Originally posted by whodey1. The study observed a 80,000 year period. Because few glaciers exist today in the Mediterranean doesn't mean there weren't some a long time ago. Also, given that they did melt (if there were any there), it doesn't surprise me that there's few left now.
You are not understanding what I am saying. In the article they make the claim that global warming is causing volcanos becuase of the reduced glacier sheets over the volcanic craters. The theory is that with decreased pressure over the creaters you have an increased chance of the pressure under the glaciers to prodcue volcanic activity. So where are the gl ...[text shortened]... cle should point to increased earthquakes, not increased volcanic activity in the Mediterranian.
2. Thermal expansion is another factor that affects sea level rise. It doesn't require glaciers, just warmer weather.
With the changing dynamics in the crust, faults could also be destabilized, which could bring a whole host of other problems.
"It's not just the volcanoes. Obviously if you load and unload active faults, then you're liable to trigger earthquakes," McGuire told LiveScience, noting that there is ample evidence for this association in past climate change events.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html
1 edit
Originally posted by BeyerBut the study you in the article said that volcanos were occuring with greater frequency in the Mediterranean. So the evidence hinges on glaciers melting away in the Mediterranian. Right? Do you really expect me to believe that there were glaciers in the Mediterranean in Midieval times, especially in light of the fact that the global temperatures where warmer then that now?
1. The study observed a 80,000 year period. Because few glaciers exist today in the Mediterranean doesn't mean there weren't some a long time ago. Also, given that they did melt (if there were any there), it doesn't surprise me that there's few left now.
2. Thermal expansion is another factor that affects sea level rise. It doesn't require glaciers, just wa climate change events.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html
Originally posted by whodeyNo, What?!
But the study you in the article said that volcanos were occuring with greater frequency in the Mediterranean. So the evidence hinges on glaciers melting away in the Mediterranian. Right? Do you really expect me to believe that there were glaciers in the Mediterranean in Midieval times, especially in light of the fact that the global temperatures where warmer then that now?
1. Thermal expansion and/or glaciers can be the cause for sea level rise.
2. Medieval times occured during the past 2 milennia
3. Study monitored the volcanic activity for a length of 80,000 years
The warmer the temp gets, the more ice melts, the more water expands, the sea level rises as a consequence, then the more volcanic activity you get, according to the study (my interpretation anyways). What don't you understand?
2 edits
Originally posted by BeyerI thought the study implied that the pressure of glaciers on top of the crater helped silence erruptions. Also, the increasing water pressure helped create earth quakes. So if the study is about volcanos in the Mediterranian only, then glaciers must have melted away.
No, What?!
1. Thermal expansion and/or glaciers can be the cause for sea level rise.
2. Medieval times occured during the past 2 milennia
3. Study monitored the volcanic activity for a length of 80,000 years
The warmer the temp gets, the more ice melts, the more water expands, the sea level rises as a consequence, then the more volcanic activity you get, according to the study (my interpretation anyways). What don't you understand?
Originally posted by whodeyYeah, but you keep forgetting that water pressure has an adverse affect to. It's like jumping in an inflatable air castle or trampoline. When you jump, you depress down and the kid sitting right next to you catapults up. Now just imagine there's a volcano nearby. Magma is going to be pushed out when the water pressure increases.
I thought the study implied that the pressure of glaciers on top of the crater helped silence erruptions. Also, the increasing water pressure helped create earth quakes. So if the study is about volcanos in the Mediterranian only, then glaciers must have melted away.
Originally posted by whodeyYour science seems a little shaky. There is no single cause of volcanic and seismic activity that applies to all instances all around the world.
I thought the study implied that the pressure of glaciers on top of the crater helped silence erruptions. Also, the increasing water pressure helped create earth quakes. So if the study is about volcanos in the Mediterranian only, then glaciers must have melted away.
I'm amazed that non-scientists think they can argue about scientific things.
No one would argue with a brain surgeon if he said there was something wrong with your brain.
No one would argue with a pilot if he said something was wrong with a plane.
Yet, a scientist says something and people are lining up to tell him he's full of crap.
Unbelievable.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is your alternative to peer-reviewed scientific journals when it comes to establishing scientific theories and models?
But its just a theory, not proof. So do you buy into it? You know, not everything that appears in science magazines are actually true, especially with such a policially charged topic. Such policially charged topics should be treated with great trepidation in terms of motive.
4 edits
Originally posted by uzlessOk then, we will let Obama decide if this "science" is worth legislating policy over. Of course, we will do so after he gets done telling those brain surgeons how to practice. LOL.
I'm amazed that non-scientists think they can argue about scientific things.
No one would argue with a brain surgeon if he said there was something wrong with your brain.
No one would argue with a pilot if he said something was wrong with a plane.
Yet, a scientist says something and people are lining up to tell him he's full of crap.
Unbelievable.
Apparently it is OK of those in Washington are the experts on everything, but not Whodey.
In fact, no one here is a scientist, yet it is OK for everyone else to comment, so long as the agree with an "expert"? Obama has an expert working in the Fed who is giving all kinds of dire warmings about the US economic outlook. In fact, his predecessor gave the same warnings, but it's OK though that they ignore him as well though. It all seems rather odd to me.
Originally posted by BeyerBut that is not what I read in the article.
Yeah, but you keep forgetting that water pressure has an adverse affect to. It's like jumping in an inflatable air castle or trampoline. When you jump, you depress down and the kid sitting right next to you catapults up. Now just imagine there's a volcano nearby. Magma is going to be pushed out when the water pressure increases.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDo you deny that politics are involved in science? If you don't believe me, just try mentioning creation or intelligent design and see what doors that opens for ya. Have you ever seen "Expelled"? Even if the evidence is there, they would not print it. I suppose we are stuck reading their e-mails to find the data. LOL.
What is your alternative to peer-reviewed scientific journals when it comes to establishing scientific theories and models?
Originally posted by whodeySure, politics is involved in science. And sometimes some scientists are wrong. What is your alternative to peer-reviewed scientific journals when it comes to establishing scientific theories and models? Is there some other method which produces more reliable results, with less meddling from politics?
Do you deny that politics are involved in science? If you don't believe me, just try mentioning creation or intelligent design and see what doors that opens for ya. Have you ever seen "Expelled"? Even if the evidence is there, they would not print it. I suppose we are stuck reading their e-mails to find the data. LOL.