Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

One of the thoughts I had is when temperature information is considered for past centuries, how much do we know about the possibility of massive earthquakes having occurred in regions of the world that were largely unknown at those points in time, which could have triggered warmer or cooler periods because of shifting of the earths rotation, etc.? Not only earthquakes but widespread volcanic eruptions, not only continental but in the ocean floor.

Hey Ionus, keep a watch for a news report about global warming having possibly caused the earthquakes, it would not surprise me at all.

Okie and Ionus,

I bet the CO2 demagogs will blame the Chile earthquake itself on human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You see, it is the scientific consensus that earthquakes that shift the earth's axis are caused by too much CO2 in the atmosphere!

Of course, I may be wrong. The CO2 demagogs may blame the Bush administration for worsening the USA wealth imbalance that in turn unbalanced the earth, and that in turn shifted the earth's axis.

I bet you're in your usual state of alternate reality.

The polarity shifts happen rapidly in GEOLOGIC time, not in human time. When geologists say the polarity changes happen quickly, then mean tens of thousands of years.

If I remember correctly there is evidence that the shift is already occurring and that we are about 1000 years into the 10,000 to 15,000 year switchover.

How much do you want to bet?

How much do you want to bet the earthquake'll be blamed on CO2, or that that's the scientific consensus? You're running at your usual level of silliness, ican.

MontereyJack, you previously posted:
" bet you're in your usual state of alternate reality. "
I asked: How much do you want to bet?

And I asked how much do you want to bet?

And Climate change happens rapidly in GEOLOGICAL time not human time.

Yes, and at what stage is the magnetosphere sufficently reduced to damage the earth either through heating or radiation ? When is the balance point or topple point that Global Warming Thuggees like to talk about ?

NO! You did not previously ask "how much do I want to bet?

You previously asked:
I will bet zero on that!

I asked you how much do you want to bet on your bet:
?

i'll match your stakes. zero.

......................Wow!
...............Double or nothing!
………………~~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
………………~~~~~~~~(O|O) ~~~~
………………..~~~~~~( ~O~ ) ~~~~
________________=X=_______________________

we're both devil-may-care risk-takers.

Cycloptichorn

For how much of the Earth's history have we had Arctic ice ? Less than 10%. It has melted several times in the last Ice Age alone.

http://wallstreetpit.com/12973-the-nyt-has-been-predicting-polar-ice-melt-for-128-years
AND
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Nice try, ionus.

No cigar.

You will notice that article is from last winter, not this one. You also aspparently missed the research report out last year after that article which found that satellite photos missed the fact that the ice cover was mostly new ice, which is less dense and far less thick (typically 6 feet, versus 25) than denser older multi-year ice, which has decreased by about three-quarters over the last thirty years or so. New ice melts much more readily in summer than the denser, thicker old ice.

Further the ice regrowth in winter over the decade of this century has been more than two standard deviations below the average from the last decades of the 20th century, i.e. highly statistically significant.

In the words of the old bluegrass tune, It's goin' and it ain't comin' back.

http://squarestate.net/diary/9429/state-of-the-poles-332010
"The state of Arctic sea ice in January 2010 continues to be poor relative to climatological norms. The areal extent of Arctic sea ice has been below -2 standard deviations since late June 2009. Recent conditions have resulted in a late cool season surge in sea ice areal extent. During January, the Arctic Oscillation was at its most negative phase in decades. This allowed cold air to pour out from the Arctic into North America, Europe and Russia. This combined with the more southerly jet stream due to the moderate El Nino helped set up intense storm systems over the eastern U.S. as well as many countries in Europe. At the same time, warmer air than normal was found over the Arctic. Sea ice had a harder time overall developing. Wind patterns were established that prevented ice from flowing out from the Fram Strait. This is potentially good news for this year's Arctic sea ice since its volume could grow while staying in one place for months. The older and more voluminous the ice, the better chances it has of sticking around through this year's melt season.

"The recent surge in Arctic sea ice extent has occurred in the Bering Sea. This is important because the Atlantic sector remains well below average for this time of year. This surge is likely to be the Arctic's last for this winter season. The maximum extent will likely be reached between today and the next couple of weeks, after which the sea ice melt season begins. Today's current extent is slightly higher than the yearly maximum reached in 2005-07 and ~500,000 sq. km. less than the maxima reached the past two winters. Again, the current areal extent isn't necessarily this year's maximum value - determination of that will occur in a few weeks' time.

"The average ice extent for February 2010 was 14.58 million sq. km., the fourth lowest since 1978, when satellite records began. That extent was 220,000 sq. km. more than the record low extent set in 2005. Since 1978, the Arctic sea ice extent in February has decreased at 2.9% per decade."

OKIE:
Just out of curiosity (I don’t care to get into the “warming” argument)

Why would you believe:
“The quake, the seventh strongest earthquake in recorded history, hit Chile Saturday and should have shortened the length of an Earth day by 1.26 microseconds (millionths of a second), according to research scientist Richard Gross at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.“

Which is ALSO solely based on a computer model. When you won’t accept “global warming” because (among other reasons) it is based on a computer model. It seems you have already accepted slowing to the point that you are ready to use the conclusions of one model “slowing” to disprove another “warming” as shown in the quote below.

“One of the thoughts I had is when temperature information is considered for past centuries, how much do we know about the possibility of massive earthquakes having occurred in regions of the world that were largely unknown at those points in time, which could have triggered warmer or cooler periods because of shifting of the earths rotation, etc.?"

And please don’t try to say the “slowing” is based on measurement, it is not, it is based on a model developed by JPL.

Based on this (to an outsider) it seems you don’t mind computer modeling, you mind computer modeling that doesn’t reach your pe-determined conclusion. Again I don’t want to argue climate I was just wondering about your selection methodology, it seems a bit non-standard.

Methane emitted from the bottom surface of deep water changes into CO2 disolved in that water before it reaches the surface. But some of the Methane emitted from the bottom of non-deep water is emitted into the atmosphere.

There is a very large supply of Methane under the bottom of the arctic. If an arctic earthquake were to crack open that bottom, the amount of Methane emitted would be increased substantially. That in turn would significantly increase the amount of methane emitted into the atmosphere.

Yes, and I'm sure you agree that this could be rather problematic.

Cycloptichorn

But the more immediate thing that's happening with deep-sea methane hydrates is that the deep ocean is warming (global warming, you know?), and that's increasing the melting of the hydrates, which increases CO2 in the water, which increases CO2 in the atmosphere, it's a positive feedback. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/08/this-is-how-world-ends.html