Increased core activity causing ocean warming, increase in snow fall etc.

[plindboe]

MariaRegina made a ton of claims in this thread, and when asked for evidence she insisted that I would start a new thread where she would present her evidence. Here are the claims again:

From what I have studied, it is the core of the earth that is heating up, producing increasing volcanic activity, with increased clouds, which cools the earth. So we have the melting of glaciers because the ocean is warmer with all the volcanic activity, but we also have more snow storms because of the increased cloud cover.

Global "warming" is not caused by humans, but by an increasingly hot core.

Next, why is the Gulf of Mexico seemingly rupturing? Could this be related to this increased core activity and vulcanism? Is oil being produced by the earth's core? Is this heating up our planet? The old dinosaur myth does not seem realistic at all. We would have to have had a lot of dinosaurs to make all this oil. Doesn't it make sense that the earth itself is generating oil, methane, lava, and heat in the process as a byproduct?

&

the number of earthquakes seems to be increasing too.

I count more than 10 claims that I'm curious about, so I'm looking forward to the evidence.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

I count more than 10 claims that I'm curious about, so I'm looking forward to the evidence.

Isa 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

If Hell is in the core of the earth, and Hell enlarges as its mass increases, then this would serve to keep the temperature the same (Boyle's Law), but the temperature outside of Hell would increase, causing the phenomena listed in Maria's post.

Just my theory.

 

[MariaRegina]

I will restrict my contributions to plate tectonics, production of oil, oil spillages, and potential rupture of the sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico.
Global warming can continue in the other thread.

I will present some research that I have found, but I would also like to see any research that our readers can find. I would hope that the research is not all one sided, but balanced, and that this thread can be civil.

As you are aware, it takes time to get an article published especially the scholarly peer reviewed articles. Time frame from researching, compiling and analyzing the data, writing, peer review, and then publishing it might take a minimum of two years but generally scientific research takes about five years, and that does not include the time it takes to present a research thesis, clear IRBs, and obtain grants.

I did obtain an IRB approval from the university I attended for a research project, so I know all about this process.

Since most of the articles are out-of-date by the time they are published, the news media often leaks the most current information.

However, as you suggested with the Santa Barbara oil leak, the information that off shore drilling is not leak-proof shows that it is not safe for the environment.

With many off shore drilling sites found in the Gulf of Mexico, a rupture is a likely scenario. We just do not know without more research, and that takes time. However, the news media is reporting that the BP oil spill might not stop for several years, and that the pool of oil is enormous.

Here are a couple of articles found through a Google Scholar search (that anyone here can do). Since I am not at the university, and cannot get there for about a week, I cannot access the library search engines I generally use.

Therefore, I would appreciate any information that others can provide as the research out there is very old now. I doubt that any scientific research on BP has been professionally published and peer reviewed in this short period of time.

Off-shore hydrocarbon leakages:

This article still believes in the myth that dead dinosaur and fossil beds are the major contributors to oil. Even as a child, I found that theory hard to stomach.
Off-shore hydrocarbon leakage: hazard and monitoring


Oil spills and the environmental effects:

Risk Analysis for Oil Spillage in Marine Environment

 [URL="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1679-87592008000400004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en"]The interaction of the [B]oil [/B]and gas offshore industry with fisheries in Brazil: the" Stena Tay" experience[/URL]
 
 [/B][B][URL="http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-08292007-154008/"]Juvenile Crawfish (Procambarus clarkii) LC50 Mortality from South Louisiana Crude, Peanut and Mineral [B]Oil[/B][/URL]
 
 
 [/B][FONT=verdana][SIZE=2][B]The interaction of the oil and gas offshore    industry with fisheries in Brazil: The "Stena Tay" experience[/B][/SIZE][/FONT]
 [B][URL="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1679-87592008000400004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en"]http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...rttext&tlng=en[/URL][/B]

 

[plindboe]

Just my theory.

Thank you, AV.

This thread was started for MariaRegina though, so let's discuss her evidence before we go into the usual AV vs. Nathan Poe/Split Rock banter thing.

Peter

 

[MariaRegina]

I would hope that this thread is not a call out thread, Peter, but an opportunity to share scientific evidence.

Please present your evidence too. Otherwise, I am backing out of this one.

I am particularly interested in the Santa Barbara oil spill and rupture.

As my university recently changed my email account, I am unable to obtain some past articles I had stored there.
Since I have graduated, I can only access the library search engines in person, not through their online system,
which is reserved for professors and current students.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you, AV.

This thread was started for MariaRegina though, so let's discuss her evidence before we go into the usual AV vs. Nathan Poe/Split Rock banter thing.

Peter

-- sorry, I wanted to beat the crowd.

 

[plindboe]

I would hope that this thread is not a call out thread, Peter, but an opportunity to share scientific evidence.

Please present your evidence too. Otherwise, I am backing out of this one.

I'm all for sharing evidence. But the burden of proof is on the claimant and I haven't made any claims yet. If you make some claims and then ask me to come up with contrary evidence, you've shifted the burden of proof, and I hope you can see the folly of that. If/when I make some claims I'll be happy to support them. But since you're the one who've made a number of claims the ball is currently in your court.

You entered the aforementioned thread with alot of claims, and it's only fair that you try to back them up. When we asked you for evidence, you insisted that I would start a new thread, so this so-called "call out" thread is of your own request.

Can you please point out exactly where the studies you've provided in post #3 support any of your claims?

Where is the evidence that the core has been heating up and increasing in activity?
What evidence is there for an increase in volcanic eruptions and earthquakes?
What is the evidence that this increased activity has resulted in increasing ocean temperatures and cloud cover?
What is the evidence that non-biological processes are responsible for most/all of the crude oil?
Do you really believe that the existence of dinosaurs is a myth or did I misunderstand you? If yes, what is your evidence?

Peter

 

[plindboe]

-- sorry, I wanted to beat the crowd.

Hehe, np.

Peter

 

[Gracchus]

-- sorry, I wanted to beat the crowd.

Before you started on the dead horse?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Off-shore hydrocarbon leakages:

This article still believes in the myth that dead dinosaur and fossil beds are the major contributors to oil. Even as a child, I found that theory hard to stomach.

Then you'll be glad to know that most organic petrologists know (and have known for a loooong time) that "dead dinosaurs" don't make up much of the oil at all.

Almost all oil is likely sourced from algal and bacterial sources. The algae and bacterial colonies were waterborne, died and accumulated in anoxic (low energy) areas where they could be "processed" to make oil through a series of anaerobic bacterial effects followed by various geologic processes (burial and increasing temperature and pressure).

The reason we know what went into oil is, in part, due to the presence of biomarkers that indicate the algal/bacterial source of most oil.

There are broken fragments of chlorophyll that show up commonly in these materials, from the porphyrin rings to the pristane/phytane chains.

The overall biological source of oil is hardly controversial (except for a few outliers in the science) and the dominance of certain chain characteristics of aliphatics indicates a fatty-acid source after decarboxylation, and the above-mentioned biomarkers also show biological sourcing.

Abiogenic oil is not completely beyond the pail as an hypothesis but much less likely as a source for the vast amount of larger molecular structures we find in oil, kerogen and bitumen.

The source and transport of oil within the geologic setting is pretty well established and has served a giant industry well for nearly a century. The alternative hypotheses have little in the way of evidence to support the concept that the majority of oil we utilize is anything significantly different from this. Although, no doubt, some few isolated incidences could probably be found of "strange" material and are not ipso facto "impossible".

 

[Spirit Compass]

I will restrict my contributions to plate tectonics, production of oil, oil spillages, and potential rupture of the sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico.
Global warming can continue in the other thread.
Risk Analysis for Oil Spillage in Marine Environment

This is the first sentence from you source, partially quoted, "Recent major oil spillage intentionally made in Gulf war as well as past accidental releases prove that the oil spillage can cause severe adverse effects on water, air and social environment by damaging fishes, plankton and other organisms, sea birds, tourist beaches and shorelines etc.

How can a risk analysis claim that the major oil catastrophe was intentionally made by reason of war be included in a scientific or professional risk analysis dissertation?​

 

[Gracchus]

This is the first sentence from you source, partially quoted, "Recent major oil spillage intentionally made in Gulf war as well as past accidental releases prove that the oil spillage can cause severe adverse effects on water, air and social environment by damaging fishes, plankton and other organisms, sea birds, tourist beaches and shorelines etc.​

How can a risk analysis claim that the major oil catastrophe was intentionally made by reason of war be included in a scientific or professional risk analysis dissertation?​

Well, war is always a very real risk.

But the point of the sentence is that spillage, whether caused intentionally or not, damages the environment.