If there was an erupting volcano under the poles we would detect it seismically just as we detect clandestine nuke tests. You don't have to actually go down there and look. Don't doctors often use tools like MRI to "look inside" people without having to cut them open?Originally Posted by The Rani
It's a poor analogy because the scientific consensus at the time was in favor of Galileo. Jesuit astronomers had advised the pope that Galileo was very likely correct. The pope condemned Galileo for the same reason that modern day religious conservatives condemn evolutionists.
As I have said, she is tempermentally glib TM. She has said herself that she is here to play with us and has stated that she does not give a rat's posterior about Strauss & Howe's theory. Her reasons for being here are pretty clear to the oldtimers on this board.In the end, you arrived at the truth. The Rani likes to argue for its own sake.
Last edited by Zarathustra; 10-20-2007 at 12:50 PM.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Which makes her, essentially, an uber-educated troll TM.
I don't read her posts anymore... she's sharing a cell in my own personal cyberpurgatory with Kathaksung and New Waver. However, the more I see of you guys' responses to her, the more I truly appreciate Marc Lamb. Zilch may be an obnoxious knee-jerk reactionary, but at the end of the day he's here because he finds the Theory, with its ramifications for America and the world, as fascinating (and terrifying) as the rest of us.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
Disingenuous much, Mike? Or do you not acknowledge the point Rani made about science also being, 'Here's something we don't know much about; let's go check it out' in addition to the mere number-crunching that Bob seems to think reigns supreme? The fact is, a thing has been identified that wasn't expected; and people are beginning to look into it closer. Whatever their proximate motivations, the scientific intent is the gathering of information.
Boy, I suppose that answers my first question then. If by 'noiseless' you mean 'undetectable' or at least 'not booming really loudly', then it's safe to point out that there are vanishingly few gas eruptions on the sea floor -- and that the lava-type don't tend towards those booms. If, on the other hand, you mean simply 'not yet (or only recently) having been detected'... well then, the prospect is hardly far-fetched at all....Less far-fetched than noiseless undersea volcanoes?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
::exasperated sigh:: So, in other words, the answer is "C". Thank you.
Put it in an email to the IPCC and c.c. it to Al Gore while you're at it.
And I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
Mr. Saari is taking his usual personal potshots at scientists and politicians (who are indeed prone to human foibles just as the rest of us are), but I've learned to expect that from him.
The scientific community sees a problem. What we decide to do about it is in the realm of politics.
13rian may be a relative newbie to the forum, but like the playwrite, s/he's caught on to your act pretty quick. Props for that.If you're so exasperated by it, please feel free to leave the discussion any time you see fit.
Science? Utter Nonsense!
How does one take a potshot at a present-day scientist who claims the earth is flat?
How does one take a potshot at a present-day scientist who claims global warming is not a threat to human existence?
What? Does a 51% approval rating now amount to scientific fact? Maybe 60% will get us there? 75%?
So if 75% of the scientists agree, we must call Christopher Columbus an abject fool?
Get a figgin' grip, lady. This is school-yard nonsense, and the stuff of silly beauty pageant feel-good idiocy. Which is about right up yer typical liberal alley, gal.
What we decide to do about it is in the realm of politics???
So if we can just get 51% of the "scientific community" to agree the earth is indeed flat, "what we decide to do about it is in the realm of politics"?
I rest my case, yer honor. Liberals, today, are utter populist nut-jobs.
The reason I feel nearly certain global warming is fact is that I like cars, cheap gas, and the cold and the universe (or Something) has it out for me (no doubt in a random sort of way; nothing I've ever done or are ever likely to do can merit the gods' attention).
On the other hand you can't help but think that for certain people this isn't really about global warming but a political agenda that existed long before anyone uttered the words global warming: making people live on top of each other, take the bus, and bake like ham in the summer.
Last edited by Linus; 10-20-2007 at 10:11 PM.
"Jan, cut the crap."
"It's just a donut."
This is ridiculous. Forget it, this not about global warming. Shame on me for buying into it! AGGHHHHHHHh
Oh geez, just because some Boomer "Deep Ecology" moralists twist facts to push their agenda doesn't make the facts themselves any less valid.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
thanks, COS13rian may be a relative newbie to the forum, but like the playwrite, s/he's caught on to your act pretty quick. Props for that.
In the intrest of full disclosure, I, 13rian am the poster formerly known as beautifulcartoon73. but yeah, I think I still qualify as a relative newbie. just trying to impress that I'm not trying to pull a chameleon here, only that i've been dissatisfied with my original nickname for quite some time.
as far as the props...well i did take the bait and Rani had me going for a while 'till i realized what was going on. At first I thought I was debating a fellow Lamer, not an Evil Clown.
-Brian.
WORD………………..
Take the test.
1) Global Warming is about which of the following:
A-Scientific facts that demonstrate the earth is getting hotter.
B-A political agenda hatched by a Boomer cabal comprised of Deep Ecologists, people who want to grow pot as a recreational drug and biomass fuel source, and Whole Foods corporate execs.
C-Really a neocon scheme to keep our eyes off the Illuminati directed plot to seize global energy resources through proxy wars, terrorism and mind control.
D-Methane gas released from the Saari, north of the Masabi, farm in the form of dairy cattle farts.
E-Infidels having control of the Holy Land (for this answer please specify the Infidel _________, and Holy Land __________ of your choice).
F-It’s just a natural swing in the pendulum of global climate and there’s noting we can do about it.
G-The book of Revelations you FOOL!
2) Which of the following statement is most true about the impact of the Global Warming issue in the impending 4T?
A-It doesn’t matter! Since the issue is out there already it will shape how we deal with future issues (famine, energy issues, social policy on growth and development, etc. etc.) so we should cut to the chase and deal with it “as if” it were really happening.
B-I love volcanos. One day a series of volcanic eruptions will occur and the entire “firey crecent” will be cleared of human habitation. The rest of us will be arguing about the perils of the coming ice age and trading recipes on how to prepare the family pet for future consumption.
C-JEEZUZ is coming in January of 2009! Global warming will not matter!
D-I like micro brews.
E-Spirulina is the perfect food! I could LIVE ON THAT SHIT! <http://www.rain.org/~eroman7/spirulina.html>
F-All of the above.
G-None of the above.
3) Science and politics are:
A- Heterogeneous with respect to subdivision.
B- Science and politics are really one in the same with the “scientific method” being just another, more recent, means used by one “party” to exclude those of another “party” (like popes, alchemists, shaman and philosophers) who don’t agree with them.
C- Scientists, cardiologists and engineers have to have something to do when they run out of challenges, why not let them go to the senate. It’s better than letting them become prison guards and their frequent air travel serves to fuel our economy!
D- The division is completely artificial. Scientists are no different than farmers, laborers, homemakers, cops or healthcare workers. Everything is politics and that’s just the way it is.
E- Science is the work of the devil. All scientists will go to hell for doubting the word of God! Politicians like George Bush are my heros! They’re doing God’s work and I cant wait to get up and read the papers! God is working his will through politics.
F- I like micro brews and single malt scotch.
G- So why don’t you come over to my place for Winter Solstice! We’re going to sacrifice a goat and have an orgy!
I'll take the microbrews, but pass on the Scotch, thank you kindly.
The volcano stuff is interesting -- just heard a story on NPR this morning about the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815, leading to the "year without a summer."
If it's real, then global warming is big trouble. The inundation of coastal cities would at the least be a cultural catastrophe. All coastal cities abutting a seashore would be inundated. London, where Shakespeare's plays got their first performance. Amsterdam, where Rembrandt painted. St. Petersburg (Russia), where Tchaikovsky composed. Venice, one of the few bright lights of medieval times. Rome, with the Pantheon and the immobile treasures of the Vatican. Barcelona. Athens. Istanbul. Alexandria. Hong Kong. Stockholm. New York City. Philadelphia. Washington, D.C. Houston. Buenos Aires.
Sure, some cities aren't so vulnerable to inundation -- Paris, Munich, Geneva, Madrid, Vienna, Prague, Warsaw, Moscow, Kiev... Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Mexico City, Caracas... who wants to lose Venice?
Global warming implies shifts of the climatic belts. Sure, people where I live wouldn't have to shovel snow in the winter... but they would find the marginally-tolerable summers becoming oppressive. They'd also start contracting some tropical diseases.
Alligators in the Potomac and the Ohio will eat a lot of family pets. Maybe children.
Will rainfall match the greater stresses of heat? Some hold that western Texas will get enough rainfall to push the forest-prairie line from just east of Dallas to around Lubbock; some say that the American Southeast will be a veritable desert. (This year's rainfall pattern is consistent with both; Chattanooga, Birmingham, and Atlanta are experiencing extreme drought. The fifth category).
Should rainfall fail, so will crops. The desert belts of subtropical regions could expand, making California from about San Francisco indistiguishable from "Baja".
If food supplies should shrink, then humanity is in big trouble. Food shortages cause radical revolutions that overthrow moderate governments and establish murderous tyrannies that start horrific wars.
Wasn't the renaissance in Europe during a period of warming, and weren't the dark ages during the mini ice age? Or do I have my dates all mixed up.
You have your dates mixed up. The little ice age was roughly from 1300 to 1800.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
You claimed that science was being done to address this Rani's question, but now refuse to cite any of the studies?
But have any of these people suggested that this thing is relevant to melting ice caps? It is entirely possible that sufficient warming to melt ice caps cannot come from vents for well understood fundamental reasons of which none of us here are aware of. And that this might be why these sorts of ideas haven't been floated.The fact is, a thing has been identified that wasn't expected; and people are beginning to look into it closer. Whatever their proximate motivations, the scientific intent is the gathering of information.
Yes. If there were large volcanoes erupting under the poles they would be detected seismically. So that means any heating would have to come from a large number of smaller black-smoker type ventings.If by 'noiseless' you mean 'undetectable' or at least 'not booming really loudly'...
This doesn't make any sense to me.then it's safe to point out that there are vanishingly few gas eruptions on the sea floor -- and that the lava-type don't tend towards those booms.
To melt the ice via undersea geothermal effects you have to warm the water beneath it. That was my point.
I'm not talking about global warming, I am talking about melting ice. Now its is a fact that the atmosphere is warming and the warming is greater at higher lattitudes. If the warming continues eventually it will have to start melting larger amounts the northern ice cap. Odin pointed out that the ice has ALREADY started to melt. I don't see how anyone can deny that.My comment wasn't meant to be about global warming directly, but rather a response to Odin's "see, this explains everything" pic.
Global warming is already a fact, no "proof" is necessary. Nobody denys that the temperature has risen. The visuals of the pole establishes that the ice has been melting. This is one of the outcomes that would eventually show up if global wamring continues long enough.My response, and Justin's, was that merely displaying a pic of melting ice doesn't prove anything about global warming at all.
No, you proposed an explanation for the melting ice--an undersea volcano that can erupt without giving a seismic response. That is explanation is easily knocked down doesn't make it a strawman--I didn't propose it.Now you guys are trying to turn it into all kinds of strawmen that you can ridicule and pound into the ground.
Vents are small so they aren't detected seismally. You need a LOT of vents to get the warming you need, however.As for detecting vents or volcanos or whatever they are, the website that I provided the link to said that they were surprised when they found those vents, surrounded by warmer water and interesting forms of life. That means that they weren't detected at all beforehand.
To investigate the flora and fauna around the vent, you have to go down there to collect specimens. To determine the chemical composition of the vent exhaust, you have to go down there (at least until tricorders are invented).Going down to take a look seems to be the only way to know for sure.
To answer your question about melting, you are claiming we have to go down there and do what, count the vents to see if there are enough? I don't see why this is necessary.
Seems to me one should start with a bit of thinking before going to the great expense of going down there to count vents.
First Principles
I guess one might make distinctions between dogma, hypothesis, theory and speculation. The above 'rules' come from "Principia Mathematica," and might well be western science's first principle, the equivalent of base religious doctrines. Most scientists would hold to such as first principles.
Not all questions can be answered by induction. In religious questions, one might endlessly ask at what point in a fetus's development does it acquire a soul, or how many angels may dance on the head of a pin. In moral philosophy, one might ask (for example) the meaning of duty, and get many diverse philosophers suggesting very different definitions with considerable persuasion and thought. In science, or what Newton called natural philosophy, it was hoped that what is being studied is essentially different, that one learns by observing nature. Nature is essentially different from souls, angels or duty, as one can observe and measure Nature.
Justin, Rani and myself allegedly care for the same thing... the integrity of science. How does one keep scientific values solidly practiced without interference from outside political, religious, economic or other values or principles.
My immediate concern is with induction being evaded by hypothesis. If one hypothesizes the existence of invisible stars emitting undetected cosmic rays, said hypothesis is worthless in rejecting existing theories backed by observation, measurement and calculation. Similarly, hypothesizing the existence of stealth volcanoes should not invalidate an entire field of science. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
No, one cannot make scientific values universal. There will always be flat earthers, creationists, denialists and their ilk who will make claims totally lacking merit. One should just avoid such people having significant impact on important policy decisions.
***
My current thinking on the vent theory. A black smoker is essentially similar to a geyser. Geysers are much smaller bear a much smaller energy load than a volcano. As such, geysers are much harder to detect from a distance than volcanos. A geyser has no where near the size or power of a volcano. A volcano has no where near the size or power to melt the solar ice cap.
Gut instinct, one would need a heck of a lot of Old Faithfuls to melt the north pole. While we haven't a survey of the Arctic mid ocean ridge, we do have studies of the Atlantic and Pacific ridges. If the heat released per mile of deep ocean ride were within a few orders of magnitude of sufficient to melt many many cubic miles of ice, I'd like to know. I'm genuinely curious.
Justin has been repeatedly asserting that serious scientists are sufficiently concerned about thermal arctic warming to be sending a team north to survey the amount of heat being released. Several hours on Google, and I have not found any such concern or survey. There are biologists going north to seek out strange life forms, but the teams heading north are not focused on measuring heat exchange. It feels like a typical Justinian Big Lie. He turned cosmic rays created by an entire galactic arm into invisible stars emitting undetectable radiation, lurking just beyond the orbit of Pluto. Undetectable stealth volcanoes seem to be a similar imaginary effect. Fortunately, the power of Justin's imagination melts no ice.
I'll second Mike's call for a reference. What scientist is concerned with geothermal heat melting the ice-cap? Is there anyone outside of the T4T community who is taking this theory seriously? I would like to know, as anyone who managed to finance an Arctic submersible expedition would have to have crunched a few numbers. I'd like to see a few numbers.
National Geographic, Nova and the like are at least partially sponsoring some expeditions for sake of pretty pictures for the curious masses. There is a lot to learn about biology and evolution from such visits. We're going down there anyway. We might as well do some physical science while we are down there? Stick some thermometers in the hot water columns, and measure the velocity of the flow?
But in my digging, one gets lots of pretty pictures, a good deal about the exotic life forms, and little to no concern about deep ocean warming.
But, agreed, we ought to already know enough to be able to think through if the theory has merit. I just haven't been able to find anything on the web suggesting that the theory is being taken seriously.
I actually thought the graph was more dramatic than the photo. It appeared to me that if the IPCC's model is wrong, if anything if errs on the conservative side. In other words, the situation might be worse than they thought it was.
So Taylor writes "this says it all" and embeds a link, and all of a sudden he's a totalitarian and a dogmatist, in spite of what he says about what he believes. Okay, he's a little dramatic at times. But that doesn't mean he's going to get a posse together and confiscate all of your gas guzzlers.
I really wish you and Justin would not exaggerate your responses to him (or to Bob and Mike for that matter), because the snark tends to drown out whatever honest criticism you might have of the theory.
