Antarctic breakup source found

[spuwho]

Per TechTmes;

Much has been reported about global warming and the recent breakup of the Antartica Ice Sheet.

Researchers from Texas have found the leading cause and its not what you think.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Melting of a major glacier system in western Antarctica may be caused by underwater volcanoes, and not by global climate change, according to new research.

Thwaites Glacier, a massive outlet for ice that empties into Pine Island Bay, is flowing at a rate of one-and-a-quarter miles per year. The bay opens up into the Amundsen Sea. 

The Thwaites Glacier has been the subject of scrutiny by climatologists in the last few years, as new information about the severity of the melting becomes available. Traditional models had assumed heating from subterranean sources was fairly even around the region. New data provides details about areas where little was previously known.

University of Texas researchers studied how water moves underground in the region. They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies.

"It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine. And then you plop the most critical, dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible," Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas, said.

Dusty Schroeder, lead author of the article announcing the results, helped lead a team that used aerial surveys to create radar maps capable of penetrating the surface of the ice. They found two bodies of water under the glacier which interacted with each other, distributing heat in the process.

The source of heating is believed to be a tearing apart, or rifting, of the crust under the Antarctic ice sheet. This allows movement of magma and creates volcanic eruptions, melting the ice. Liquid water and geological activity under the sheet allows the massive feature to slip off the continent.

The Thwaites Glacier is roughly the size of Florida, and is about 2.5 miles thick. Most climatologists estimate that if this structure were to melt, global sea levels would rise by between three-and-a-half and seven feet. The feature is considered one of the greatest factors in modeling rising sea levels. If the entire West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, that amount could double.

Many climatologists believe the geological feature is already melting, and this new study shows the effect could be greater than previously estimated.

Understanding how geothermal processes are contributing to melting of the ice sheet in Antarctica could help researchers better understand how to model the region. Warming oceans off the coast of the southern continent could also contribute to loss of the ice sheet.

Study of the role of geothermal sources on melting in western Antarctica was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[spuwho]

"If you want to understand how the glaciers are changing, you can't just look at the ice, you can't just look at the climate system, you can't just look at the geology, you have to look at the whole picture," he said.

Of this remark in the article, I agree.

I just got back from the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska in June and had a chance to speak with the staff on their excellent charting of its retreat.

They made reference to where the glacier extent was when it was discovered in the middle 1700's. It had retreated over 24 miles, created a lake and I was now standing on its moraine left behind in the late 1950's.

How? I asked.

They referred to the fact that in the late 1700's to middle 1800's, the earth exited from what they called the "little ice age".  I hadn't heard of it and he explained it to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

He noted that the causes of that "ice age" wasn't completely clear and it followed a medieval warm age, where there were many glacial retreats and ice break ups previously. He talked about another earth cycle I hadn't heard of before and that was called a the "8.2 cycle" where the earth has fluctuations in cool and warm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

In summary he noted that Mendenhall has been retreating since before the American Revolution, but he also pointed out some behaviors in the past 10 years that couldn't all be defined as cycle related.  The Park Service regularly sends a helo up to the top of the glacier to see if the replacement rate at the top was as great as the loss rate at the bottom. In that I couldn't get a straight answer. More? Less? They wouldn't say.

Reading about weather cycles is interesting until the climotologists gets worked up about something unpredictable that does impact global norms. Volcanos and Sunspots were mentioned.

Back to the authors statement, after listening the the ranger speak on it, I agree, its more complex than we think.

Reading the article on the University of Texas findings was interesting only in that people do tend to forget that Antarctica is a land mass with volcanic activity, whereas the Arctic is not. However, nothing there drew me to conclude that it was the answer for "all" ice melt globally.

[Ocklawaha]

It was actually traced to a leaky can of aerosol deodorant in a run down tenement apartment in East McKeesport, Pennsylvania.

[urbanlibertarian]

It was actually traced to a leaky can of aerosol deodorant in a run down tenement apartment in East McKeesport, Pennsylvania.

Wow. Forensic climatology.

[finehoe]

I agree, its more complex than we think.

But not so complex that there is any doubt about AGW among scientists.

National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.

Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!

One. Yes, one.  Huh. Here's the thing: If you listen to Fox News, or right-wing radio, or read the denier blogs, you'd have to think climate scientists were complete idiots to miss how fake global warming is. Yet despite this incredibly obvious hoax, no one ever publishes evidence exposing it. Mind you, scientists are a contrary lot. If there were solid evidence that global warming didn't exist, or that CO2 emissions weren't the culprit, there would be papers in the journals about it. Lots of them.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

[spuwho]

There is no money in researching lack of climate change. The grant dollars are all loaded in one direction.

That would be like starting research on lack of funds in Wall Street.

[finehoe]

There is no money in researching lack of climate change. The grant dollars are all loaded in one direction.

Yeah, right.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5392/20131220/organizations-bankrolling-climate-change-denial-revealed-new-study.htm

[RMHoward]

If its true, which I doubt, it is  a result of all the hot air escaping from the Riverside/Avondale region of Jacksonville, where the world's problems have been solved.  More specifically, from Starbucks, Brick Oven, etc.

[Ocklawaha]

Hey, I think I have established that I am somewhere to the right of Count (and brilliant general) Vlad Dracula, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that something is going on out there. When I was in the Andes in the 60's-70's and early 80's, one needed a sweater in most of the cities, and a three piece suit (yeah I once wore them and THEY FIT) was quite comfortable. Today, in those same places you'll be far more comfortable in shorts and a tee shirt (though you'll catch some stares for being 'undressed'). The snowpack on various mountain peaks has dwindled, in fact the pack on the 'Sierra Nevada Santa Marta,' even became the subject of the hilarious comedy movie; 'The Chosen One.'

What I don't believe is that this is man made, regardless of the 'evidence,' this has happened in cycles since the dawn of time. Around 1600+/- changes in solar radiation, volcanic activity or ocean currents are generally though to have lowered the temperatures. New York harbor froze so people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. The Greenland colonies were given up and the population of Iceland dropped by half... Obvious to me that this was caused by a can of hair spray. But this is not to say that we couldn't see dramatic life threatening change, but if the past is any teacher, this is likely to be a long process.

[finehoe]

...regardless of the 'evidence,'

The conservative mindset in a nutshell.

[fsquid]

maybe they can take part of the breakup to Detroit to solve that problem?

[spuwho]

maybe they can take part of the breakup to Detroit to solve that problem?

since the Great Lakes aren't enough natural water, obviously.

Ditto.

[fsquid]

maybe they can take part of the breakup to Detroit to solve that problem?

since the Great Lakes aren't enough natural water, obviously.

its always good to establish a reserve.

[taylormiller]

Here's the one thing about this issue I can't understand: Liberals want to frighten people into "accepting" global warming and conservatives are hell bent on being ostriches with their heads in the sand saying there's no such thing. Ultimately, why does it matter? Whether or not you "accept man-made climate change" is inconsequential. So what if you believe in it or not? What matters is that we can all be better stewards of the environment. No one should live in constant fear of the polar icecaps melting or have this pretentious "I told you global warming is real" mentality when devastation like Hurricane Sandy occurs. Conversely, no one should litter and no one should dump dangerous chemicals in waterways. Couldn't someone who discounts global warming be just as or in some cases more environmentally friendly, energy efficient and leave a smaller carbon footprint than someone who swears by global warming? I'm sure you've read or seen the Bush Ranch vs. Gore Mansion story (if not, google that and yes, the Gores made significant changes after this story got released, but it's a simple matter of principle.) Simply "accepting" global warming does not make you environmentally friendly. It's a matter of lifestyle changes.

Instead of trying to force people to accept global warming, why cant more people see that things like sprawl are the real environmental killers in this country? When you expand the grid, you not only kill the ecosystem that was there, but additional natural resources are required to build new roads, power and sewage lines, etc. When it comes to the environment, the debate shouldn't be "do you believe in global warming?" The real question is "can we be better stewards of the planet?" And the answer is yes, but it's not solved with discussions about Hummers vs. Prius, that's small ball. The real solution is in reurbanization.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4034364

[chipwich]

Aside from the nonsense people who are hell-bent on just being morons (coal smoke is quite toxic), it is difficult to take the IPCC too seriously. 

There are simply too many variables that go into climate to accurately derive any semblance of a long range forecast with any accuracy.  The IPCC and global warming scientists are quick to attribute almost all current climate change on the current increase in CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is merely a trace gas comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere.  We are led to believe that the global change in Co2 levels from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, a 25% rise is the cause of all global climate change.  If we thought of CO2 as a tax on the enviroment, that would be the equivalent of telling someone with one hundred dollars that increasing the tax from 4 cents to 5 cents is going to break the bank.  Really, the world is going crazy over a 25% rise in a trace gas?

... Well no.  Instead climate scientists and IPCC contributors point to an amplification effect of CO2.  Since CO2 is rather harmless, they instead believe that every increase in CO2 correlates with about a three fold amplification effect (ie., a slightly warmer ocean, will melt more ice, which decreases the albedo effect of ice cover, which warms the Northern latitudes, which then melts permafrost, which releases even more potent methane plumes, and so on...).  The problem with this train of thought is they are only programming negative feedback loops into their models.  Without all information and feedback such as increased cloud cover due to more evaporation or changing ocean currents, solar changes, changes in the Earth's magnetic field, etc, then the models will be inherently flawed.

It is a fact that increased CO2 does warm the climate. Only a coal fired truck driver would be dumb enough to dispute that fact.  The main issue lies mostly in the models scientists use to regress out future climate temperatures.  It is highly unlikely they have nearly enough information to accurately plot with a 95% confidence what the climate will look like 10 years from now, much less 100 years from now.  There is an alarmist mentality that tries to guilt-trip the population into believing running their air conditioners or an extra drive to the supermarket will destroy humanity as we know it.  In fact, it can't be further from the truth.

I commend the president for introducing ways to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency.  Increasing efficiency and creating new energy technologies has almost no downside risk.   Such policy is in fact needed to move our country forward.  Its only when people start mentioning stupid ideas such as carbon taxes and cap and trade when I begin to seriously question the motives of folks who fund the climate change scientists.  There is too much money to made from made up taxes from a hyped up problem.

BTW (I concede its a biased article, but contains important facts):

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA
Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA

First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform as alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, "Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup ... effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales." The word "monotonic" means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, "having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase." Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are.

Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant.

Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/