Antarctic Sea Ice

[Sunfish2.0]

When I visited Antarctic in 2010 with scientists- they spoke of the geothermal vents in the ocean floors. Specifically citing increased activity causing the warming oceans, coral deaths and of course the ocean affects the air currents. One scientist stated that he predicts the wet climates will become drier and the dry climates wetter.

10 years later we are seeing the extremes . Why no one talks about the ocean floor volcanic activity as a reason (not the only one) for climate change has always been a mystery: But my scientist niece says there is only so much research money and it goes to those who produce the research that benefits the donars.
We need a better way of funding critical research.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Sunfish2.0

... Why no one talks about the ocean floor volcanic activity as a reason (not the only one) for climate change has always been a mystery ...

The climate-driven rise and fall of sea level, during the past million years, matches up with valleys and ridges on the seafloor, suggesting ice ages influence underwater volcanic eruptions, two studies [1 & 2] reveal. And because volcanic chains spread across 37,000 miles (59,500 kilometers) on the ocean floor, the eruptions could pump out enough carbon dioxide gas, to shift planetary temperatures, the study authors suggest.

Both studies suggest that there could be a complex feedback loop, involving ice ages, sea level changes, and bursts of volcanic activity.

More reporting about:
“Waking Beasts: Underwater Volcanoes Roused by Ice Ages” ➥ https://www.livescience.com/49710-se...eruptions.html
And
“Undersea Volcanoes Erupt with Gravity, Shifting Earth's Climate” ➥ https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rth-s-climate/


The Studies:

[1] “Dynamics of a seafloor-spreading episode at the East Pacific Rise” ~ by Yen Joe Tan, Maya Tolstoy, Felix Waldhauser, & William S D Wilcock
➥ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27842380/

[1a] “A Tale of Two Eruptions: How Data from Axial Seamount Led to a Discovery on the East Pacific Rise” ~ by Maya Tolstoy et al
➥ https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/...-1_tolstoy.pdf

[2] “Glacial cycles drive variations in the production of oceanic crust” ~ by John W. Crowley
Richard F. Katz, Peter Huybers, Charles H. Langmuir, & Sung-Hyun Park
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1261508

[GordMay]

Ancient penguin bones reveal unprecedented shrinkage in key Antarctic glaciers
Thwaites Glacier is losing ice, more quickly than at any other time, in the last 5,500 years, ancient penguin bones and limpet shells suggest.
By reconstructing the history of the glaciers, using the old bones and shells, researchers wanted to find out whether these glaciers have ever been smaller than they are today.
Their paper was published*, online, June 9, 2022
Much more about ➥ https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...test_Headlines

* “Relative sea-level data preclude major late Holocene ice-mass change in Pine Island Bay” ~ by Scott Braddock et al

”... We find that relative sea level fell steadily over the past 5.5 kyr without rate changes that would characterize large-scale ice re-expansion. Moreover, current bedrock uplift rates are an order of magnitude greater than the rate of long-term relative sea-level fall, suggesting a change in regional crustal unloading and implying that the present deglaciation may be unprecedented in the past ~5.5 kyr...”

Open access ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00961-y

[Wander4Wonder]

Originally Posted by Sunfish2.0

When I visited Antarctic in 2010 with scientists- they spoke of the geothermal vents in the ocean floors. Specifically citing increased activity causing the warming oceans, coral deaths and of course the ocean affects the air currents. One scientist stated that he predicts the wet climates will become drier and the dry climates wetter.

10 years later we are seeing the extremes . Why no one talks about the ocean floor volcanic activity as a reason (not the only one) for climate change has always been a mystery: But my scientist niece says there is only so much research money and it goes to those who produce the research that benefits the donars.
We need a better way of funding critical research.

I visited Deception island a few years ago and it was amazing to be surrounded by ice and cold air but you could stick your hand in the sand of the beach or in the shallow water and feel the warmth from the geothermal heat...

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by Sunfish2.0

But my scientist niece says there is only so much research money and it goes to those who produce the research that benefits the donars.

You get the results you pay for or are paid for.
The financial incentives are too vast to be ignored.
There are probably no other fields of science outside of atmospheric/oceanographic/climate, in which the ethos has been so corrupted.
Much of it has become a religion, a crusade if you will, in which outcomes are viewed as zero-sum.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

You get the results you pay for or are paid for.

The financial incentives are too vast to be ignored.

There are probably no other fields of science outside of atmospheric/oceanographic/climate, in which the ethos has been so corrupted.

Much of it has become a religion, a crusade if you will, in which outcomes are viewed as zero-sum.

You mean you don’t agree with the findings of 1000s of differently funded research programs so they all must be corrupt.

Try driving the wrong way on a six lane highway and argue all the others must be wrong ( corrupt ) to the police after the pileup.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You mean you don’t agree with the findings of 1000s of differently funded research programs so they all must be corrupt.

Try driving the wrong way on a six lane highway and argue all the others must be wrong ( corrupt ) to the police after the pileup.

Indeed.

A man is driving home from work, when his wife calls him, on his cell phone.

“Phil!” She shouts in panic, “Please be careful! I just heard that some lunatic is driving the wrong way on the highway.”

“You won’t believe it, Doris,” he replies. “It’s not just one car; it’s hundreds of them!”

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You mean you don’t agree with the findings of 1000s of differently funded research programs so they all must be corrupt.

Try driving the wrong way on a six lane highway and argue all the others must be wrong ( corrupt ) to the police after the pileup.

Immediately jumping to extreme conclusions is seldom correct.
I did NOT say that I didn't agree with any of the findings.
What I DID say was that those fields have been inculcated with immense pressures of conformity and money, much more so than say, a metallurgist developing a new alloy, or a chemist inventing a new resin to build your boat out of, or even a scientist searching for signs of life on another planet.
Much of their findings are widely disseminated at places like Paris/Rio/Davos, and if you believe that the rich/famous/elites, and heads of state gather there to discuss better ways of expanding the blessings of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to a greater number of people around the globe and to a greater degree, then I've got a bridge for sale that you might be interested in.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

Immediately jumping to extreme conclusions is seldom correct.
I did NOT say that I didn't agree with any of the findings.
What I DID say was that those fields have been inculcated with immense pressures of conformity and money, much more so than say, a metallurgist developing a new alloy, or a chemist inventing a new resin to build your boat out of, or even a scientist searching for signs of life on another planet...

And, how [& who] is anyone reaping immense profits, from climactic/ecological research?
Compare these profits, to those of the mature industries, like petroleum, denying/minumizing the findings.

[goboatingnow]

re

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

Immediately jumping to extreme conclusions is seldom correct.
I did NOT say that I didn't agree with any of the findings.
What I DID say was that those fields have been inculcated with immense pressures of conformity and money, much more so than say, a metallurgist developing a new alloy, or a chemist inventing a new resin to build your boat out of, or even a scientist searching for signs of life on another planet.
Much of their findings are widely disseminated at places like Paris/Rio/Davos, and if you believe that the rich/famous/elites, and heads of state gather there to discuss better ways of expanding the blessings of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to a greater number of people around the globe and to a greater degree, then I've got a bridge for sale that you might be interested in.

If you are fortunate to sit on government working groups or occasionally meet very wealthy or influential people , what strikes you is they struggle to get things done or don’t really have any answers either. If you think these so called “ elites” have actually much in the way on coordinated plans or governments that can hardly build a road on time are Involved in some nefarious devious globalisation grand plan , Ive news for you , they don’t have the answers either

I’m fortunate to know several well known ( within their field ) climate scientists. Many are back room boffins who spend much of their time feeling ignored , most are in receipt of non partisan funds , in this part of the world , usually EU derived academic funding . Many have become huge proponents of the dangers of AGW based on their own findings

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by GordMay

And, how [& who] is anyone reaping immense profits, from climactic/ecological research?
Compare these profits, to those of the mature industries, like petroleum, denying/minumizing the findings.

Come on Gord, you've posted lots of good stuff, but don't compare apples to oranges.
The profits come in at the "back end", not in research, but in the money to be made, (extracted,) from the "peoples" as a result of policy/rules/regulations/laws, derived from the research.
You're good at research, can you find the amount of "profit" that the Govt. derives in taxes from a gallon of gas, (with zero investment or risk,) vs. the amount of profit an oil company gets for a gallon, (whilst taking all the risk of a dry well,) and having to make payroll whether any oil is found or not, and still answer to the stockholders.
If you compiled a list of failed oil companies since the "age of oil" started, you would see that it isn't all peaches and cream.
At last count, (IIRC,) there were ~6,000 products that rely upon oil for their production, which ones will you do without, (paint for your boat?)
The trendy and chic drumbeats to attack the oil industry and "Hang 'em High" is juvenile and senseless, and solves nothing.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

Come on Gord, you've posted lots of good stuff, but don't compare apples to oranges.
The profits come in at the "back end", not in research, but in the money to be made, (extracted,) from the "peoples" as a result of policy/rules/regulations/laws, derived from the research.
You're good at research, can you find the amount of "profit" that the Govt. derives in taxes from a gallon of gas, (with zero investment or risk,) vs. the amount of profit an oil company gets for a gallon, (whilst taking all the risk of a dry well,) and having to make payroll whether any oil is found or not, and still answer to the stockholders.
If you compiled a list of failed oil companies since the "age of oil" started, you would see that it isn't all peaches and cream.
At last count, (IIRC,) there were ~6,000 products that rely upon oil for their production, which ones will you do without, (paint for your boat?)
The trendy and chic drumbeats to attack the oil industry and "Hang 'em High" is juvenile and senseless, and solves nothing.

I fail to see the link between Govt getting oil taxes and biased research , your logic would suggest governments would be downplaying AGW.

reasonable governments , excepting the few crazies out there now and recently, largely “ generally want to do the right thing “. The problem is of course the right thing is often difficult or may be contrary to public taste.

Hence you have responsible governments trying to map a path forward balancing things like carbon emissions, waste pollution , water quality etc , against public resistance to change and vested interests howling the roof down. Not an easy path.

I’ve sat on for example government EV working groups , these groups are usually extremely well intentioned , often to the point of naivety. Most reasonable governments are not out to screw people. They are trying to balances demands for all sorts of services and facilities against a tax loading that works. Sometimes they get it about right sometimes they don’t, just like the rest of us.

Mans effect on the climate and environment , especially in polluting it , is not some “ liberal ‘ comspiracy. It’s simply an accepted fact these days.

The issue is what to do.

[Bowdrie]

Yes, we know that in much of the world the greatest impediment to children living into adulthood is lack of clean water, a heartbreaking tragedy if ever their was one.
If we draw a band/swath from Central Africa, across thru India, thence Southeast Asia, and into Southern China, we will have an area that encompasses ~3/4ths of the worlds population.
Within that band there are ~7 rivers that discharge ~85% of the single-use plastics that the Pacific is full of.
That's why people in San Francisco can't have a plastic straw.
Then, we also have a situation where ~2/3rds of the worlds peoples are busily cutting down every tree/bush/shrub/weed, they can in order to make charcoal for heat and cooking.
A pound of wood/charcoal has a very poor ratio of BTUs of heat vs. CO/Co2 released.
So, the fuel they use produces large amounts of Co2 while at the same time reducing the vegetation needed to absorb it.
Now, I'll probably get a lot of flack for this:
Being that a massive infrastructure of electrical power is simply not attainable in those areas within a reasonable time frame, (and without un-imaginable costs,) the most efficient way to provide those people with heat and cooking is to furnish them with the petroleum products that the West is so desirable of curtailing/eliminating, the BTUs of energy produced can be used in a far cleaner way than raping the planet of wood for charcoal.

Yes, I don't doubt that, I'm not a "denier", but I don't believe that draconian "one size fits all" edicts from on high are the answer.

That's the crux, it's above my paygrade, and I've not been invited to partake of any discussions on the issues.
Sorry, I tried and failed to post responses within parts of a quote by GBN.