Go to IT CURES HOARSENESS! The "Global Warming" Hoax
- Add a comment
- Go to ALL ARCTIC ICE TO MELT THIS SUMMER?
Re: if this were all there is, maybe, just maybe
Fair enough question about volcanoes and Iceland, but smacking of illogic.
Iceland is volcanic, but only a small portion of its surface is directly affected by eruptions at any time. Given the mountainous terrain and northern latitude, it's only logical that much of the rest would be glaciated.
That's also why there's snow on the Cascade Mountains of Washington, Oregon and northern California. They are volcanic, but in the last 100 years only two have erupted. The rest are dormant or extinct. Some, I believe they are Ranier, Hood and Adams, produce steam activity from time to time, but nowhere near enough to cause more than localized melting. Look up the ice caves on Mount Ranier for an example. There are many other snow-covered volcanoes around the world as well, I thought of the Cascades because of my familiarity with them. (Incidentally, referring my post at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight9282/555779 on how Mount Shasta's glaciers are advancing, Shasta is another of the Cascade volcanoes.)
As for the Arctic Ocean volcanoes, deep sea volcanoes are less readily observed than those on the surface or on shallower waters. Nontheless, an underwater volcano will heat the waters in its vicinity, causing ice to melt or not to form as readily.
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 11, 2008 at 9:50 PM
| link to this | reply
if this were all there is, maybe, just maybe
you might have a point
Again I guess we'll have to go the the geophysical arm of agency and find out if indeed volcanic activity might be a source of ice melting. They record volcanoes there you know. I would tend to doubt the statements of the publication you refer to until I find cold, hard data to back it up. But then again your publication doubts the scientists at NOAA. The might label the scientists as biased, but then again there's the cold, hard data. Neither you nor your so called "American" publication can dispute that.
That's another thing -- to make themselves seem reliable they put "American" in their name, like other publications of the same ilk. This would infer that anyone disputing their statements just might unamerican?
I have as much trouble with the publications you refer to as you have with Mother Jones; and yet, I have found yours to be immensely biased toward finding information to support the conclusion they have already reached; i.e., form a conclusion and go searching for what meager information might support it. MJ deals in facts. Back to the point. There is too much evidence over the world to demonstrate that the climate is, indeed, warming. Here, you make another attempt to deny that.
A question arise here: How come Iceland has so much ice since it has so many volcanoes? By the reasoning we see here, there shouldn't be the ice there that there is.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 29, 2008 at 5:39 PM
| link to this | reply
here's the still small voice that knocks your views into a cocked hat
NOAA'S REPORT ON ARCTIC SEA ICE
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 29, 2008 at 8:58 AM
| link to this | reply
ODD THAT YOU DIDN'T MAKE REFERENCE TO THE GRAPHIC
I presented a short time ago showing last September's ice in the Arctic being the least in recorded history. That, my dear sir, is where the truth lies, not in your rantings.
The graphic shows huge stretches of open ocean, mainly around Russia, where it would ordinarily have been ice covered.
Would you want to start again, this time attempting to address what I presented? You have wasted a whole lot of words here blowing smoke (which is what you usually do).
It's like Jeremiah's encounter with God -- where there were earthquakes and lightning and thunder and such --but that wasn't God. God was the still, small voice.
You are thundering and blustering.
The still, small voice of facts tells us differently from what you present.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM
| link to this | reply