Mysterious ‘gash’ forms on Wyoming ranch, unleashing fears of hidden volcanoes and earthquakes
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Sorry to hear that you have such a hard time understanding scientifically verified facts, and the evidence supporting them.
Is there anything that global warming doesn't cause? It would be a shorter list.
You mean.....losing gigatons of weight off polar ice-caps is too 'sciency' for you to understand?
Because GRACE satellite data has shown this to be the case already....along with a 'rebound' of the upper East coast and Greenland....
Ahem...
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...d-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
I'm betting you don't understand anything that's wrong with that article, either....
...or, why it's completely irrelevant to the post I made regarding the GRACE data. See if Google can help you out.
Well, I didn't really take that into account mainly because I was looking at a scale of the next 100 years. But you are right, over the longer term those things could have an impact.
I think you are remembering the first Superman movie, or a James Bond movie (A View to a Kill maybe?).
I haven't heard much about preemptive strikes on volcanoes. If I had to guess I'd say they did the math and there's just too much rock there to make that practical. Plus, there would be no way to control the intensity of the eruption or earthquake after it started even if their plan did work.
Doing a little research, it's clear that this has been looked into, but dismissed as impractical. Here's an interesting link:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/
Unrelated to deliberately induced earthquakes are these interesting data...
Within the central and eastern United States, the number of earthquakes has increased dramatically over the past few years. Between the years 1973–2008, there was an average of 21 earthquakes of magnitude three and larger in the central and eastern United States. This rate jumped to an average of 99 M3+ earthquakes per year in 2009–2013, and the rate continues to rise. In 2014, alone, there were 659 M3 and larger earthquakes. Most of these earthquakes are in the magnitude 3–4 range, large enough to have been felt by many people, yet small enough to rarely cause damage. There were reports of damage from some of the larger events, including the M5.6 Prague, Oklahoma earthquake and the M5.3 Trinidad, Colorado earthquake.
This increase in earthquakes prompts two important questions:
- Are they natural, or man-made?
- What should be done in the future as we address the causes and consequences of these events to reduce associated risks?
Produced water injection wells have caused the majority of these earthquakes. Fracing alone has caused very few, if any earthquakes.
I don't think so my friend. If you dig deeper into the science, you'll learn the focus of significant earthquakes typically occur deep, at depths (I'm talking kilometers) where the pore and fracture networks of rock formations are already saturated with a column of brine water far below the fresh water table. Under normal circumstances, these fluid systems aren't going to be hydrologically connected. If in the event they are hydrologically connected, the storm water isn't going to "filter down into the faults" and reduce friction to the point where the fault slips. Sorry, but it just doesn't happen that way. What's going to have to happen to get the fault to move, is the added overburden pressure from the excess fresh water acting on the brine column will have to cause pressures to increase enough (at the depth of the focus) to decrease the friction on the fault enough for the stresses to activate failure.
That brings me to the issue of the fresh water column being hydrologically connected to the brine water. If they are connected, it would have to be due to a highly connected natural fracture network related to the fault plane, as the nature of stratigraphic units tends to inhibit vertical permeability. Fracture networks usually have very low storage capacity and very low storage capacity means very low added overburden pressure to help overcome friction. If the friction isn't overcome, you're not going to have an earthquake.
I've studied Mohr-Coulumb theories and the effects of overburden pressures and tectonic stresses on all types of fault regimes, and I will never worry about any rain or flooding event causing what fits my definition of an "earthquake", ever.
We're going extinct. It will happen, at least on Earth. Our mortality is not limited. Perhaps the best of us escape the destruction of our planet. Will they resemble humans? If/when. They are now homeless. What happens before they avoid the collision of galaxies? Do they find and settle a habitable spot or do they rot on their spacecrafts? Do they figure their way out of the galaxy? Before that end, can we broadcast meaningful AI to the rest of what we know to be nothingness?
This free sample of Seveneves by Neal Stephenson will be right up your alley.
[from Amazon] "Neal Stephenson depicts the end of the Earth through the destruction of the Moon by an unknown Agent and the attempts to preserve humanity through a multi-millennial gap between times when the surface of the planet will be inhabitable."
Ahem…what?
I don’t get my financial news/recommendations from climate journal Op Eds; I’d recommend you not rely on financial news Op Eds for your science information.
First, Forbes is lumping ‘polar ice cap’ data into one bucket. That is a red herring. There is sea ice and there is land ice. They are completely different things.
Here is what Arctic sea ice has done since 1979:
It most assuredly has NOT ‘increased’. In 2012, it was practically HALF the 1970s extent.
GRACE satellite data has indicated significant land-ice losses from both the Greenland land ice AND the Antarctic land ice. Those data are pretty sound, despite altimetry data (which I’d posted in another thread) indicating something different. Gravimetric (GRACE) data measure ice mass ‘directly’, but at poorer resolution; altimetry data have great spatial resolution, but are measuring ice mass indirectly, assuming the ice density is the same. That is most likely what is going on, but it definitely is something that the scientists need to figure out. They will not do that in Forbes Op Eds.
This is speculation, not fact.
The rest of the article is based on NON-factual garbage and opinion.
We KNOW that we are losing land-ice, because sea level rise has accelerated. Only PART of that is due to ocean warming, and at least 1/3 of it is from land-ice loss. If Forbes were correct, that there is ‘no significant land ice loss’, then sea levels could not be rising as fast as they are.
Again…not even REMOTELY true for the Arctic. Ice levels are <2/3 what they were in the 1970s. There WAS a rebound from 2012, but that was an exceptionally low year.
As I’d noted in another thread, it’s like you had $900 invested in stocks in the 1970s; that amount of money dropped to $500 in 2012.
But Yay!!!, you got a 20% boost since 2012, so NOW you have $600!!!! Your money has recovered!!!!
Only it hasn’t. You have 2/3 of your starting amount, just like the Arctic sea ice.
Antarctic sea ice is less relevant, because it is ice surrounding a big land mass. And the glacial runoff is ‘freshening’ the waters around the Antarctic, allowing them to freeze at higher temperatures. This is the same mechanism we use to salt roads in the winter – we add salt so that the ice won’t freeze. In the Antarctic, the glacial runoff is REMOVING the salt around the continent, which is one of the key factors in sea ice extent there. Despite the sea ice growth in the Antarctic, the satellites show consistent ice losses, as the gravity of the planet is less there when the ice melts and the waters distribute into the oceans.
Forbes does a good job with financial reporting, but is clueless on sea ice/land ice here.
If they were reporting on GDP, they’d probably do a better job: for example, let’s say that Obama had put together an FDR-like WPA, and borrowed a few Trillion to ‘boost’ the economy. Then, the Dems showed the economic boon that occurred: 5% GDP growth!!!! But, if only 0.5% of that growth was in the private sector, it’d be mostly irrelevant.
I’m fairly certain Forbes would sort out the ‘growth’ that was dependent on government borrowing, vs. ACTUAL GDP growth from the private sector, they would report THAT accurately, and would not get ‘punked’ on the big 5% growth number. And in doing so, they would be absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, when it comes to science and sea ice vs. land ice/Arctic vs. Antarctic, they do not have the expertise to understand the difference….
Nice long-winded response, but you ignored this lynchpin and pretended it didn't exist in your argument:
2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
Your original argument was this:
You mean.....losing gigatons of weight off polar ice-caps is too 'sciency' for you to understand?
If land ice has receded less than 10%, and has rebounded, are we really looking at "gigatons" or were you pulling that out of your ass?
At least the Forbes article is referencing actual NASA data, and despite your wandering post, you've done nothing to discredit the article except to complain that a business website has no credentials to comment about this because, well, we're only supposed to accept what the liberals tell us to accept.
2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
Your original argument was this:
You mean.....losing gigatons of weight off polar ice-caps is too 'sciency' for you to understand?
If land ice has receded less than 10%, and has rebounded, are we really looking at "gigatons" or were you pulling that out of your ass?
At least the Forbes article is referencing actual NASA data, and despite your wandering post, you've done nothing to discredit the article except to complain that a business website has no credentials to comment about this because, well, we're only supposed to accept what the liberals tell us to accept.
I invested the time to try and TEACH you why the Forbes article is misleading and inaccurate. If you choose to not invest the time in learning the science, there's not much I can do for you here.
You can read about the ice mass losses at the GRACE page at NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/
PASADENA, Calif. - An international team of experts supported by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) has combined data from multiple satellites and aircraft to produce the most comprehensive and accurate assessment to date of ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica and their contributions to sea level rise.
In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.
This rate of ice sheet losses falls within the range reported in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The spread of estimates in the 2007 IPCC report was so broad, however, it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice. Combined, melting of these ice sheets contributed 0.44 inches (11.1 millimeters) to global sea levels since 1992. This accounts for one-fifth of all sea level rise over the 20-year survey period. The remainder is caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, melting of mountain glaciers and small Arctic ice caps, and groundwater mining.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.htmlIn a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.
This rate of ice sheet losses falls within the range reported in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The spread of estimates in the 2007 IPCC report was so broad, however, it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice. Combined, melting of these ice sheets contributed 0.44 inches (11.1 millimeters) to global sea levels since 1992. This accounts for one-fifth of all sea level rise over the 20-year survey period. The remainder is caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, melting of mountain glaciers and small Arctic ice caps, and groundwater mining.
And from another study:
During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.
The researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high — more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.
The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent's two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica's unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent's much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.
"We have a solution that is very solid, very detailed and unambiguous," said co-author Frederik Simons, a Princeton associate professor of geosciences. "A decade of gravity analysis alone cannot force you to take a position on this ice loss being due to anthropogenic global warming. All we have done is take the balance of the ice on Antarctica and found that it is melting — there is no doubt. But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change."
The Princeton study differs from existing approaches to measuring Antarctic ice loss in that it derives from the only satellite data that measure the mass of ice rather than its volume, which is more typical, Simons explained. He and Harig included monthly data from GRACE, or the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, a dual-satellite joint mission between NASA and the German Aerospace Center. GRACE measures gravity changes to determine the time-variable behavior of various components in the Earth's mass system such as ocean currents, earthquake-induced changes and melting ice. Launched in 2002, the GRACE satellites are expected to be retired by 2016 with the first of two anticipated replacement missions scheduled for 2017.
https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S43/04/11E77/index.xml?section=topstoriesThe researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high — more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.
The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent's two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica's unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent's much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.
"We have a solution that is very solid, very detailed and unambiguous," said co-author Frederik Simons, a Princeton associate professor of geosciences. "A decade of gravity analysis alone cannot force you to take a position on this ice loss being due to anthropogenic global warming. All we have done is take the balance of the ice on Antarctica and found that it is melting — there is no doubt. But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change."
The Princeton study differs from existing approaches to measuring Antarctic ice loss in that it derives from the only satellite data that measure the mass of ice rather than its volume, which is more typical, Simons explained. He and Harig included monthly data from GRACE, or the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, a dual-satellite joint mission between NASA and the German Aerospace Center. GRACE measures gravity changes to determine the time-variable behavior of various components in the Earth's mass system such as ocean currents, earthquake-induced changes and melting ice. Launched in 2002, the GRACE satellites are expected to be retired by 2016 with the first of two anticipated replacement missions scheduled for 2017.
Again....Op Eds in Forbes are NOT great places to get clear science information.
EDIT: Here is the Antarctica plot of the gravitational data. Is this going 'up' or going 'down'? Do you see a 'recovery' here?
EDIT: Here is the Antarctica plot of the gravitational data. Is this going 'up' or going 'down'? Do you see a 'recovery' here?
Kinda hard to see the recovery that began in 2012 when your chart ends at 2010. There's nothing about that chart that contradicts what the Forbes article said.
Try again.
Here's the data thru 2014:
I don't see a 'recovery' to 1979 levels; the GRACE satellites only provide data from 2002 on, so Forbes claiming 'no loss since 1979' is a fairly big (and incorrect) assumption, considering there is limited data available to accurately compare with the satellite gravimetric data. Forbes is confused on the ARCTIC sea ice increases since the 2012 nadir; but even those increases, as indicated in graphs and data I'd posted earlier, DO NOT make up sea ice lost since 1979. Furthermore, Antarctic sea ice DOES NOT alter the gravitational data that GRACE measures.
I have attempted to point out to you that Antarctic sea ice is mostly irrelevant; LAND ice losses are relevant in the Antarctic.
Here is Antarctica and Greenland:
Again....I don't see 'recoveries' here.
Seems to me, Forbes is confusing 'sea ice' with 'land ice'. And 'sea ice' does NOT contribute to sea level rise. The data I have shown you correspond to LAND ice that has melted and run off into the ocean.
Sea ice increases in the Antarctic which are occuring due to MASSIVE land ice melt and runoff are a complete red herring in claiming we are not losing ice. The gravitational data do not lie here....there simple is no 'ice recovery' in the Antarctic.
Like I'd already stated: Forbes is good and discerning 'private sector GDP' with 'Government project GDP' far better than understanding land/sea ice.
And I stand by my claims. First, there is nothing in this article that supports that rainwater is filtering down through faults, lubricating the faults and causing earthquakes. Second, they are suggesting that changes in overburden due to either loss of mass (landslides) or increases in mass (due to increased groundwater saturation) can affect when an earthquake is triggered. I agree both cases are plausible hypotheses, but neither offers much concern of heavy rainfall events actually causing major earthquakes.
Earthquakes are caused by the build-up of elastic strain energy in response to plate tectonics, which is independent of rainfall. When the elastic strain energy increases to the point of overcoming frictional forces, you have an earthquake. The primary variable affecting magnitudes of frictional forces is overburden weight. The earthquake in Haiti, for example, had a focal point at a depth of 13 kilometers, so the removal/redistribution of a couple meters of overburden from landslides isn't going to change the stress field significantly. To generalize, I'd liken it to having a stack of Jenga blocks 13,000 rows high (overburden), on a windy day (tectonic forces) and repositioning one of the blocks on the top row (redistribution of overburden) causing the structure to fall (earthquake). That stack of blocks was going to fall really, really soon regardless if you repositioned that block on the 13,000th row, or not.
A funny thing happens when you make a chart show a really narrow slice of time. It makes things look worse than they do when you look at a larger slice of time:
A funny thing happens when you make a chart show a really narrow slice of time. It makes things look worse than they do when you look at a larger slice of time:
And, to my earlier points: SEA ice does NOT equate to LAND ice.
Sea ice gains in Antarctica DO NOT offset sea ice losses in the Arctic.
Sea ice gains in Antarctica DO NOT put that ice back up onto Antarctic LAND.
When you look at the subsets INDIVIDUALLY, you see a much DIFFERENT picture:
And since 2000, Arctic Ice is now down around the '6' mark, having dipped below '4' in summer 2012....
That is 40% and 60%, respectively, of the nominal Arctic sea ice cover over the past 1400+ years.....
Thus, my example of an 'investment' (which Forbes might actually understand) is if you had $100,000 invested in the stock market 50 or so years ago, and TODAY you had $60,000. BUT, since you had as low as $40,000 just a few years ago, YOU RECOVERED YOUR MONEY!!!! $60,000 = $100,000!!!
If your INTENT is to misrepresent the issue and 'pretend' there are no sea ice-losses in the Arctic or land ice loss in the Antarctic, then lumping all the 'sea ice' together (note that your graph DOES NOT include Antarctic LAND ice) is the perfect way to do that. It does not alter the scientific realities, however.
No. It didn't. It simply 'mentions' land ice EXTENT, which is irrelevant; land ice MASS, which is dropping rather quickly at ~90 Gigatons/yr in Antarctica, is NOT discussed in the article at all.
You seem to be confused easily, when something like the word 'land' shows up in the article. Hint: just putting the word in the article doesn't mean they've included the context correctly...
Amazing how you can look at NASA data and say it doesn't say what it says.
Whatever, let me know when the government closes Kennedy Space Center due to sea level rise.
Whatever, let me know when the government closes Kennedy Space Center due to sea level rise.
...only I'm not looking at "NASA Data", I'm looking at a Forbes Op Ed, which is only reporting a smidgen of the actual NASA data (and doing a poor job of it). That you are unable to understand the difference is rather astonishing (or maybe not...).
I've even linked NASA data, including the GRACE data which unequivocally shows massive land ice losses in Antarctica.
LOL. From NASA 6 months ago - 32 Billion in infrastructure at risk:
Sea level rise is beginning to affect the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. A protective dune not too far from the launchpads has collapsed and waves have washed over railroad tracks built in the 1960s. Now NASA is taking steps to protect its launch infrastructure.
See Joe's, it's comments like this that show that Trad has no interest in actually learning about this issue. His mind is made up and he prefers to be willfully ignorant of the facts that might change it. It's useless to argue with this troll.
I know all I need to know and that is that the issue is completely politicized.
It's one of those issues that I like to call a "Political Black Hole"... no matter how much money you throw at it, it'll never be enough.
And bonus: we won't have any idea whether all that money is helping the situation!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-