course, the dogmatists took that as a threat against their Consensus. No big surprise there. The Consensus treated Galileo the same way.

Bob Butler, you are an extremely bitter person. Your vile Marxism has already been rejected by ALL sane-thinking people. Religion is here to stay, and it shall exist as long as there is even one human being alive on the Earth You claim we should embrace 'all' progress, even though such an attitude led to the evils of Fascism and Communism during the 20th century. Tradition places an emphasis on doing what works. Jumping on everything just b/c it is 'new' or 'modern' leads to nothing but chaos and entrenches greedy neo-cons and New Labourites into positions of power that they should be forever disenfranchised from.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course, the dogmatists took that as a threat against their Consensus. No big surprise there. The Consensus treated Galileo the same way.

um, in your analogy, Galileo was the scientist; the Consensus were skeptics.

today, the Consensus are the scientists, and you (Galileo'77 i suppose) are the skeptic.

well, judge me how you will, but I for one would trust a scientist dogmatic over a layman one.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's exactly the problem. The scientists are losing their scientifity, and turning into dogmatics. The reason that concerns people like Justin and me is that the more they do that, the more reason and logic die off in favor of a different flavor of religion, which is just as threatening to real progress.

Like, fewer people might buy SUVs or something. That would be a real slap in the face to the religion of consumption.