Global Cooling

[ygmir]

There is no planetary alignment in 2012

#
Question

When most of the planets align in 2012 and planet earth is in the center of the milky way,what will the effects of this be on planet earth? could it cause a pole shift,if so what could we expect.

There is no planet alignment in 2012 or any other time in the next several decades. As to the Earth being in the center of the Milky Way, I don't know what this phrase means, If you are referring to the Milky Way Galaxy, we are rather far toward the edge of this spiral galaxy, some 30,000 light years from the center. Concerning a polar shift, I also don't know what this means. If it means some sudden change in the position of the pole (that is, the rotation axis of the Earth), then that is impossible. There is no point in speculating about the consequences of something that has never happened and never will. Before geologists discovered the role of plate tectonics (about 60 years ago), there was some speculation that a polar shift was involved in transforming the Antarctic, for example, from a warm to a cold climate, but now we know it was the Antarctic continent that moved, not the rotation pole. The bottom line is that there is no possibility of a "polar shift" and no danger associated with one.
David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
May 14, 2008

cite: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-ast ... n/?id=3093

shit!!!

*stomps ground, wads tinfoil hat up and tosses it........now to decide what to do with a ton of dried beans and wheat.....*

[can't sit still]

Where did you find THAT pablum???

[dr.placebo]

Caveat: I'm not a geologist, a vulcanologist, or a climate scientist. I'm a relatively curious computer scientist with a physics and math background. The science I'm citing is not mine, although any errors in the explanation are probably mine.

The estimates for volcanic CO2 contributions vary a lot. The [Gerlach 1991] based estimates put the volcanic CO2 at anywhere from 130-230 million tonnes per year, while the human contribution is about 27000 million tonnes per year (0.48% to 0.85% volcanic/human). A more recent paper ("Carbon degassing from the lithosphere", Morner and Etiope, 2001) puts total lithosphere outgassing (including volcanic) at about 600 million tonnes per year (2.2% litho/human). The uncertainty is based on the various assumptions and methods of estimations, and I'd lean towards the larger estimate because it is more recent and has better data available to it (I'm not able to judge whether they have done a better job of interpreting the data).

Worth noting is that even if the contribution is double the high estimate we have less than 5% total contribution of CO2 by natural sources, and 95% by human sources. In other words, it's a minor term, although the non-human contribution does need to be understood.

Most volcanos and most earthquakes have the same root cause: plate tectonics. There's a very strong connection between volcanoes and earthquakes, especially in subduction zones. But what appears to be a swarm of earthquakes may just be a coincidence. We humans are famous for seeing patterns in pure noise (yours truly being no exception).

There is some correlation of earthquakes with tides, only studied seriously in the last 10 years, but it is thought that tides are only a trigger when the geological stress is already near the breaking point. There are some less common earthquake causes, such as volcanic, landslide, glacial rebound, and probably a few others I'm neglecting.

Contributions to earthquakes from outside of the solar system are extremely unlikely. There simply is not enough of an effect. In particular, the galactic plane is a very arbitrary boundary, and has no detectable discontinuities (if it did, it should have an observable astronomical effect, which it does not have).

If we were to observe a drastically different pattern of quakes around the world then additional causes would need to be considered, of course, but so far we don't need additional explanations.

Some climate change is certainly induced by volcanoes. There is evidence for short-term cooling effects in the 20th century from SO2 released by volcanoes (Pinatubo being a prime example), and evidence for longer term effects from much larger eruptions in the past (the Deccan Traps being a good example). Since 1800, however, volcanoes have only provided fairly minor blips in the temperature record.

[sputnik]

Where did you find THAT pablum???

I've shown the citation...you show me yours.

[ygmir]

Caveat: I'm not a geologist, a vulcanologist, or a climate scientist. I'm a relatively curious computer scientist with a physics and math background. The science I'm citing is not mine, although any errors in the explanation are probably mine.

The estimates for volcanic CO2 contributions vary a lot. The [Gerlach 1991] based estimates put the volcanic CO2 at anywhere from 130-230 million tonnes per year, while the human contribution is about 27000 million tonnes per year (0.48% to 0.85% volcanic/human). A more recent paper ("Carbon degassing from the lithosphere", Morner and Etiope, 2001) puts total lithosphere outgassing (including volcanic) at about 600 million tonnes per year (2.2% litho/human). The uncertainty is based on the various assumptions and methods of estimations, and I'd lean towards the larger estimate because it is more recent and has better data available to it (I'm not able to judge whether they have done a better job of interpreting the data).

Worth noting is that even if the contribution is double the high estimate we have less than 5% total contribution of CO2 by natural sources, and 95% by human sources. In other words, it's a minor term, although the non-human contribution does need to be understood.

Most volcanos and most earthquakes have the same root cause: plate tectonics. There's a very strong connection between volcanoes and earthquakes, especially in subduction zones. But what appears to be a swarm of earthquakes may just be a coincidence. We humans are famous for seeing patterns in pure noise (yours truly being no exception).

There is some correlation of earthquakes with tides, only studied seriously in the last 10 years, but it is thought that tides are only a trigger when the geological stress is already near the breaking point. There are some less common earthquake causes, such as volcanic, landslide, glacial rebound, and probably a few others I'm neglecting.

Contributions to earthquakes from outside of the solar system are extremely unlikely. There simply is not enough of an effect. In particular, the galactic plane is a very arbitrary boundary, and has no detectable discontinuities (if it did, it should have an observable astronomical effect, which it does not have).

If we were to observe a drastically different pattern of quakes around the world then additional causes would need to be considered, of course, but so far we don't need additional explanations.

Some climate change is certainly induced by volcanoes. There is evidence for short-term cooling effects in the 20th century from SO2 released by volcanoes (Pinatubo being a prime example), and evidence for longer term effects from much larger eruptions in the past (the Deccan Traps being a good example). Since 1800, however, volcanoes have only provided fairly minor blips in the temperature record.

didn't I read that Pinatubo also released a huge amount of sulfur, which, interacted with CFC's to cause a big dip in the atmospheric ozone, and/or, increase the "ozone hole" effect?......

[sputnik]

didn't I read that Pinatubo also released a huge amount of sulfur, which, interacted with CFC's to cause a big dip in the atmospheric ozone, and/or, increase the "ozone hole" effect?......

It caused a momentary hole and then a longer term dip, but not a big dip.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a0 ... index.html

Pinatubo's larger effect was due to the sulfur causing a cooling effect of .8C for about a year.

[ygmir]

it's intriguing how a volcano can effect so much of the world......
also, the thought of dissolved gasses in ocean water, undersea releases and volcanoes, and, "outgassing" through the crust in general.......
not to mention trapped, IIRC, solid methane in deep ocean deposits......

dang....

[Dad]

Nature is capable of lot's of things. I have followed a bit of the issues with the permafrost and peat bog research. Interesting on the sequestered carbon issue and many believe the collapse of the permafrost and bogs may actually help sequester CO2 by having more plant growth yet others believe it will release massive amounts of CO2. Regardless of this debate, it seems that the Methane release is something that should be much more concerning as it acts much more to heat the planet. In both incidents I return to that old physics idea that there is only so much of any substance and it is always equal regardless of what form it takes. There is only so much carbon, air, water, etc. regardless of form. What cycles has the earth seen these in?

[ygmir]

yeah, interesting concept, that, there is no new carbon, sulfur, etc........
it's just the forms it takes and the places it's kept, that make change.

[sputnik]

Right. All the carbon that we're dumping into the atmosphere has been sequestered as oil and coal and other hydrocarbons for hundreds of millions of years. Plants pulled this carbon from the atmosphere and then died and turned into these 'fuels'. Same goes with the undersea methane, and the release of this gas in large quantities is suspected as a major contributor to the mass extinction at the end of the Permian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2 ... tion_event

[littleflower]

i just found this on the BBC website:

n Hemavan, in the far north of Sweden, a new winter low of -40.8C (-41.4F) was recorded overnight, Radio Sweden reports.
The Arctic freeze has also seen temperatures in central Sweden plummet to between -30 and -40C - the coldest weather since the mid-1980s.

[can't sit still]

Sputnik, I have to wonder what that guy's agenda is. First off, he's an asshole. There is no discussion about planetary alignment. That happened several years ago. The "worried" people referred to it as "the Jupiter effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Effect
Why would this idiot talk about a planetary alignment when planetary alignment was never part of the discussion.
Then, the idiot goes on about the earth passing through the galactic center. The galactic center is 26,000 light years from Sol. There was never any claim or discussion about the galactic center but, that;s what he talks about.
Then, the guy talks about a pole shift and says that he doesn't know what it means. What an idiot. He mentions a physical shift of the mass of the earth. Nobody ever implied or talked about a physical shift. A magnetic shift has happened hundreds of times. Why would he go on about a physical shift? Conservation of axial momentum would never allow it.

The discussion is about passing through the galactic plane,,, NOT the center. Here's a list of terms;
http://alignment2012.com/whatisga.htm
Our galaxy is fairly flat and has a fairly defined gravitic plane. As Sol goes from just below the plane to just above the plane every 26,000 years, it passes through the exact [though amorphous] center of that plane.
Standard astrophysics is terribly flawed on it's reliance on gravity as the strongest force in the universe. A strictly gravitic model of the universe would not predict a big interaction from our upcoming passage through the plane.
The latest discoveries are proving that the universe is electric. It remains to be seen if the electric effects of our passage will be far stronger than the predicted gravitic effects.

The guy is an idiot for addressing questions that were never asked. He's also an idiot for assuming that cosmologists have all the answers. The "electric universe" model is proving to be far more accurate than the gravitic model.
Space weather is controlled by plasma. More proof comes in every day that our weather is controlled by plasma. I'm going with the much more provable and reliable model of electric space.

[can't sit still]

Sputnik, once again, you are missing the whole story. Oil is abiotic. It never came from plant life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

[littleflower]

Some climate change is certainly induced by volcanoes. There is evidence for short-term cooling effects in the 20th century from SO2 released by volcanoes (Pinatubo being a prime example), and evidence for longer term effects from much larger eruptions in the past (the Deccan Traps being a good example). Since 1800, however, volcanoes have only provided fairly minor blips in the temperature record.

thanks, doc .... interesting....

but on volcanoes ........... .i often read that the eruption of krakatoa in 1883 caused climate change that lasted well into the 20th c. ... ?

[sputnik]

Here are a couple of pointers regarding the myth of 'galactic alignment'

http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-s ... alignment/

http://thealienproject.blogspot.com/200 ... -myth.html

See ya in 2013...

[sputnik]

Sputnik, once again, you are missing the whole story. Oil is abiotic. It never came from plant life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Seems to me you're not reading the article, and don't understand geology. This theory has been discounted for anything but minor occurrences of oil.

The geological argument against
Oil deposits are not directly associated with tectonic structures.

Key arguments against chemical reactions, such as the serpentinite mechanism, as being the major source of hydrocarbon deposits within the crust are;

* The lack of available pore space within rocks as depth increases
o This is contradicted by numerous studies which have documented the existence of hydrologic systems operating over a range of scales and at all depths in the continental crust.[50]
* The presence of no commercial hydrocarbon deposits within the crystalline shield areas of the major cratons especially around key deep seated structures which are predicted to host oil by the abiogenic hypothesis [33]
* Limited evidence that major serpentinite belts underlie continental sedimentary basins which host oil
* Lack of conclusive proof that carbon isotope fractionation observed in crustal methane sources is entirely of abiogenic origin (Lollar et al. 2006)[3]
* Mass balance problems of supplying enough carbon dioxide to serpentinite within the metamorphic event before the peridotite is fully reacted to serpentinite
* Drilling of the Siljan Ring failed to find commercial quantities of gas[33], thus providing a counter example to Kudryavtsev's Rule and failing to locate the predicted abiogenic gas
o Helium in the Siljan Gravberg-1 well was depleted in 3He and not consistent with a mantle origin[51]

* The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins
* Kudryavtsev's Rule has been explained for oil and gas (not coal): Gas deposits which are below oil deposits can be created from that oil or its source rocks. Because natural gas is less dense than oil, as kerogen and hydrocarbons are generating gas the gas fills the top of the available space. Oil is forced down, and can reach the spill point where oil leaks around the edge(s) of the formation and flows upward. If the original formation becomes completely filled with gas then all the oil will have leaked above the original location.[52]
* Ubiquitous presence of diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons such as oil, gas and condensates are composed of carbon from biological sources, unlike the carbon found in normal diamonds.[53]

[Ugly Dougly]

An educated guess, at best.

Second Old Woman: How should I know which Zoo? I'm not Dr. Bloody Bronowski!!

First Old Woman: How does Dr. Bronowski know which zoo it came from?

Second Old Woman: He knows everything!

First Old Woman: Oh, I wouldn't like that, it would take the mystery out of life. Anyway if it was from the zoo it would have 'Property of the Zoo' stamped on it!

[theCryptofishist]

most CO2 is produced by volcanoes, i believe ....

It's possible that you have been told a falsehood, little flower.

The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

i've read the opposite many times, dougly. perhaps i should have said "natural sources" rather than volcanoes, but still ... it creeps me out, how many different stories there are out there about everything.

my question still stands, though. if CO2 is increasing like crazy, is it possible that this increase is somehow linked to the increased earthquake / volcano activity? i am not asking as a skeptic.... i'm just curious.

We know that (for instance) the internal combustion engine creates CO2--we can measure the output directly. While there may be other sources, there's no big mystery as to where a big chunk of the CO2 comes from.

[Dad]

Right. All the carbon that we're dumping into the atmosphere has been sequestered as oil and coal and other hydrocarbons for hundreds of millions of years. Plants pulled this carbon from the atmosphere and then died and turned into these 'fuels'. Same goes with the undersea methane, and the release of this gas in large quantities is suspected as a major contributor to the mass extinction at the end of the Permian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2 ... tion_event

Thanks for the link. Great Reading.

[theCryptofishist]

Some climate change is certainly induced by volcanoes. There is evidence for short-term cooling effects in the 20th century from SO2 released by volcanoes (Pinatubo being a prime example), and evidence for longer term effects from much larger eruptions in the past (the Deccan Traps being a good example). Since 1800, however, volcanoes have only provided fairly minor blips in the temperature record.

thanks, doc .... interesting....

but on volcanoes ........... .i often read that the eruption of krakatoa in 1883 caused climate change that lasted well into the 20th c. ... ?

As far as I can tell, that was reletively mild. Sunsets lasted a few years. I mean the really gorgeous kind, as a result of the dust in the air. And, no, no single sunset lasted any longer than normal, rather, for a few years there were gorgeous sunsets.
I don't know what volcano erupted in the early 1800s to create the famous "Year Without a Summer," but it was a bigger eruption. The reason that the Krakatau eruption was so famous, is that the telegraph had been invented and news like that could be sent around the world very quickly. And note that it's "the year without a summer" not "the three years without summers."

[unjonharley]

Seems I have read and watched (PBS) of an eruption in the resent 2k.. This one knocked out the sun for about three years in the northerner hemisphere.. Supposing to starve 2/3 of the population to death.

???

So with all that crap in the air.. The earth got real cold.. But "now" with all the crap in the air the earth is ? heating ? WTF

[theCryptofishist]

Different crap--different effects. The dust knocked out sunshine, causing crop loss and famine. However much CO2 was ejected as well, and might have increased global temp for a few years after the sun came back, or might not, I'm not real certain. Just like a duststorm on playa is different from night on playa. I got my trip to Reno after being in a campershell on a truck during a dust storm. It was still getting enough sun to be hot and I didn't have enough water.

[Ugly Dougly]

USGS reports an earthquake near Fremont, CA measuring 4.1.

We're doomed.

[theCryptofishist]

Oh, just a tiny thing. Didn't feel it at all here (dt sf) although a collegue in Daly City did.

[littleflower]

Some climate change is certainly induced by volcanoes. There is evidence for short-term cooling effects in the 20th century from SO2 released by volcanoes (Pinatubo being a prime example), and evidence for longer term effects from much larger eruptions in the past (the Deccan Traps being a good example). Since 1800, however, volcanoes have only provided fairly minor blips in the temperature record.

thanks, doc .... interesting....

but on volcanoes ........... .i often read that the eruption of krakatoa in 1883 caused climate change that lasted well into the 20th c. ... ?

As far as I can tell, that was reletively mild. Sunsets lasted a few years. I mean the really gorgeous kind, as a result of the dust in the air. And, no, no single sunset lasted any longer than normal, rather, for a few years there were gorgeous sunsets.
I don't know what volcano erupted in the early 1800s to create the famous "Year Without a Summer," but it was a bigger eruption. The reason that the Krakatau eruption was so famous, is that the telegraph had been invented and news like that could be sent around the world very quickly. And note that it's "the year without a summer" not "the three years without summers."

i don't know, an island that disappeared and a year without summer seems pretty powerful to me ....

and fishy, i have less doubt about the damage humans do to the earth than what to do about it. i see too many idealistic types, crackpots, third-world dictators, and televangelists like algore preaching to a choir ... ie, there is nobody credible enough to silence the skeptics. i suspect that something crazy will happen eventually, millions will be killed, and the balance restored, somehow .... or, perhaps, that technology will save us, if the money is there.

but it's ultimately a little too hard to control what people do, especially when the people who will do the controlling are likely to be hopelessly corrupt and hypocritical themselves.

sorry to be so cynical, but i just do not understand a lot of the shit people do.

[dr.placebo]

Getting excited about a 4.1 quake (apparently on the Calaveras fault) is so un-Californian. The proper attitude is to sit through it and then comment on the magnitude and location, politely arguing about the last digit of the magnitude. See LA Story.

The volcano that caused the Year Without a Summer was Mount Tambora, in Indonesia. This eruption was 4x larger than Krakatau. The cooling was quite severe, and it was a double effect, coming in the middle of the Dalton minimum, where solar activity was less than normal, and also following some other significant eruptions in the previous few years.

However, the cooling was relatively short in duration, with the volcanic contribution being substantially reduced after that one summer and the following winter.

[Dad]

So here is the latest volcano info. Seems earthquake swarms may be moving into the Long Valley Area. Will keep an eye on that one. They still have the kill zones of trees there and I believe 3 people died from the Sulfur Dioxide on the Mountain last year.

http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/

[dr.placebo]

sorry to be so cynical, but i just do not understand a lot of the shit people do.

Hard to argue that one at all.

As for Long Valley (Mammoth area), the USGS started a monitoring activity there in 1982. See http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/VOLCANOES/LongValley/.

I've not cross-checked it, but this article on climate and volcanoes looks interesting.

[Ugly Dougly]

Li'l flower, I am not sure where you get the idea that earthquakes could be linked to climate change. Maybe there is a connection that I am not aware of?

Yes, I think that science has a good handle on the problem and that tehnology has the answer, but that the great mass of people on this here green earth are not accustomed to digesting complex phenomena like the weather - few understand how climatologists predict tomorrow's weather, for instance.

And people are always resistant to change, and suspicious even when it's in their best interest.

[unjonharley]

the great mass of people on this here green earth are not accustomed to digesting complex phenomena like the weather - few understand how climatologists predict tomorrow's weather, for instance.

Climatologist are still in the cave.. Spin the wheel, throw a dart and play the averages.. This includes NORAD. They are a bunch of fucking clowns.. Or the weather girl.. Plants her fat ass in the middle of the blue screen.. This is the winds aloft chart for today. Ya your ass covers the picture..

My gradmother could predict (a good 90%) whats ahead in weather.

Not a cloud in the sky. Sniff the wind. It will be raining in two hours.. Look at the sky.. Jon, run down the road to the Fylinn farm. Tell them a twister is coming there way in half an hour..