Coincidence? Arctic ice is thin and Arctic Submarine volcanic activity

[MTdream]

Is it a coincidence that we are seeing thin ice in the Arctic and increases in volcanic activity in the same area? Or is it still just Mans Fault?


Thin ice link

The Volcanic Activity link



Well the Arctic has been bantered about as the proof of AGW, and yet the more we learn, the more we see that there are things substantially more complex, and it seems to mitigate the anthropogenic influence...(editorial)

Cute quote from this article...

"We found more hydrothermal activity on this cruise than in 20 years of exploration on the mid-Atlantic Ridge," said Charles Langmuir, co-chief scientist on Healy from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) at Columbia University.

So, it would appear that the more we learn, the more we learn there are far more factors involved than we thought...

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by MTdream

Is it a coincidence that we are seeing thin ice in the Arctic and increases in volcanic activity in the same area? Or is it still just Mans Fault?


Thin ice link

The Volcanic Activity link



Well the Arctic has been bantered about as the proof of AGW, and yet the more we learn, the more we see that there are things substantially more complex, and it seems to mitigate the anthropogenic influence...(editorial)

Cute quote from this article...



So, it would appear that the more we learn, the more we learn there are far more factors involved than we thought...

I'm willing to bet that if scientists spent as much time looking for non-CO2 factors as they do looking for their shoes in the morning they'd be amazed at how better alternative explanations seem to fit the situations more logically.

[imind]

Originally Posted by MTdream

Is it a coincidence that we are seeing thin ice in the Arctic and increases in volcanic activity in the same area? Or is it still just Mans Fault?

how does anything you've posted indicate an increase in volcanic activity? just because we are aware of more now, does not mean that activity has increased. i'm assuming this activity happens regardless of whether we observe it or not?

Well the Arctic has been bantered about as the proof of AGW, and yet the more we learn, the more we see that there are things substantially more complex, and it seems to mitigate the anthropogenic influence...

you have demonstrated no such thing. you seem to want to suggest that climatologists haven't even considered this activity. do you have any reason to suspect they haven't, any proof they haven't?

So, it would appear that the more we learn, the more we learn there are far more factors involved than we thought...

perhaps if you are just entering into the discussion possessing no knowledge of any of the science.

Originally Posted by jajae

I'm willing to bet that if scientists spent as much time looking for non-CO2 factors as they do looking for their shoes in the morning they'd be amazed at how better alternative explanations seem to fit the situations more logically.

please explain how non-co2 factors are a better, more logical, explanation.

[MTdream]

I am going to ignore you continuing efforts of insulting me and my intellect...and just continue to take the high road since you cannot get past yoru own ego of asuming you are the only infomred person..

So inline

Originally Posted by imind

how does anything you've posted indicate an increase in volcanic activity? just because we are aware of more now, does not mean that activity has increased. i'm assuming this activity happens regardless of whether we observe it or not?

If you had, you would have read, you might have come across this quote...

Hundreds of earthquakes were observed over a nine-month period, with magnitudes between 4 and 6.
This earthquake swarm was the largest in recorded history along a spreading mid-ocean ridge and prompted researchers to return to the area for further investigation.

that "largest in recorded history" part is what made me think it was not inline with recorded history...

Originally Posted by imind

you have demonstrated no such thing. you seem to want to suggest that climatologists haven't even considered this activity. do you have any reason to suspect they haven't, any proof they haven't?

volcanic explosions are shaking the Arctic Ocean floor at depths previously thought impossible... Explosive volcanic eruptions were not thought to be possible at depths below the critical pressure for steam formation...

and the third article...Dont dicoveries typically lead to a change in perspective from one where we did not include that thought process/capability/factor into our ideology? Especially when something proves a prior theory inaccurate?

The findings were among a range of discoveries made by researchers aboard the US Coast Guard Cutter Healy...scientists discovered an as yet unexplained "discontinuity" of volcanic activity along the Gakkel Ridge. Because the southern end of the ridge is spreading relatively quickly and the northern end extremely slowly, the researchers expected volcanic activity to gradually die out as they sailed north. Instead, there were irregular pockets of activity as the cruise moved northwards...Prior to the AMORE cruise most scientists expected little recent volcanic activity and scant evidence for hydrothermal vents, the deep-sea hot springs that host oases of life on the deep seafloor. Instead, sampling sites revealed abundant fresh lava and multiple signs of hydrothermal activity.

Originally Posted by imind

perhaps if you are just entering into the discussion possessing no knowledge of any of the science.

irony...at its finest...

Originally Posted by imind

please explain how non-co2 factors are a better, more logical, explanation.

this would be a distraction to the thread topic and you are welcome to start your own thread if you wish...but I will humor you, as it is ironic that you confused me for being uninformed and would ask such a question...

Had you read the articles you would have read about the Submarine Volcanic activity producing substantial amounts of CO2 as well as other less sexy greenhouse gases (which generally are far worse than CO2)...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by MTdream

Is it a coincidence that we are seeing thin ice in the Arctic and increases in volcanic activity in the same area?

I hope that you don't expect anyone to believe that volcanoes deep under the arctic ocean (2-2.5 miles) are heating the ice on the surface. Also, the assumption that this CO2 being released under the ocean would effect the ice anymore than CO2 being released around the world is a bit silly. Advection carries heat to the poles from warmer areas, guaranteed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics; this is a natural cooling mechanism that the climate has. The problem is relatively recent heat anomalies are dumped on the polar regions, which is why we are losing ice.

Or is it still just Mans Fault?

Nothing that I've read seems to state that it is solely the fault of humans. However, it is not a good policy to exacerbate the situation.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm willing to bet that if scientists spent as much time looking for non-CO2 factors as they do looking for their shoes in the morning they'd be amazed at how better alternative explanations seem to fit the situations more logically.

Thats a hell of a blanket statement, what makes you think there is no one studying this stuff, where do you think this article came from?