Some glaciers are growing

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by river, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    Both, either, or neither, depending on how things play out. Just like it says in the links etc.

    This is confusing why?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Very little compared to the amount we put in - which is why, year after year, CO2 levels are rising.

    Yes, they do. Up until about 200 years ago the amount that plants took in was balanced by the amount they gave off when they burned/rotted - and by the natural CO2 emitted by volcanic eruptions, animal life etc. Since then we've started more CO2 than plants can absorb - which, again, is why CO2 levels are rising.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    9,793

    Because it seems that it one or the other , rather than a combination of both

    Although I still maintain that it is more likely the gulf currents since water holds the heat better than air
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Yes, it IS the Gulf Stream. And here's something I bet you'd have never guessed - who first charted the path of the Gulf Stream? Ben Franklin (one of your "mainstream" scientists that you dislike so much. If he were around today you'd probably try to claim HE was afraid of the truth also.).
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Good

    But my question to you is , if Ben Franklin , hadn't done this , would you have still understood my thinking ?
     
  9. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Of course. Geologists call it the "conveyor belt." Mariners have been using it since the mid 1700 to speed their trips from America to Europe. And are you also aware that there's another just like it in the Pacific called the "Japanese Current?"
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    No

    Interesting though

    But what I was driving at is this , in my last post

    You seem to be more comfortable with something that is known , than the unknown

    Which seems to be evident again in your last post

    Again you refer to history , as your point , to your point , thats fine , many do

    But it is the unknown , that seems to get your back up

    Why ?

    Just asking , not trying to start a altercation , just asking
     
  11. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    No worries, I understand. I've got absolutely nothing at all against the unknown. In fact, the more we discover the more we realize there is LEFT to know. Thing is though, there are only a few ways that we can gain an understanding of what is currently unknown. One is by accident - like Chas. Goodyear discovering how to stabilize natural rubber by adding sulfur and heat - a process he named "vulcanization."

    Another is by trial and error. That's produced more discoveries/knowledge than accidents have.

    Yet another could be labeled "by pure observation" coupled with knowledge. That's how we learned the Earth wasn't flat - nor was it the center of the solar system.

    But the last one is the most important AND produces more results than all the other put together. It's a linear process - a step at a time - and could be called "research" or "building on previous knowledge." In other words, one takes what is known and advances it. That's exactly how most progress is made. A good example is Einstein's work. He didn't just wake up one morning and say, "I think I'll develop something new - I'll call it Relativity." Nope. What he did was dig through and study the work done by some very smart people before him. Then he put it all together and added more.

    However, beginning with something that simply does NOT work - like a perpetual motion machine - will never result in anything new. And the same is true with anything that ignores the basic principles of science. Those things dead ends before they're even started.

    So again - no, I'm not bothered by the unknown. It's just that there are right ways and wrong ways in trying to understand it. And I see far too many people here going the wrong way.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    By read-only

    In your opinion

    The thing is though you are rude and insulting to those , like my self , who give a different perspective on a subject and nor are you willing to explore the knowledge that is given by those who think outside the box

    Why is that ?
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    9,793
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    It's great to think outside the box. But you have to follow through and do the research, experimentation and derivation to know if your thoughts have any validity.

    For example:

    "The moon is really made of diamonds which is why it's so bright."

    Great, thinking out of the box. But if I stopped there I would be (rightly) ignored because it goes in the face of all the research out there.

    Now, if I presented some spectrographic data, got access to some of the samples we took back from the moon, proposed an experiment to validate that, proposed an explanation as to why I disagree with the actual measured albedo etc then I might start to have a valid opinion. But you have to do the work.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Fine , I understand

    But lets apply this attitude of yours to the spectrum analysis of the sun , for example

    Of which 15% can't be accounted for , now which direction do we go ?

    Inotherwords , mainstream science does not understand the sun , fully , with its current theory of the sun
     
  16. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    Climate change is a better term, as we could have fluctuations either way. But change is certainly in the future. You do realize the point of the article you quote was that due to changes in the climate, movement of the Gulf Stream could cut off a major source of warmer waters to the British Isles. So yes, even in the bigger picture of a warmer Earth, there would be some areas that could actually get colder.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Anyway

    It seems that the more fresh water that gets into the gulf stream in the arctic waters , the lower the salinity of the water , which then causes the water not to drop down to the bottom of the arctic ocean , which stops the current flow from the gulf stream , to the arctic etc

    It is the condensed salinity , because of the cold water , that is the engine for the current flow from south to north and back again , bring in to much fresh water , dilute the salinity of the water , we have a problem
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    We do research. We look at the spectrum and compare it to what we do understand. We experiment with plasmas to see how we can get similar emission and absorption behaviors. We use telescopes to look at other stars and compare our star to them. We use spacecraft to get a better look at the sun.

    Correct. We understand a lot but do not understand it fully. So which is the more likely explanation?

    The Sun is powered by fusion and this has been validated by most of the research that has been done - and there has been no research that has invalidated it.
    The Sun is made of diamonds

    The latter is "thinking outside the box" - but the former is a lot more likely.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    I don't know , but researching the Electric Universe deeper would help


    Because no other theory has been taken seriously enough to evaluate whether there is another theory that could do just that

    When you have a theory that doesn't explain the sun completely , then you have a theory that is left wanting

    Therefore one has to think outside the box , clearly
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Sure. Feel free to do that. And if there are any testable hypotheses that result you can test them and see how they compare to the standard model, go for it. Odds are very very very low that you will get anything that disproves the stellar fusion explanation for what makes stars shine, but who knows?

    But until you do actually get results don't expect to be taken seriously.

    There are plenty of theories that have been taken seriously! In ancient Greece they theorized that the Sun was a ball of fire 60 km in diameter, hovering 6500 km above Earth’s surface, burning either wood or oil. In the 1840s, astronomers proposed that the Sun's massive weight causes it to collapse in on itself, generating heat through internal friction and compression. In 1854, that was modified to include the heat generated by meteors falling on its surface. (This explained sunspots which they assumed were "splashes" caused by the impacts.) It wasn't until the 1900's that we had the science to understand fusion and its role in stellar evolution, and it wasn't until 1945 that we understood the role fusion plays in the formation of the elements.

    Sure, feel free. Again, just don't expect to be taken seriously until you have some good data to support your position. (And "the other guy is wrong" is not good data to support your position.)
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    The thing is the Electric Universe needs the money and facilities to DO the research , just as mainstream science has ,thats the conundrum

    Hence without both money and facilities , thinking outside the box is extremely limited

    And thats not including the vicious attacks upon those that think outside the box
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Yep. How much have you contributed to them so far?

    You viciously attacked my sun-made-of-diamonds theory! And just for thinking outside the box (sniff)
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    What have I got to do with anything .. ?

    I almost went to New Mexico this month ..so
     

Share This Page