Santorini, GreeceLocation: 36.4N, 25.4EElevation: 1,850 feet (564 m) The eruption of Santorini in Greece in 1,650 B.C. was one of the largest (VEI=6) in the last 10,000 years. About 7 cubic miles (30 cubic km) of rhyodacite magma was erupted. The plinian column during the initial phase of the eruption was about 23 miles (36 km) high. The removal of such a large volume of magma caused the volcano to collapse, producing a c aldera. Ash fell over a large area in the eastern Mediterranean and Turkey. The eruption probably caused the end of the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete.
Santorini is complex of overlapping shield volcanoes. Basalt and andesite lava flows that make the shield are exposed in the cliff below the town of Phira. Some of t he cliff is thought to be a caldera wall associated with an eruption 21,000 year ago. Druitt and Francaviglia (1992) found evidence of at least 12 large explosive eruptions in the last 200,000 years at Santorin i. The white layer at the top is the Minoan tephra from the 1,650 B.C. eruption. Photography copyrighted by Robert Decker.
Exposure of about 150 feet (50 m) of Minoan tephra. The tephra consists of pumice, pyroclastic surge, and pyroclastic flow deposits. Photography copyrighted by Ro bert Decker.
Akroteri, a Minoan city on the south part of Thera, is being excavated. About 3-6 feet (1-2 m) of ash fell on the city which had a population of about 30,000. The residents appear to have been successfully evacuated prior to the eruption. No bodies hav e been found in the ash like those at Vesuvius. Archeologists also reported that movable objects had been taken from the city. Photography copyrighted by Robert Decker.
The Kameni Islands formed after the caldera. Eleven eruptions since 197 B.C. have made the two islands. The most recent eruption at Santorini was in 1950 on Nea Kameni, the northern island. The eruption was phreatic and lasted less than a month. It co nstructed a dome and produced lava flows. Photography copyrighted by Robert Decker.
For a description of the tectonics of the Hellenic arc and the Aegean Sea visit the volcanic island of Nisyros.
Click here, if you are wondering if the eruption of Santorini was related to the lost city of Atlantis.
Click here, for a Space Shuttle photo of Thera. For more information and pictures of Santorini, Check out Greeka.com!For even more information and pictures of Santorini, Check out Visit-Santorini.com!
Sources of Information:
Decker, R., and Decker, B., 1989, Volcanoes: W.H. Freeman, New York, 285 p.
Doumas, C.G., 1983, Thera: Pompeii of the ancient Aegean: London, Thames&Hudson, 168 p.
Druitt, T.H., and Francaviglia, V., 1992, Caldera formation on Santorini and the physiography of the islands in the late Bronze Age: Bulletin of Volcanology, v.54, p. 484-493.
Druitt, T.H., Mellors, R.A., Plye, D.M., and Sparks, R.S.J., 1989, Explosive volcanism on Santorini, Greece: Geology Magazine, v. 126, p. 95-126.
Georgalas, G.C., 1962, Greece. Catalogue of the Active Volcanoes of the World including solfatara fields. 12, 40 p.
Sigurdsson, H., Carey, S., and Devine, J.D., 1990, Assessment of mass, dynamics, and environmental effects of the Minoan eruption of Santorini Volcano, in Hardy, D., (ed.), Thera and the Aegean world III, v. 2, London, Thera Foundation, p. 89-99.
Simkin, T., and Siebert, L., 1994, Volcanoes of the World: Geoscience Press, Tucson, Arizona, 349 p.
Sullivan, D.G., 1988, The discovery of Santorini Minoan tephra in western Turkey: Nature, v. 333, p. 552-554.
Images of Volcanoes To VolcanoWorld
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Kuh-e-Bazman, Volcano in Iran
Bazman, IranLocation: Latitude: 28N, 60EElevation: 11,447 feet (3,490 m)
This photo from the Space Shuttle looks almost directly down on Bazman, a stratovolcano in southeast Iran. The more resistant rocks near the center of the photo are lava flows and plugs. They are surrounded by tuff. There have been no historic eruptions at Bazman but there are fumaroles.
Sources of Information:Simkin, T., and Siebert, L., 1994, Volcanoes of the World: Geoscience Press, Tucson, Arizona, 349 p.
Gansser, A., 1966, Part XVII, Iran: Catalogue of the active volcanoes of the world including solfatara fields, International Association of Volcanology, Rome, Italy, 19 p.
This photo from the Space Shuttle looks almost directly down on Bazman, a stratovolcano in southeast Iran. The more resistant rocks near the center of the photo are lava flows and plugs. They are surrounded by tuff. There have been no historic eruptions at Bazman but there are fumaroles.
Sources of Information:Simkin, T., and Siebert, L., 1994, Volcanoes of the World: Geoscience Press, Tucson, Arizona, 349 p.
Gansser, A., 1966, Part XVII, Iran: Catalogue of the active volcanoes of the world including solfatara fields, International Association of Volcanology, Rome, Italy, 19 p.
Volcanic Eruptions Emitting Huge Amounts of CO2
I must save this for future reference. Who else knows something about this kind of volcanic activity?
Peter
See here: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/africa/nyos.html
and here: http://volcano.und.edu/
and here: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/volc_images.html
Peter
See here: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/africa/nyos.html
and here: http://volcano.und.edu/
and here: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/volc_images.html
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Here is more information about the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its relationship to global warming and climate change. The information comes from a group of scientists with knowledge of and a concern about the Earth and its climate. Please read this and make up your own minds. Carbon dioxide is not the problem. Bear in mind, 17,000 scientists signed a petition agreeing with these statements. Is it any wonder the US declined to sign the KYOTO treaty? And now we're being told "the debate is over"?
Peter
From the website here:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Summary
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence (and) actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.
(There if far more information on their excellent website.)
Peter
From the website here:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Summary
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence (and) actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.
(There if far more information on their excellent website.)
Friday, May 25, 2007
Gut Check America? Are They Kidding? This is Good.
This is good, really good. Let us have an open discussion of what "really matters in America". Is it "global warming"? What bothers me most, is our soldiers in Iraq. I respect and care for them. I cannot imagine being a "conscientiousness objector" on this issue when our enemy swears to kill us all. Everything else is mere rhetoric, to be polite.
Peter
Gut Check America: Share your stories
Your turn to start the conversation about what really matters in America
See what other readers consider the most important issues facing America today and register your opinion on the ‘Gut Check’ message board
MSNBC
Are you worried or outraged by something in your neighborhood, in our government or across the nation? What gnaws at you but seems to go unmentioned in the national political campaigns?
This is your chance to drive the conversation about what really matters in America.
Here’s how it works: You tell us about the specific issues that are most important to you and explain how they affect your daily life. We also want to hear how you would solve the problem.
Then, during the first week of each month leading to the 2008 presidential election, come to MSNBC.com to vote on the issues that our readers raise. Your vote will help determine our reporters’ assignment for the month and the focus of our online “Gut Check” forum.
To participate, fill out the form below and provide your contact information so our reporters can get in touch with you if your submission is chosen. We will not publish or share the information you provide.
By doing so, you will be engaging in discussion about the true character of our nation -- the kind of conversation on which democracy thrives.
Peter
Gut Check America: Share your stories
Your turn to start the conversation about what really matters in America
See what other readers consider the most important issues facing America today and register your opinion on the ‘Gut Check’ message board
MSNBC
Are you worried or outraged by something in your neighborhood, in our government or across the nation? What gnaws at you but seems to go unmentioned in the national political campaigns?
This is your chance to drive the conversation about what really matters in America.
Here’s how it works: You tell us about the specific issues that are most important to you and explain how they affect your daily life. We also want to hear how you would solve the problem.
Then, during the first week of each month leading to the 2008 presidential election, come to MSNBC.com to vote on the issues that our readers raise. Your vote will help determine our reporters’ assignment for the month and the focus of our online “Gut Check” forum.
To participate, fill out the form below and provide your contact information so our reporters can get in touch with you if your submission is chosen. We will not publish or share the information you provide.
By doing so, you will be engaging in discussion about the true character of our nation -- the kind of conversation on which democracy thrives.
New Website: http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/home/
This is from a website devoted to bringing out the truth about global warming, social consciousness, and the main-stream media. Here is their homepage: http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/home/
There is a lot of excellent information on the website. I recommend it.
Peter
AN OPEN LETTER...from the site editor.
I thought long and hard before embarking upon assembling the material on this site - given the sheer vitriol of those engaged in activist environmentalism and the movement's assault on free speech these days.
But I am a writer and journalist who takes a strong interest in truth and truth and a level 'playing field' in the public square of free speech and genuine debate too. That is why I find the mainstream media's attempt to close down the global warming debate so concerns me. When it comes to the climate change (i.e. an oxymoron, climate is always changing) debate I am no expert - but then that really is the point. There are NO 'experts' when it comes to the complex and relatively new science of climatology.
It is only when you read more of the various scientific opinions and study the evidence for yourself that it emerges the science "consensus" is actually a myth, as these pages reveal. And, in any event, quotes on this site show, "consensus" is the last thing science ought to be about on its road to discovery.
What we know for certain is that the earth, on average, has undergone a one-degree warming (most of it before 1940) over recent decades. All else, is pure speculation and theory, much of it based upon extremely fallible computer modelling rather than actual evidence. It should not fill anyone with confidence. Enter the science research labs who perceive a way to receive new mega-grants to enable them to 'save the earth' , and a colluding mainstream media (MSM) with a penchant for scaremongering and the "faith in theories" brigade who see environmentalism as fulfilling their moral purpose in life.
In the UK we have recently Green Madness spreading like a fog. Sky TV News recently had a meaningless counter logging up allegedly harmful carbon emissions at the foot of screen during its Green Britain Week. Apocalyptic visions now regularly form the opening segment of ITN News broadcasts (ITN is desperate for viewers). And the BBC, being so left winged it often 'flies' in circles has long pushed the apocalyptic agenda as the latest in its stream of coming catastrophes (none of which come to anything of course). I don't doubt the the American media and those in Europe do much the same thing.
And lately, most are pointing to the UN's - a political organization, not a scientific one remember - to underpin their latest bout of alarmism.
Here's' an axiom: If the UN says it, its likely to be wrong. In February 2007 the latest UN report on Climate Change reported that over 2,000 scientists agree that they are "90% certain man is to blame for global warming". As far as the MSM is concerned it seems, that is 'debate over'. Personally, given the UN's abysmal track record in world affairs, I would struggle to believe the UN if it was a 100% certain on just about any issue. But hey, don't mind me, I just lack confidence in any failing and corrupt organizations. 2,000 scientists sounds a lot, doesn't it? Until you realize that after a previous UN report made similar climate claims over 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Paper opposing the UN's view and declaring that man-made global warming had "no scientific basis whatever" (and here is the actual paper). The real science debate is far from over, as the evidence on this site shows plainly.
And remember also that an earlier UN report in 1996 was wholly discredited when UN administrators tampered with the concluding affirmations of the report AFTER the scientists had gone home, implying man's responsibility in the global warming debate was more certain than it was. Ask yourself: why would they choose to do that? Unless the science wasn't quite saying what they wanted it to say.
The main issue, however, is that science-fact mixed with far too much science-faith (speculation) may, for some, equal finding a "consensus" view, but, for others, it simply equals science-fiction.
But for those whose minds have not yet been melted by the single-degree of global warming the real facts and evidence reveal that we may well be tilting at windmills (i.e. wasting vastly important resources) fighting a phenomenon that is an mostly natural and cyclical - and entirely unstoppable. Do you really want to stump up your money to pour it into a Black Hole of Green Taxes governments based upon computer-generated apocalyptic visions?
No? Then you owe it to yourself to do some reading - and the material here is designed to help. After all, what use is a 'consensus' if Truth is its major casualty?
Peter C Glover
British writer & journalist and site editor - personal site at www.petercglover.com
There is a lot of excellent information on the website. I recommend it.
Peter
AN OPEN LETTER...from the site editor.
I thought long and hard before embarking upon assembling the material on this site - given the sheer vitriol of those engaged in activist environmentalism and the movement's assault on free speech these days.
But I am a writer and journalist who takes a strong interest in truth and truth and a level 'playing field' in the public square of free speech and genuine debate too. That is why I find the mainstream media's attempt to close down the global warming debate so concerns me. When it comes to the climate change (i.e. an oxymoron, climate is always changing) debate I am no expert - but then that really is the point. There are NO 'experts' when it comes to the complex and relatively new science of climatology.
It is only when you read more of the various scientific opinions and study the evidence for yourself that it emerges the science "consensus" is actually a myth, as these pages reveal. And, in any event, quotes on this site show, "consensus" is the last thing science ought to be about on its road to discovery.
What we know for certain is that the earth, on average, has undergone a one-degree warming (most of it before 1940) over recent decades. All else, is pure speculation and theory, much of it based upon extremely fallible computer modelling rather than actual evidence. It should not fill anyone with confidence. Enter the science research labs who perceive a way to receive new mega-grants to enable them to 'save the earth' , and a colluding mainstream media (MSM) with a penchant for scaremongering and the "faith in theories" brigade who see environmentalism as fulfilling their moral purpose in life.
In the UK we have recently Green Madness spreading like a fog. Sky TV News recently had a meaningless counter logging up allegedly harmful carbon emissions at the foot of screen during its Green Britain Week. Apocalyptic visions now regularly form the opening segment of ITN News broadcasts (ITN is desperate for viewers). And the BBC, being so left winged it often 'flies' in circles has long pushed the apocalyptic agenda as the latest in its stream of coming catastrophes (none of which come to anything of course). I don't doubt the the American media and those in Europe do much the same thing.
And lately, most are pointing to the UN's - a political organization, not a scientific one remember - to underpin their latest bout of alarmism.
Here's' an axiom: If the UN says it, its likely to be wrong. In February 2007 the latest UN report on Climate Change reported that over 2,000 scientists agree that they are "90% certain man is to blame for global warming". As far as the MSM is concerned it seems, that is 'debate over'. Personally, given the UN's abysmal track record in world affairs, I would struggle to believe the UN if it was a 100% certain on just about any issue. But hey, don't mind me, I just lack confidence in any failing and corrupt organizations. 2,000 scientists sounds a lot, doesn't it? Until you realize that after a previous UN report made similar climate claims over 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Paper opposing the UN's view and declaring that man-made global warming had "no scientific basis whatever" (and here is the actual paper). The real science debate is far from over, as the evidence on this site shows plainly.
And remember also that an earlier UN report in 1996 was wholly discredited when UN administrators tampered with the concluding affirmations of the report AFTER the scientists had gone home, implying man's responsibility in the global warming debate was more certain than it was. Ask yourself: why would they choose to do that? Unless the science wasn't quite saying what they wanted it to say.
The main issue, however, is that science-fact mixed with far too much science-faith (speculation) may, for some, equal finding a "consensus" view, but, for others, it simply equals science-fiction.
But for those whose minds have not yet been melted by the single-degree of global warming the real facts and evidence reveal that we may well be tilting at windmills (i.e. wasting vastly important resources) fighting a phenomenon that is an mostly natural and cyclical - and entirely unstoppable. Do you really want to stump up your money to pour it into a Black Hole of Green Taxes governments based upon computer-generated apocalyptic visions?
No? Then you owe it to yourself to do some reading - and the material here is designed to help. After all, what use is a 'consensus' if Truth is its major casualty?
Peter C Glover
British writer & journalist and site editor - personal site at www.petercglover.com
Rachel Carson Quotations On The Environment
Read these quotes by Rachel Carson about her perception and motherly feel for the Earth and it's environment. Note how she is long on emotionally evocative poetic prose, and short on facts. It is easy to make a connection from this to the modern environmentalist movement, and now what we call "being green".
We conveniently ignore the facts and reality of the world and we go with our "feelings". People "feel" the climate is warming. They "feel" sure it is causing the worst extremes of weather, and they "feel" certain "The End" is near unless we take drastic action soon. Listen to the words and phrases used by environmentalists. They all express a longing to protect, and be protected by a caring, loving Mother Earth. It is as if they all want to return to the safety of the womb rather than face the sometimes harsh realities of the real world.
Feelings don't make good laws; facts, good science, and cool-headed thinking do.
Peter
Rachel Carson Quotes
From Jone Johnson Lewis,Your Guide to Women's History.FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Rachel Carson (1907-1964)
Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring documenting the impacts of pesticides on ecology. Because of this book, Rachel Carson is often credited with reviving the environmentalist movement.
Selected Rachel Carson Quotations
• If I had influence with the good fairy who is supposed to preside over the christening of all children, I should ask that her gift to each child in the world be a sense of wonder so indestructible that it would last throughout life.
• For all at last returns to the sea -- to Oceanus, the ocean river, like the everflowing stream of time, the beginning and the end.
• Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life.
• If facts are the seeds that later produce knowledge and wisdom, then the emotions and the impressions of the senses are the fertile soil in which the seeds must grow.
• If a child is to keep alive his inborn sense of wonder, he needs the companionship of at least one adult who can share it, rediscovering with him the joy, excitement and mystery of the world we live in.
• It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know of wonder and humility.
• Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species -- man -- acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world.
• Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.
We conveniently ignore the facts and reality of the world and we go with our "feelings". People "feel" the climate is warming. They "feel" sure it is causing the worst extremes of weather, and they "feel" certain "The End" is near unless we take drastic action soon. Listen to the words and phrases used by environmentalists. They all express a longing to protect, and be protected by a caring, loving Mother Earth. It is as if they all want to return to the safety of the womb rather than face the sometimes harsh realities of the real world.
Feelings don't make good laws; facts, good science, and cool-headed thinking do.
Peter
Rachel Carson Quotes
From Jone Johnson Lewis,Your Guide to Women's History.FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Rachel Carson (1907-1964)
Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring documenting the impacts of pesticides on ecology. Because of this book, Rachel Carson is often credited with reviving the environmentalist movement.
Selected Rachel Carson Quotations
• If I had influence with the good fairy who is supposed to preside over the christening of all children, I should ask that her gift to each child in the world be a sense of wonder so indestructible that it would last throughout life.
• For all at last returns to the sea -- to Oceanus, the ocean river, like the everflowing stream of time, the beginning and the end.
• Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life.
• If facts are the seeds that later produce knowledge and wisdom, then the emotions and the impressions of the senses are the fertile soil in which the seeds must grow.
• If a child is to keep alive his inborn sense of wonder, he needs the companionship of at least one adult who can share it, rediscovering with him the joy, excitement and mystery of the world we live in.
• It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know of wonder and humility.
• Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species -- man -- acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world.
• Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)