Volcano's melting W Antarctica Ice sheet JPL data involved

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That's a hell of a hairdryer running under that icecap.

About half of what a single active Icelandic volcano is producing, according to the study.

The heat is producing some melting, yes. But not on the surface of the glacier and not on the ice shelf. Not a lot of mass comparatively. The idea is that the melting may affect the rate that the glacier slides into the ocean as the ice shelf degrades, by lubricating it. Whether or not that's true is not known, but it is important to consider.

Whether or not heat under the glacier has increased in recent history is unknown but the study makes it quite clear that it is warmer ocean currents (recent) which are degrading the ice shelf, not the volcanic activity.

Presently, the greatest contributor to ice shelf instability around Antarctica appears to be an increase in ocean heat supply to the cavities of Antarctic ice shelves19. Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) is the primary heat source for melting glacial ice and its increased presence on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf has been implicated in the rapid melting and grounding line retreat observed beneath the Pine Island Glacier19,20,21 and in the atmospheric warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula22

Furthermore, the study finds that the volcanic meltwater is localized, most of meltwater is not of volcanic origin.

Significantly, the excess 3He is not distributed evenly and is not found near the strongest meltwater outflow33. This suggests that the excess 3He signal originates in a unique, localized meltwater source, rather than a diffuse distribution that is found in all meltwater along the cavity front.

a reply to: scrounger

so how is it that man "billion tons a year for 100 years" cant even come close to what EACH OF THESE volcano eruptions have done?

Humans put far more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes do but a large volcanic eruption can throw far more sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere than humans do.

There are two differences. The sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere has a cooling effect (by producing aerosols) and doesn't last very long. CO2 has a warming effect and lasts a long time, it just keeps building up as we keep burning fossil fuels.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scrounger

so how is it that man "billion tons a year for 100 years" cant even come close to what EACH OF THESE volcano eruptions have done?

Humans put far more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes do but a large volcanic eruption can throw far more sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere than humans do.

There are two differences. The sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere has a cooling effect (by producing aerosols) and doesn't last very long. CO2 has a warming effect and lasts a long time.

That's a pretty good explanation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That's a hell of a hairdryer running under that icecap.

About half of what an active Icelandic volcano is producing.

The heat is producing some melting, yes. But not on the surface of the glacier and not on the ice shelf. The idea is that the melting may affect the rate that the glacier slides into the ocean as the ice shelf degrades.

Whether or not heat under the glacier has increased in recent history is unknown but the study makes it quite clear that it is warmer ocean currents (recent) which are degrading the ice shelf, not the volcanic activity.

Presently, the greatest contributor to ice shelf instability around Antarctica appears to be an increase in ocean heat supply to the cavities of Antarctic ice shelves19. Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) is the primary heat source for melting glacial ice and its increased presence on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf has been implicated in the rapid melting and grounding line retreat observed beneath the Pine Island Glacier19,20,21 and in the atmospheric warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula22

no so fast on that its not volcano's on either this specific area or the ocean as a whole.

first the specific area in question
just because the surface (not set how deep this "surface" is) isnt raising temp does not mean it isnt caused by the volcano under it.

take an ice cube and a lighter for example
if you hold the lighter under the ice cube the upper surface will not change or "melt" right away.
but the under will and as it melts the depth of the ice becomes less and less.
till yes the surface temp is now changed.
if water under the ice pack is melting it is working its way up AND its also moving volumes of water that is heated (how much dont know) that can effect (at least locally) the ocean in some way.

now the general ocean.

the "ring of fire " has been active lately.
even places "dormant" like yellowstone have shown some disturbing activity.
just because they are not blowing their tops does not mean activity below the ground isnt happening and heating who knows what.
we have seen underwater volcano's bubbling lava but now blowing up.

how many are and how many are heating the water in the oceans , with what overall effects are open to debate.

but it is possible they are contributing and bet contributing much more than "man made" climate change claims.

just saying as food for thought and discussion.

scrounger

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scrounger

so how is it that man "billion tons a year for 100 years" cant even come close to what EACH OF THESE volcano eruptions have done?

Humans put far more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes do but a large volcanic eruption can throw far more sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere than humans do.

There are two differences. The sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere has a cooling effect (by producing aerosols) and doesn't last very long. CO2 has a warming effect and lasts a long time, it just keeps building up as we keep burning fossil fuels.

um they throw out much more and it includes co2 as well...

but even if it isnt as much as "humans" (for purposes of discussion) as my examples show they in ONE EVENT have more effect on climate and weather than the "100 years of man spewing XX" ever has

in effects that are CLEARLY SHOWN and above debate.

unlike the claims of man made climate change.

in reality and fact does not change my point made

scrounger

originally posted by: Justoneman
Volcanic activity is melting the West Antarctic glaciers. Not Man made global warming.

I've been remarking about this for years.

Those that have ears will hear.... common sense is not so common anymore.

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: Justoneman
Volcanic activity is melting the West Antarctic glaciers. Not Man made global warming.

I've been remarking about this for years.

Those that have ears will hear.... common sense is not so common anymore.

you said it brother and how.

what amazes me is that given the earth has survived a DIRECT HIT from a meteor or comet that wiped out almost all life .

that after that event life came back at least as big if not bigger than before

that somehow humans in just day to day life pose as big (or as the man made climate change people claim even bigger) effect on climate.

common even rod sterling writing for the twilight zone would not try that as being too silly

scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: Justoneman
Volcanic activity is melting the West Antarctic glaciers. Not Man made global warming.

I've been remarking about this for years.

Those that have ears will hear.... common sense is not so common anymore.

you said it brother and how.

what amazes me is that given the earth has survived a DIRECT HIT from a meteor or comet that wiped out almost all life .

that after that event life came back at least as big if not bigger than before

that somehow humans in just day to day life pose as big (or as the man made climate change people claim even bigger) effect on climate.

common even rod sterling writing for the twilight zone would not try that as being too silly

scrounger

What gets me is it's not about the planet, Its about our ability to survive on this planet , you're right we won't destroy the earth we will destroy ourselves, and that is a big deal.

a reply to: Phage

Phage the melting of the Ice is not happening from the temperatures at the poles. It can't happen at below freezing. You want this to be man made issue. Admit it.

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: Justoneman
Volcanic activity is melting the West Antarctic glaciers. Not Man made global warming.

I've been remarking about this for years.

Those that have ears will hear.... common sense is not so common anymore.

NO it is not common anymore. We do see often that some people are paid to make us doubt the truth when we discovery it. Then when we catch them lying they double down. When we give them hard facts they return the sound of crickets. The truth, that is what they are best at ignoring to present the agenda.

ETA

That is why I am going to keep calling them what they are, Solar Cycle Deniers.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: Justoneman
Volcanic activity is melting the West Antarctic glaciers. Not Man made global warming.

I've been remarking about this for years.

Those that have ears will hear.... common sense is not so common anymore.

you said it brother and how.

what amazes me is that given the earth has survived a DIRECT HIT from a meteor or comet that wiped out almost all life .

that after that event life came back at least as big if not bigger than before

that somehow humans in just day to day life pose as big (or as the man made climate change people claim even bigger) effect on climate.

common even rod sterling writing for the twilight zone would not try that as being too silly

scrounger

What gets me is it's not about the planet, Its about our ability to survive on this planet , you're right we won't destroy the earth we will destroy ourselves, and that is a big deal.

So you say. So far what about all the doom from population explosion they have been preaching for years and all we have done is reduced pollution and increased food production world wide since the industrial pollution age of the 50-70's. Now it is our drinking water which aquatic life has been revived in formerly uninhabitable waters thanks be to my fellow Conservative environmenalists who used sound practices in the past. We might vote Indy/Dem/R but we conserve the land and resources with our practice. The last admin had the EPA going way to far and grabbing dry land as a 'navigable waters' bill was misused. This whole story, AGW, Water pollution control of dry land, beside farm pesticides and animal runoff, is about controlling the population not about any actual real facts we point out about the data. At least one state, Colorado, were fining someone for catching their rainwater in a barrel. They did back off to two barrels total capacity 110 gallons.

worldwaterreserve.com...

In 2016, House Bill 16-1005 was passed, allowing residents to collect rainwater from a catchment system on their rooftops into two rain barrels, with a combined capacity of 110 gallons. The collected rain must be used on the property where it is collected and may only be used for outdoor purposes such as lawn irrigation and gardening.

I've said it several times and I'll say it again.

The true climate change deniers are those who believe the climate doesn't change with out mankind's involvement.

Fact is, this planet is going to get hotter and colder over and over with or with out help from the human race. Might as well get used to that fact.

"But we speed up the natural order of things! "

Actually maybe we are slowing changes down!

Fact is... we have no idea, and pretending that we do know is the the single greatest hoax to ever levy a tax.

Might as well do dances for rain, throw virgins into volcanoes, or drive a Prius.

It's all the same form of control over societal populations because people naturally want to believe in the idea that we have total control over our environment.

Don't be such suckers people!

originally posted by: midnightstar
Oxymoron = extra carbon and methane that man produces at the rate of billions of tons a year for the last 100 years cant effect warming BUT one volcano on a content BIGGER then the US can .

Who said it was just one? There are many, many reports of many methane plumes coming up all over the place.

AGW is a myth. Climate change as a natural cyclical part of the earths existence is a well established fact.

Pollution is a problem - a huge problem in the oceans, but one that can actually be dealt with without destroying the economy or our Rights.

Overfishing is a problem. A real problem, one that can actually be dealt with without destroying the economy or our Rights.

AGW is just the elite's chosen vehicle to scare-monger everyone into giving up all pretense of having any Rights to Life, Liberty and Property, and just bow down and worship the all powerful State.

Frack AGW and all of its worshipers.

a reply to: GenerationGap

Nicely stated, thank you for your contribution to the pursuit of the facts without spin. Wherever the data leads us is not AGW but natural cycles that have to happen. They taught me in Physical Chem, one where a chemist gets to learn some Physics to make the processes we observe make sense, that a system in chaos in one direction, will swing back in an effort to equalize. Temps are not ever going to equalize until the sun swallows the Earth whole. Then it might happen in no time. I hope to see common sense return long before that.

originally posted by: scrounger
the "ring of fire " has been active lately.
even places "dormant" like yellowstone have shown some disturbing activity.
just because they are not blowing their tops does not mean activity below the ground isnt happening and heating who knows what.
we have seen underwater volcano's bubbling lava but now blowing up.

We appear to be in the early stages of a magnetic pole reversal. There is a huge chunk of iron in the Earth's mantle which has recently decided to pack up and move from Canada to Antarctica. This is uncharted territory for humanity, but it makes sense that our "normal" tectonic processes will be disrupted until the pole flip concludes (centuries from now).

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This will help
magneticreversal.org...
But I would love to see a link to the data you are referring about the inner Earth's iron movement.

a reply to: scrounger

the "ring of fire " has been active lately.

The Ring of Fire is always active. That's why it's called that.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

There is a huge chunk of iron in the Earth's mantle which has recently decided to pack up and move from Canada to Antarctica.

How recently, you reckon? I'd like to know more about this.

earth knows many periods of warming up and cooling douwn we might have speeded it up... nature will correct it !

and we are nearly at the deepest point of the solar-cycle that has its effects also…
i do not thing the global crust temperature is ever mesured and placed in an diagram...
so heating up from inside is also an possibillity

a reply to: ressiv

maps.ngdc.noaa.gov...

More on the magnetic field which we are witnessing what might be historical changes for the society that supposedly had begun 6000 years ago.

There is a nice slide bar on the exact location of the Magnetic field in this link that goes from the late 1500's till now.