Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Any topic with a chance of polarization - Not for the easily offended.

Moderator: Team

engineczar
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:47 am
Location: Dubois, Wy.

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by engineczar » Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:59 am

GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:48 am
engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:11 am


We are being told by the left that the science is settled and there can be no question about it. How can that be? According to your first statement science is a process.
Saying that the "science is settled" is a layman's way of saying the following:

The current state of scientific understanding on a given topic has conclusions that have been empirically and analytically shown to be accurate to a high degree of certainty. There are currently no competing conclusions which approach meeting this criteria.

This doesn't mean that future findings won't upend the current consensus. It does however mean that the new findings and resultant explanations has to be as concrete and scientifically vetted as the previous explanations.

Once you understand and accept this reality, you will understand why broken arguments based on ignorance, cherry picked data, and/or outright lies do not qualify as scientifically valid.

The original post in this thread is the perfect example of the kinds of tactics deniers attempt to use. The only people who think these types of "arguments" are valid are those who either:

A. Do not have the slightest grasp of the topic
B. Are intellectually dishonest

Which one are you?
Neither. I agree that the climate is changing now show me the definative evidence that it's man made and not just the normal cycle.

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by GRTfast » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:28 am

engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:59 am
GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:48 am
engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:11 am


We are being told by the left that the science is settled and there can be no question about it. How can that be? According to your first statement science is a process.
Saying that the "science is settled" is a layman's way of saying the following:

The current state of scientific understanding on a given topic has conclusions that have been empirically and analytically shown to be accurate to a high degree of certainty. There are currently no competing conclusions which approach meeting this criteria.

This doesn't mean that future findings won't upend the current consensus. It does however mean that the new findings and resultant explanations has to be as concrete and scientifically vetted as the previous explanations.

Once you understand and accept this reality, you will understand why broken arguments based on ignorance, cherry picked data, and/or outright lies do not qualify as scientifically valid.

The original post in this thread is the perfect example of the kinds of tactics deniers attempt to use. The only people who think these types of "arguments" are valid are those who either:

A. Do not have the slightest grasp of the topic
B. Are intellectually dishonest

Which one are you?
Neither. I agree that the climate is changing now show me the definative evidence that it's man made and not just the normal cycle.
I already have multiple times. How is doing it again gonna convince you?

engineczar
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:47 am
Location: Dubois, Wy.

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by engineczar » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:36 am

GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:28 am
engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:59 am
GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:48 am


Saying that the "science is settled" is a layman's way of saying the following:

The current state of scientific understanding on a given topic has conclusions that have been empirically and analytically shown to be accurate to a high degree of certainty. There are currently no competing conclusions which approach meeting this criteria.

This doesn't mean that future findings won't upend the current consensus. It does however mean that the new findings and resultant explanations has to be as concrete and scientifically vetted as the previous explanations.

Once you understand and accept this reality, you will understand why broken arguments based on ignorance, cherry picked data, and/or outright lies do not qualify as scientifically valid.

The original post in this thread is the perfect example of the kinds of tactics deniers attempt to use. The only people who think these types of "arguments" are valid are those who either:

A. Do not have the slightest grasp of the topic
B. Are intellectually dishonest

Which one are you?
Neither. I agree that the climate is changing now show me the definative evidence that it's man made and not just the normal cycle.
I already have multiple times. How is doing it again gonna convince you?
Definative proof that it's man made? Multiple times? Hmmm

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7455
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by 1989TransAm » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:01 pm

He quotes some University paper that received government grant money from the Obama administration. So you know the predetermined outcome of the so-called research. Just follow the money. :D

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by gmrocket » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:21 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:30 am
engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:11 am
rebelrouser wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:56 am
The thing about real science is that always their is a question, always their is a search for the truth, and real science if presented with evidence changes the findings to match the evidence. Science is a process, not a simple statement of facts.
Correct. Then you added this.
That is something the current Trump supporters don't understand, because they think like Trump if you say something enough it magically becomes the truth.
We are being told by the left that the science is settled and there can be no question about it. How can that be? According to your first statement science is a process.
Simple, its settled until a better understanding is scrutinized thoroughly, not simply by repeating it ad in finiteum
97% right?

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by gmrocket » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:26 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:37 am
gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:10 am


Your even more hilarious than the motley crew doing that study.

When asked if the volcano was a factor in the melt, he said NO, as in nothing, ,zero, zilch, nil...then in the same sentence he said it has a " yet to be determined effect"

So why say no when he admits they don't know yet?

By saying no, he sure looks like he has a bias... I'm sure they'll fix up a new narrative
:lol: .... keep in mind, I didn't post the article, TA did.

Nice try, swooping in to try and save face for your buddy...

quote the article where he says it has no effect. I'll wait. (Hint: It doesn't say that anywhere, it actually acknowledges the heat is having an effect). The problem is, you can't quote the article showing that he says the volcanic activity is having "zero" effect because you're lying, and you know it.

In the meantime, keep ignoring the part where he says that the increased heat from volcanic activity is causes by the reduced pressure resulting from climate change induced glacial melting.

Here's the thing... when you post an article, then cherry a specific sentence from that article to back a claim (in this case, this thread was created as a "gotcha" to those who accept the findings of climate science), you end up looking really stupid when the article goes on to support the claim that you are trying to use the article to debunk.

These types of threads are the work of intellectually dishonest know nothing clown hacks, nothing more. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but apparently you aren't smart enough to realize that. The end result is, you provide me with chuckles and entertainment for free. Dance monkey, dance!! :lol:
I Don't have to quote where he said no, you did it for me...read it again, maybe the light bulb will go off...I'll give you a hint,,the paragraph starts with the word "NO"

Let me know how you make out finding that massive contradiction he made

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by GRTfast » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:36 pm

engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:36 am
GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:28 am
engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:59 am


Neither. I agree that the climate is changing now show me the definative evidence that it's man made and not just the normal cycle.
I already have multiple times. How is doing it again gonna convince you?
Definative proof that it's man made? Multiple times? Hmmm
Climate change has natural and human causes. The current, radically accelerated change rates relative to the gradual natural changes that have occurred in the past are due to human activity. How do we know? Educate yourself using the links below. They are just the tip of the iceberg, there is plenty more information out there to satisfy your curiosity.

Your other option is to attack the messenger and ignore reality like your buddy TA. If you rule out any sources that show you the evidence and use science to deduce the causes of the observed effects, it's easy to maintain a shroud of willful ignorance. Your choice. Just remember, saying that there is no evidence isn't the same thing as no evidence existing. There are many independent lines of verifiable evidence all point in the same general direction, and that direction isn't towards the position you maintain.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... zujkdVKhEY

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-k ... ate-change

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04 ... t-natural/

http://sciencenordic.com/what-makes-cli ... e-part-one

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by GRTfast » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:40 pm

gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:26 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:37 am
gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:10 am


Your even more hilarious than the motley crew doing that study.

When asked if the volcano was a factor in the melt, he said NO, as in nothing, ,zero, zilch, nil...then in the same sentence he said it has a " yet to be determined effect"

So why say no when he admits they don't know yet?

By saying no, he sure looks like he has a bias... I'm sure they'll fix up a new narrative
:lol: .... keep in mind, I didn't post the article, TA did.

Nice try, swooping in to try and save face for your buddy...

quote the article where he says it has no effect. I'll wait. (Hint: It doesn't say that anywhere, it actually acknowledges the heat is having an effect). The problem is, you can't quote the article showing that he says the volcanic activity is having "zero" effect because you're lying, and you know it.

In the meantime, keep ignoring the part where he says that the increased heat from volcanic activity is causes by the reduced pressure resulting from climate change induced glacial melting.

Here's the thing... when you post an article, then cherry a specific sentence from that article to back a claim (in this case, this thread was created as a "gotcha" to those who accept the findings of climate science), you end up looking really stupid when the article goes on to support the claim that you are trying to use the article to debunk.

These types of threads are the work of intellectually dishonest know nothing clown hacks, nothing more. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but apparently you aren't smart enough to realize that. The end result is, you provide me with chuckles and entertainment for free. Dance monkey, dance!! :lol:
I Don't have to quote where he said no, you did it for me...read it again, maybe the light bulb will go off...I'll give you a hint,,the paragraph starts with the word "NO"

Let me know how you make out finding that massive contradiction he made
That "no" was in response to this question:

Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

Please demonstrate how answering that question with the word "no" in any way even infers that the volcanic activity has zero effect on ocean warming or glacial melting. You can't. You're making stuff up that simply isn't in the article at all. You're being deliberately obtuse and dishonest, and it is shameful.

If you want to keep doubling down on stupid, please separately quote the two contradictory statements. Not your interpretation, but the actual words he said that you feel are contradictions to each other.
Last edited by GRTfast on Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by gmrocket » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:42 pm

engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:59 am
GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:48 am
engineczar wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:11 am


We are being told by the left that the science is settled and there can be no question about it. How can that be? According to your first statement science is a process.
Saying that the "science is settled" is a layman's way of saying the following:

The current state of scientific understanding on a given topic has conclusions that have been empirically and analytically shown to be accurate to a high degree of certainty. There are currently no competing conclusions which approach meeting this criteria.

This doesn't mean that future findings won't upend the current consensus. It does however mean that the new findings and resultant explanations has to be as concrete and scientifically vetted as the previous explanations.

Once you understand and accept this reality, you will understand why broken arguments based on ignorance, cherry picked data, and/or outright lies do not qualify as scientifically valid.

The original post in this thread is the perfect example of the kinds of tactics deniers attempt to use. The only people who think these types of "arguments" are valid are those who either:

A. Do not have the slightest grasp of the topic
B. Are intellectually dishonest

Which one are you?
Neither. I agree that the climate is changing now show me the definative evidence that it's man made and not just the normal cycle.
Yup, but they want you to believe this point in time of the world climate history will dictate everything in the future...when in reality, it's a nano second in time.

Simple fact is, even if it gets a little warmer, mankind has adjusted and flourished. But that historical fact isn't a nasty doomsday scenario.

Good news isn't news, and it doesn't whip everyone up into a frenzied panic.

Anyway, hope everyone had a fantastic weekend,, I was at the lake enjoying the cleanest air I ever breathed in the history of mankind, swam in the cleanest water we have ever had...only 50 years ago these waters were so polluted you couldn't swim and the air in the city was just a brown haze . Amazing how much nicer it is...

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by gmrocket » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:52 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:40 pm
gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:26 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:37 am


:lol: .... keep in mind, I didn't post the article, TA did.

Nice try, swooping in to try and save face for your buddy...

quote the article where he says it has no effect. I'll wait. (Hint: It doesn't say that anywhere, it actually acknowledges the heat is having an effect). The problem is, you can't quote the article showing that he says the volcanic activity is having "zero" effect because you're lying, and you know it.

In the meantime, keep ignoring the part where he says that the increased heat from volcanic activity is causes by the reduced pressure resulting from climate change induced glacial melting.

Here's the thing... when you post an article, then cherry a specific sentence from that article to back a claim (in this case, this thread was created as a "gotcha" to those who accept the findings of climate science), you end up looking really stupid when the article goes on to support the claim that you are trying to use the article to debunk.

These types of threads are the work of intellectually dishonest know nothing clown hacks, nothing more. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but apparently you aren't smart enough to realize that. The end result is, you provide me with chuckles and entertainment for free. Dance monkey, dance!! :lol:
I Don't have to quote where he said no, you did it for me...read it again, maybe the light bulb will go off...I'll give you a hint,,the paragraph starts with the word "NO"

Let me know how you make out finding that massive contradiction he made
That "no" was in response to this question:

Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

Please demonstrate how answering that question with the word "no" in any way even infers that the volcanic activity has zero effect on ocean warming or glacial melting. You can't. You're making stuff up that simply isn't in the article at all. You're being deliberately obtuse and dishonest, and it is shameful.

If you want to keep doubling down on stupid, please separately quote the two contradictory statements. Not your interpretation, but the actual words he said that you feel are contradictions to each other.
So you found it...he said no, then said they don't know how much the newly found volcano adds too, or doesn't , to the melt...IN THE SAME BREATH

Massive instant assumption right there..a scientist should never assume, it has to be studied. He said so himself when he said "yet to be determined ". Which is the correct thinking.

This kind of thing makes the scientific community look like fools..any lay person can read into that.

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by GRTfast » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:56 pm

gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:52 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:40 pm
gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:26 pm


I Don't have to quote where he said no, you did it for me...read it again, maybe the light bulb will go off...I'll give you a hint,,the paragraph starts with the word "NO"

Let me know how you make out finding that massive contradiction he made
That "no" was in response to this question:

Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

Please demonstrate how answering that question with the word "no" in any way even infers that the volcanic activity has zero effect on ocean warming or glacial melting. You can't. You're making stuff up that simply isn't in the article at all. You're being deliberately obtuse and dishonest, and it is shameful.

If you want to keep doubling down on stupid, please separately quote the two contradictory statements. Not your interpretation, but the actual words he said that you feel are contradictions to each other.
So you found it...he said no, then said they don't know how much the newly found volcano adds too, or doesn't , to the melt.

Massive instant assumption right there..a scientist should never assume, it has to be studied. He said so himself when he said "yet to be determined ". Which is the correct thinking.

This kind of thing makes the scientific community look like fools..any lay person can read into that.
How can you be this dense?!?!?

He said no to THIS QUESTION:

Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

^^^^That question has nothing to do with volcanic activity. Since it has nothing to do with volcanic activity, how can any other statement about volcanic activity contradict it?!?

He goes on to say that the effect from the volcanic activity has yet to be quantified. That in no way contradicts the "no" answer to the question about the effect on the glacier from GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (<--------- not volcanic activity).

This is elementary school level reading comprehension. How are you not getting it. Again, please quote the two statements that are in contradiction.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by gmrocket » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:09 pm

Correct, he answered no to that question..so how does he know, instantly that the volcano isn't the whole and only cause of the melt?

It has to be studied and proven ..not just assumed.

Good lord man..your gonna earn the new name GRTslow if you keep insisting a scientist can make an assumption right after that discovery.

So I'll put it three ways so you can study it

#1 after careful research the volcano was found to have no effect on the melt

#2 after careful research the volcano was found to have some effect on the melt and its such and such.(the amount would be determined by several independent studies)

#3 the volcano was found to be the sole contributor and cause of the melt..by several independent studies.

That's the only 3 scenarios that can ever happen.

Him saying no, and disqualifying the volcano from the get go is bad science, no science and false...the "yet to be determined " is correct and good science

I think your problem is reading that study with only your left eye open...

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by GRTfast » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:22 pm

gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:09 pm
Correct, he answered no to that question..so how does he know, instantly that the volcano isn't the whole and only cause of the melt?
Because they (scientists) already know from many other independent lines of evidence that glacial melting is due to multiple factors, including oceanic and atmospheric warming caused by humans.
gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:09 pm
It has to be studied and proven ..not just assumed.
It's not assumed, it's KNOWN THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS SOME EFFECT ON GLACIAL MELTING. You're arguing as though we have no idea why glaciers melt, and you're arguing as though any huge massive geological phenomenon can have only one thing driving it. That's not how any system exposed to multiple input variables behaves. This article is informing you that these scientists have found an ADDITIONAL contributor.
gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:09 pm
#3 the volcano was found to be the sole contributor and cause of the melt..by several independent studies.
but that is not possible because it is ALREADY KNOWN that climate change has some effect. This is not debatable if you stick to the facts of the matter.

gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:09 pm
Him saying no, and disqualifying the volcano from the get go is bad science, no science and false...the "yet to be determined " is correct and good science
He's not disqualifying the volcano from having an effect... he's disqualifying it from being the only thing effecting it because... (this is the key) WE ALREADY KNOW FROM MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT LINES OF EVIDENCE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS GLACIAL MELTING. He's saying that the volcano is not the only contributor to the melting (because we already know of other contributors), and that the effect is is having has yet to be quantified. That is not a contradiction AT ALL. You are fabricating a contradiction by setting up a false pretense, which is that we have zero understanding of the contributors to glacial melting. That pretense is 100% bullshit, and it is 100% what your argument is based upon.

In case you missed it, your argument is 100% based on bullshit.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by gmrocket » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:50 pm

Your earning that new name ,, GRTslow fits.

The question was ...

Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the pine island glacier? Which is the same thing as saying, is the volcano the cause of the melt and not climate change?

And he said "no" climate change is the cause of the "bulk" of the instability..or melt. So just like that he dismissed the volcanos contribution without having any info on how much contribution, if any. What's "bulk" mean? Over 50%, maybe 60% is caused by climate change??

That's 100% bs ..a false statement on a newly found heat source just found under the glacier...they turned their shock of finding a volcano under the glacier into it being inconsequential without any scientific study or evidence.

The lay person can see right through that false scientific statement..especially when he then backtracked and said "as-yet to be determined "

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Volcanic activity discovered under Antarctica ice.....oops!

Post by GRTfast » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:04 pm

gmrocket wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:50 pm
Your earning that new name ,, GRTslow fits.

The question was ...

Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the pine island glacier? Which is the same thing as saying, is the volcano the cause of the melt and not climate change?

And he said "no" climate change is the cause of the "bulk" of the instability..or melt. So just like that he dismissed the volcanos contribution without having any info on how much contribution, if any. What's "bulk" mean? Over 50%, maybe 60% is caused by climate change??
#-o

He did not dismiss it. He said that it wasn't the sole (or even the majority) contributor (for reasons I already outlined), and that the bulk of the melting is from climate change (which is also known, even if not explicitly stated here). The exact volcanic heat contribution is not known, but isn't going to be the bulk, because we already know what the bulk of the contribution is from.

You're looking for a "gotcha", and to do this you have invented a false pretense where the mechanisms of glacial melting are completely unquantified. That false pretense is 100% bullshit.

From the actual journal published scientific report (this is how he knows it's not the bulk contributor, and why only using articles to make a point is a flawed methodology):

Based on the observed 3He excesses, the mantle-derived heat at the front of the ice shelf cavity is 32 ± 12 J kg−1 of seawater. This excess heat is small compared to the heat content of CDW20 (ca. 12 kJ kg−1), demonstrating that volcanic heat does not contribute significantly to the glacial melt observed in the ocean at the front of the ice shelf.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3

The effect is undetermined, but it can't possibly be the bulk based on the total heat contribution from the volcano being so minuscule. It isn't physically possible based on the amount of heat the volcano is providing, and the amount of heat the Circumpolar Deep Water contains, which is around 200-400 times as much as the volcanic heat is contributing. How could it be the majority contributor if the heat is only 0.005-0.0025 of the heat present?

You're earning your new name "gm dud" :lol:
Last edited by GRTfast on Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply