Antarctic Ice Discussion

[Methuselah]

8 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed...

Clearly you do not understand what my references to WUWT, and Steven Mosher and Nick Stokes are, since  they  were the 2 people who thought up and implemented and still run with the data in this format?  You clearly have not read any background information at all? THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE CODE, and implemented it in the BEST project.  Does that not classify as an authority? They enjoy and encourage debate. They do not have the closed minds of many. Apparently that makes them nondescript and to be ignored in your eyes. Simply because they appear on WUWT!!

Ed, you really should do more background reading if you want to enter into meaningful debate.

Unlike some  forums, WUWT has welcomed them (although they take an opposing view to many on there) and they are also open to cross question .    All people's views  are accepted and discussed, irrespective of position and without any personal bias.

It is the major reason that it has been voted the number one forum for the nth year in succession.

As for Climategate, I thought that the University of East Anglia wrote the Email malarky, no one knows who extracted them, but they ended up on Watts desk. He is probably the only person in the world that could have ensured that the information was distributed worldwide. 

The details  have never been denied. They are factual and as such is it a 'sin' to publish facts?

MIA

 

As I said!

[Devonian]

On 14/06/2018 at 23:28, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed...

Clearly you do not understand what my references to WUWT, and Steven Mosher and Nick Stokes are, since  they  were the 2 people who thought up and implemented and still run with the data in this format?  You clearly have not read any background information at all? THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE CODE, and implemented it in the BEST project.  Does that not classify as an authority? They enjoy and encourage debate. They do not have the closed minds of many. Apparently that makes them nondescript and to be ignored in your eyes. Simply because they appear on WUWT!!

Ed, you really should do more background reading if you want to enter into meaningful debate.

Unlike some  forums, WUWT has welcomed them (although they take an opposing view to many on there) and they are also open to cross question .    All people's views  are accepted and discussed, irrespective of position and without any personal bias.

It is the major reason that it has been voted the number one forum for the nth year in succession.

As for Climategate, I thought that the University of East Anglia wrote the Email malarky, no one knows who extracted them, but they ended up on Watts desk. He is probably the only person in the world that could have ensured that the information was distributed worldwide. 

The details  have never been denied. They are factual and as such is it a 'sin' to publish facts?

MIA

 

ROFL, you're having a laugh. Listen, I spent many years over on WUWT cross questioning people and all I got for my trouble was (at best) insults. Don't come here (or to another place we frequent...) and pretend otherwise - you'll be found out.

[Midlands Ice Age]

1 hour ago, Devonian said:

ROFL, you're having a laugh. Listen, I spent many years over on WUWT cross questioning people and all I got for my trouble was (at best) insults. Don't come here (or to another place we frequent...) and pretend otherwise - you'll be found out.

Dev...

 Just like on most forums there can be a lot of gfuqhgfpjhiness. It is not unique to the US forums. However people are never banned  and most take  it all in good part. Oh yes they do not like Greenpeace much over there, come to think of it they do not  like conservatives much either!

I have never posted in there, and I have no intentions either, but there is a roughly an equal balance of contributors and one gets a very good perspective of both sides in the debate.

 As I say, I found useful figures issued by Nick Stokes concerning the number of sites that have homogenisation.

MIA

[Methuselah]

9 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev...

 Just like on most forums there can be a lot of gfuqhgfpjhiness. It is not unique to the US forums. However people are never banned  and most take  it all in good part. Oh yes they do not like Greenpeace much over there, come to think of it they do not  like conservatives much either!

I have never posted in there, and I have no intentions either, but there is a roughly an equal balance of contributors and one gets a very good perspective of both sides in the debate.

 As I say, I found useful figures issued by Nick Stokes concerning the number of sites that have homogenisation.

MIA

Therein lies the biggest problem with the likes of WUWT, MIA: the 'balance' they like to claim exists in the climatic sciences really doesn't exit at all. Reality would be better represented were there 98 serious scientists for every 2 CCDs?

Even the BBC got some stick for treating the idiot Nigel Lawson as if he were some kind of scientific 'authority' (as they're wont to do with such self-styled luminaries as Monckton and Corbyn). Why must we endure the spectacle of each and every well-reasoned scientific argument being countered by the obligatory nutter?

I would like to see a really representative TV debate: 97 well-respected actual scientists on one side and the ilk of a Monckton, a Lawson and a Dellingpole on the other...

Then again, evolution by natural selection is more likely to make pigs grow wings before that happens! 

[inghams85]

12 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev...

 Just like on most forums there can be a lot of gfuqhgfpjhiness. It is not unique to the US forums. However people are never banned  and most take  it all in good part. Oh yes they do not like Greenpeace much over there, come to think of it they do not  like conservatives much either!

I have never posted in there, and I have no intentions either, but there is a roughly an equal balance of contributors and one gets a very good perspective of both sides in the debate.

 As I say, I found useful figures issued by Nick Stokes concerning the number of sites that have homogenisation.

MIA

MIA I don't think you understand that there is no argument or debate to be had. Climate change has been proven unequivocally and people who still disagree are frankly living in massive denial of just trolling. It's like saying there is no such thing as a moon I'll argue there's no moon because i want to even though we all know there is one!

[Midlands Ice Age]

40 minutes ago, inghams85 said:

MIA I don't think you understand that there is no argument or debate to be had. Climate change has been proven unequivocally and people who still disagree are frankly living in massive denial of just trolling. It's like saying there is no such thing as a moon I'll argue there's no moon because i want to even though we all know there is one!

 

2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Therein lies the biggest problem with the likes of WUWT, MIA: the 'balance' they like to claim exists in the climatic sciences really doesn't exit at all. Reality would be better represented were there 98 serious scientists for every 2 CCDs?

Even the BBC got some stick for treating the idiot Nigel Lawson as if he were some kind of scientific 'authority' (as they're wont to do with such self-styled luminaries as Monckton and Corbyn). Why must we endure the spectacle of each and every well-reasoned scientific argument being countered by the obligatory nutter?

I would like to see a really representative TV debate: 97 well-respected actual scientists on one side and the ilk of a Monckton, a Lawson and a Dellingpole on the other...

Then again, evolution by natural selection is more likely to make pigs grow wings before that happens! 

His guys 

Thanks for the responses.

I think that AGW is now accepted world wide (even by 97% of WUWT users)!.

I think that what  that means in terms of its affects are still up for debate.

I think that to stop debate/research at this stage is  the real problem of what is happening today..

For info, 33 Geologists who are fellows of the Geoligical Society of London plus about 40 other people (professors, etc) have just written to the London Society making it clear that they question standard climate AGW science, based upon their knowledge and data.

(see SS's post in the 'Links to Reports and papers thread').

A further paper has just been published in a science advancement paper publisher  by a team of researchers based in the University of East Anglia, that has analysed (in great detail) the actual recorded temperatures over the last 100+ years of recorded history.

Read it and see what you make of it..

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaao5297.full

It is very technical and it may well be difficult to appreciate what it is saying. I will be interested in your reactions.

It is probably better if I transfer this to paper to another thread.

MIA 

It explains why my position is that only about 30-50% of 'climate change'  is properly researched and understood.

[knocker]

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by knocker

[weirpig]

Stef Lhermitte‏ @StefLhermitte

FollowFollow @StefLhermitte

More

The cracks over Brunt Ice Shelf near @BAS_news' Halley station have been growing past Antarctic winter. Only ~9 km left before Chasm 1 connects to the Halloween crack and McDonald Ice Rumples. [1/2]

 

 

 

9:03 am - 5 Oct 2018

 

•  

Edited October 15, 2018 by weirpig

[Guest]

I posted this Antarctica report on my Arctic thread on a US weather forum and felt that it was appropriate to copy it here. I didn't edit it so a couple of references which applied to the US, several names and comments may not make absolute sense but 99% of it should be fine. I have provided one link to the Research Portal that Malcolm and I set up of on the US forum - there are many papers and presentations in there including a section on Antarctica. I produced an even longer one 2 months ago with a lot of facts and figures and comparisons to the Arctic. I could copy that here too or provide a link to it if anyone is interested.

ANTARCTICA UPDATE

I was planning to do this update next week but with the recent interest shown in Antarctica, I've decided to bring it forward. Firstly I should repeat what I said in my introductory post - when I opened this "Arctic" thread" I always intended it to include Antarctica (see page 1 for my first post on that with loads of facts about it and comparisons to the Arctic) as well as Greenland (I'm planning a post on that later this week), global and glacial ice (posting on that in due course). If we really are going to examine global warming impacts on the Arctic and Arctic warming  impacts on the N Hem (in particular) and make a fair and balanced assessment on this thread, then we must include global ice conditions. The Arctic gets most of the publicity due to the very rapid decline of permanent and older ice, the exceptionally high +ve SST anomalies up there and the very high 2m surface temps and I updated the current position on all of these last week. it's also surrounded by populated countries and closer to the N Am and European continents where much of the interest is generated. Meanwhile Antarctica gets far less notice, being an isolated continent. It is however, actually even more important than the Arctic and is the biggest contributor to slowing down the rate of global ice loss (more below on this).   

In this post I will look at the current ice extent, the SSTs and the land temperatures down there and put this into context.  Before I do that,  just a word about James' @Singularity post on here this morning.  That's a really nice summary of the recent warming trends in the Arctic and describing part of the feedback loop which has caused what a few call runaway or out of control ice loss and is very much what we shall be examining on this thread.  I did a very long post on here "Arctic Report (5) - Longer Term Ice Extent - Putting The Current Position Into Context" (on August 18th, halfway down page 1 on this thread) and I went back through the satellite period which started in 1979 and then further back to 1850 with data based mostly on shipping logs and then a glance at the last 1,450 years where recent very sophisticated research into ice core samples and deep ocean floor sediments have given us a surprisingly accurate record of past ice extent.  I really want to encourage a lot more contributions into all of this - facts, figures, analyses and paper reviews and an active debate. Very soon, I shall start reviewing some of the most relevant papers that I placed into the Research Portal and I know that Malcolm @Blessed Weather intends to do the same.   EDIT: Link to the Index page of the Research Portal:  https://www.33andrain.com/topic/996-index-to-papers-and-articles/

Right, on with my post.  I shall comment below each chart.

Current Ice Extent:

 

Compared to the Arctic, Antarctica's winter sea ice extent is usually much closer to the 1981-2010 mean and in some years, including some quite recent ones, it has actually been close to or exceeded long term record highs such as in 2014 and previously in 2012 (see below).

 

 

Source:  NASA   https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

These charts show us 3 different decadal mean periods since the full satellite imagery records started in 1979. It includes the two record high years of 2012 and 2014. We can see that  2018 was running slightly below the means at its minimum point in late Feb/early March and still very slightly below the means right through to the maximum extent in their winter.  

 

  

This chart tells us that 2018 had a blip in mid- September (due to unfavourable circulation patterns for several weeks bringing warmer than average temps at that time).  Then the pattern changed and 2018 actually saw a very late maximum in early October, although 2017 saw an extremely late maximum. 

 

Now this chart is not as important compared to the same one for the Arctic. Being a large land mass the winter sea ice that forms around the coast extends out to relatively low latitudes. The vast majority of sea ice melts each summer and there is practically no older sea ice.  The sea ice sheet that reforms each fall is therefore not that thick. I will do another post at some stage on the land ice which is so important and plays a key role in global ice extent.

Sea Surface Temperatures - SSTs:

 

This chart is very simple at this time of the year when we have just seen the annual maximum ice extent. SSTs are mostly below -1.5c right out towards 60S.

  

The white areas over and around Antarctica are not neutral conditions, they are ice covered. Much of the ice free regions have -ve anomalies as they have for much of the last 3 months.

 

This global map shows us the actual values. Even out to just beyond 60S SSTs are close to 0c with values ranging from -2c to +6c.

  

Until mid September -ve anomalies prevailed over much of the southern ocean and often well beyond 60S.  They have recovered slightly with neutral to slightly +ve anomalies now prevailing but still with some regions of -ve anomalies.  How different all this is to the exceptional high Arctic Ocean SSTs! 

2m Surface Temperature Anomalies:

  

Antarctica has been affected by global warming but in a very different ways to the Arctic. The temps over the main land mass are actually fairly typical with a trend in the last few years to more +ve anomalies in the west and more -ve anomalies in the drier east. Note that this is not always the case but a slight trend and the contrasts are slightly greater than normal right now. Highest +ves are around 3c to 5c above and lowest -ves are around 3c to 4c below. If you look to the text to the left of the chart this gives some more precise figures. The western landmass anomaly is on average +0.8c while the east is -1.2c (k = kelvin = celius and I'm not sure why they use the kelvin scale). If we include the sea + the land the 60S-90S has a -ve anomaly of -2.4c and going out even further to 66S-90S it is still a -ve of 1.5c.  So Antarctica itself, plus its surrounding sea ice and much of the southern ocean as a whole is substantially colder than normal.  There is currently some dense cold air over the ice sheet to the north-north west with -ve anomalies as much as -12c there. 

Sea Level Pressure: 

I do not normally include MSLP charts in my Antarctica reports by I wanted to attempt to answer @jules216's question in the post 2 above this one. He asks:

"My question re Antarctica arose from this GLOSEA 5 seasonal anomaly and the deep blue colors that engulf Antarctica and I wanted to know why is there such a strong anomaly"and I copy the ensemble chart below: 

This chart is suggesting that the UK Met Office GLOSEA 5 model is predicting that MSLP will be "slightly" below average during the Antarctica summer. I'm not sure how accurate their forecasts are for that remote region. It's a long range forecast and is subject to change. Slightly lower than average pressure there would produce slightly stronger winds, slightly greater moisture and greater snowfall on the main landmass, perhaps being carried further into the interior than usual.  Let's have a quick look at the current pressure charts.

  

The default pattern is higher pressure on the land mass, particularly over the inland high ice sheets and towards the interior where polar easterlies predominate all the year around. Then low pressure dominating from 60S to 40S ("The Roaring Forties" are the anomalous strong westerlies at 50S to 40S).

  

So Jules, the answer is that this is not a particularly strong anomaly - just slightly lower pressure than usual predicted to predominate during the Antarctic summer.  I hope that this answers your question.  

So overall, Antarctica is currently seeing below average SSTs and land temperatures with west/east +ve/-ve anomalies and not far below normal sea ice extent. If these lower temps persist, then the melt season may be rather slower than normal - no bad thing.  David  

 

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Guest

[Midlands Ice Age]

10 hours ago, Bring Back1962-63 said:

I posted this Antarctica report on my Arctic thread on a US weather forum and felt that it was appropriate to copy it here. I didn't edit it so a couple of references which applied to the US, several names and comments may not make absolute sense but 99% of it should be fine. I have provided one link to the Research Portal that Malcolm and I set up of on the US forum - there are many papers and presentations in there including a section on Antarctica. I produced an even longer one 2 months ago with a lot of facts and figures and comparisons to the Arctic. I could copy that here too or provide a link to it if anyone is interested.

ANTARCTICA UPDATE

I was planning to do this update next week but with the recent interest shown in Antarctica, I've decided to bring it forward. Firstly I should repeat what I said in my introductory post - when I opened this "Arctic" thread" I always intended it to include Antarctica (see page 1 for my first post on that with loads of facts about it and comparisons to the Arctic) as well as Greenland (I'm planning a post on that later this week), global and glacial ice (posting on that in due course). If we really are going to examine global warming impacts on the Arctic and Arctic warming  impacts on the N Hem (in particular) and make a fair and balanced assessment on this thread, then we must include global ice conditions. The Arctic gets most of the publicity due to the very rapid decline of permanent and older ice, the exceptionally high +ve SST anomalies up there and the very high 2m surface temps and I updated the current position on all of these last week. it's also surrounded by populated countries and closer to the N Am and European continents where much of the interest is generated. Meanwhile Antarctica gets far less notice, being an isolated continent. It is however, actually even more important than the Arctic and is the biggest contributor to slowing down the rate of global ice loss (more below on this).   

In this post I will look at the current ice extent, the SSTs and the land temperatures down there and put this into context.  Before I do that,  just a word about James' @Singularity post on here this morning.  That's a really nice summary of the recent warming trends in the Arctic and describing part of the feedback loop which has caused what a few call runaway or out of control ice loss and is very much what we shall be examining on this thread.  I did a very long post on here "Arctic Report (5) - Longer Term Ice Extent - Putting The Current Position Into Context" (on August 18th, halfway down page 1 on this thread) and I went back through the satellite period which started in 1979 and then further back to 1850 with data based mostly on shipping logs and then a glance at the last 1,450 years where recent very sophisticated research into ice core samples and deep ocean floor sediments have given us a surprisingly accurate record of past ice extent.  I really want to encourage a lot more contributions into all of this - facts, figures, analyses and paper reviews and an active debate. Very soon, I shall start reviewing some of the most relevant papers that I placed into the Research Portal and I know that Malcolm @Blessed Weather intends to do the same.   EDIT: Link to the Index page of the Research Portal:  https://www.33andrain.com/topic/996-index-to-papers-and-articles/

Right, on with my post.  I shall comment below each chart.

Current Ice Extent:

 

Compared to the Arctic, Antarctica's winter sea ice extent is usually much closer to the 1981-2010 mean and in some years, including some quite recent ones, it has actually been close to or exceeded long term record highs such as in 2014 and previously in 2012 (see below).

 

 

Source:  NASA   https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

These charts show us 3 different decadal mean periods since the full satellite imagery records started in 1979. It includes the two record high years of 2012 and 2014. We can see that  2018 was running slightly below the means at its minimum point in late Feb/early March and still very slightly below the means right through to the maximum extent in their winter.  

 

  

This chart tells us that 2018 had a blip in mid- September (due to unfavourable circulation patterns for several weeks bringing warmer than average temps at that time).  Then the pattern changed and 2018 actually saw a very late maximum in early October, although 2017 saw an extremely late maximum. 

 

Now this chart is not as important compared to the same one for the Arctic. Being a large land mass the winter sea ice that forms around the coast extends out to relatively low latitudes. The vast majority of sea ice melts each summer and there is practically no older sea ice.  The sea ice sheet that reforms each fall is therefore not that thick. I will do another post at some stage on the land ice which is so important and plays a key role in global ice extent.

Sea Surface Temperatures - SSTs:

 

This chart is very simple at this time of the year when we have just seen the annual maximum ice extent. SSTs are mostly below -1.5c right out towards 60S.

  

The white areas over and around Antarctica are not neutral conditions, they are ice covered. Much of the ice free regions have -ve anomalies as they have for much of the last 3 months.

 

This global map shows us the actual values. Even out to just beyond 60S SSTs are close to 0c with values ranging from -2c to +6c.

  

Until mid September -ve anomalies prevailed over much of the southern ocean and often well beyond 60S.  They have recovered slightly with neutral to slightly +ve anomalies now prevailing but still with some regions of -ve anomalies.  How different all this is to the exceptional high Arctic Ocean SSTs! 

2m Surface Temperature Anomalies:

  

Antarctica has been affected by global warming but in a very different ways to the Arctic. The temps over the main land mass are actually fairly typical with a trend in the last few years to more +ve anomalies in the west and more -ve anomalies in the drier east. Note that this is not always the case but a slight trend and the contrasts are slightly greater than normal right now. Highest +ves are around 3c to 5c above and lowest -ves are around 3c to 4c below. If you look to the text to the left of the chart this gives some more precise figures. The western landmass anomaly is on average +0.8c while the east is -1.2c (k = kelvin = celius and I'm not sure why they use the kelvin scale). If we include the sea + the land the 60S-90S has a -ve anomaly of -2.4c and going out even further to 66S-90S it is still a -ve of 1.5c.  So Antarctica itself, plus its surrounding sea ice and much of the southern ocean as a whole is substantially colder than normal.  There is currently some dense cold air over the ice sheet to the north-north west with -ve anomalies as much as -12c there. 

Sea Level Pressure: 

I do not normally include MSLP charts in my Antarctica reports by I wanted to attempt to answer @jules216's question in the post 2 above this one. He asks:

"My question re Antarctica arose from this GLOSEA 5 seasonal anomaly and the deep blue colors that engulf Antarctica and I wanted to know why is there such a strong anomaly"and I copy the ensemble chart below: 

This chart is suggesting that the UK Met Office GLOSEA 5 model is predicting that MSLP will be "slightly" below average during the Antarctica summer. I'm not sure how accurate their forecasts are for that remote region. It's a long range forecast and is subject to change. Slightly lower than average pressure there would produce slightly stronger winds, slightly greater moisture and greater snowfall on the main landmass, perhaps being carried further into the interior than usual.  Let's have a quick look at the current pressure charts.

  

The default pattern is higher pressure on the land mass, particularly over the inland high ice sheets and towards the interior where polar easterlies predominate all the year around. Then low pressure dominating from 60S to 40S ("The Roaring Forties" are the anomalous strong westerlies at 50S to 40S).

  

So Jules, the answer is that this is not a particularly strong anomaly - just slightly lower pressure than usual predicted to predominate during the Antarctic summer.  I hope that this answers your question.  

So overall, Antarctica is currently seeing below average SSTs and land temperatures with west/east +ve/-ve anomalies and not far below normal sea ice extent. If these lower temps persist, then the melt season may be rather slower than normal - no bad thing.  David  

 

 

David

Brilliant, as usual,  in depth analysis to give us all  a better picture.

OK If I link this over on Two ?

MIA

[ciel]

Cutting out the waffle, and from a very non-scientific background, although I can read a graph and post or two, and read about the subject, I have no doubt about human influence on deep Arctic ice loss.

Again, from a non-scientific perspective it seems that the Antarctic is a different condition but nonetheless will be vulnerable to our human habits over time.

Just saying.

[tablet]

does anyone remember back in May , when I suggested there was a volcanic heat source under west Antarctica ( Pine island in fact ) and many on here disagreed with me , when I was away I heard about water samples taken in the 2014 expedition that were analysed , and to the amazement of everyone ( except me ) Helium-3 has been discovered in the sea off pine island , does anyone of the very learned people here know how you get Helium-3 in seawater ( I mean naturally of course , not by pumping it into the ocean ) (( warning - this was taken from an article I read on the internet ))

http://www.cfact.org/2018/06/27/volcanic-heat-found-under-antarcticas-fastest-melting-glacier/

a quote from said article :

Previous research has identified a network of volcanic rifts beneath Western Antarctica that could be contributing to the ice sheet’s instability. A 2014 University of Texas study concluded that “large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism.”

The Thwaites Glacier is another retreating Antarctic glacier. The heat source beneath Pine Island is 25 times greater than an individual volcano, scientists said.

I guess those Russian robot subs that were sent down sort of missed that one

[Methuselah]

Keep an open mind, tablet, and wonder how the heat of 25 volcanoes hasn't already shown up on IR satellite images...

Don't those moon-Nazis have a thing for helium-3?

[BornFromTheVoid]

24 minutes ago, tablet said:

does anyone remember back in May , when I suggested there was a volcanic heat source under west Antarctica ( Pine island in fact ) and many on here disagreed with me , when I was away I heard about water samples taken in the 2014 expedition that were analysed , and to the amazement of everyone ( except me ) Helium-3 has been discovered in the sea off pine island , does anyone of the very learned people here know how you get Helium-3 in seawater ( I mean naturally of course , not by pumping it into the ocean ) (( warning - this was taken from an article I read on the internet ))

http://www.cfact.org/2018/06/27/volcanic-heat-found-under-antarcticas-fastest-melting-glacier/

a quote from said article :

Previous research has identified a network of volcanic rifts beneath Western Antarctica that could be contributing to the ice sheet’s instability. A 2014 University of Texas study concluded that “large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism.”

The Thwaites Glacier is another retreating Antarctic glacier. The heat source beneath Pine Island is 25 times greater than an individual volcano, scientists said.

I guess those Russian robot subs that were sent down sort of missed that one

Who disagreed with there being volcanoes in West Antarctica? It's been known for a while know that volcanism occurs in Antarctica and under the ice sheet.

The main issue with the volcanoes is when people claim they are to blame for the changes we see. It's like blaming the rising ocean heat content on undersea volcanoes.
Just because we make a new discovery, doesn't mean that something is actually new. Volcanism has likely been going on under the Antarctic ice sheet for millions of years, thus it doesn't make sense to blame it for current rates of mass loss.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Who disagreed with there being volcanoes in West Antarctica? It's been known for a while know that volcanism occurs in Antarctica and under the ice sheet.

The main issue with the volcanoes is when people claim they are to blame for the changes we see. It's like blaming the rising ocean heat content on undersea volcanoes.
Just because we make a new discovery, doesn't mean that something is actually new. Volcanism has likely been going on under the Antarctic ice sheet for millions of years, thus it doesn't make sense to blame it for current rates of mass loss.

Yes - plenty of evidence of volcanoes in Antarctica for millions of years.  This from the excellent Swiss glacial site:  http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers09-en.html?id=3 

Past evidence of subglacial eruptions on James Ross Island, near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, is recorded in these volcanic rocks near Whisky Bay. Stretching back over some 10 million years, these volcanic rocks (called hyaloclastite) were produced as lava made contact with meltwater and broke up explosively into fragments.

Then this from the excellent Antarctica.org site:    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/antarctic-ice-sheet/subglacial-volcanoes/

The full article is a great read.

Map of Antarctica showing the distribution of volcanoes aged between c. 11 Ma and present. Only a small number are active.

Mt Melbourne, another active Antarctic volcano. Ash layers from this volcano are present in the coastal ice cliffs.

 

Finally this: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254270-scientists-find-91-additional-volcanos-antarctica-densest-concentration-earth

Headline:  Scientists Find 91 Volcanoes Underneath Antarctica’s Melting Ice - By Joel Hruska on August 17, 2017 

 

There is loads more data on this but I have no time now - writing a glacial ice extent post for a US forum (which I may post on a suitable thread over here tomorrow).

David  

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Guest

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

2 hours ago, tablet said:

does anyone remember back in May , when I suggested there was a volcanic heat source under west Antarctica ( Pine island in fact ) and many on here disagreed with me , when I was away I heard about water samples taken in the 2014 expedition that were analysed , and to the amazement of everyone ( except me ) Helium-3 has been discovered in the sea off pine island , does anyone of the very learned people here know how you get Helium-3 in seawater ( I mean naturally of course , not by pumping it into the ocean ) (( warning - this was taken from an article I read on the internet ))

http://www.cfact.org/2018/06/27/volcanic-heat-found-under-antarcticas-fastest-melting-glacier/

a quote from said article :

Previous research has identified a network of volcanic rifts beneath Western Antarctica that could be contributing to the ice sheet’s instability. A 2014 University of Texas study concluded that “large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism.”

The Thwaites Glacier is another retreating Antarctic glacier. The heat source beneath Pine Island is 25 times greater than an individual volcano, scientists said.

I guess those Russian robot subs that were sent down sort of missed that one

That is why there is melt in that part.....not 0.001% man made CO2.  GW is accepted, AGW is still Many miles off being proven

 

BFTP

Edited November 1, 2018 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

On 17/06/2018 at 11:34, inghams85 said:

Climate change has been proven unequivocally and people who still disagree are frankly living in massive denial of just trolling. 

I beg to differ.....

 

BFTP

[Devonian]

16 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

That is why there is melt in that part.....not 0.001% man made CO2.  GW is accepted, AGW is still Many miles off being proven

 

BFTP

I beg to differ...

Especially when you start out with an unequivocal statement...

Edited November 1, 2018 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

17 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

That is why there is melt in that part.....not 0.001% man made CO2.  GW is accepted, AGW is still Many miles off being proven

BFTP

The only difference between organic and inorganic CO2, that I know of, is isotopic; Organic CO2 has very slightly more Carbon-13 than its inorganic counterpart, due to the beta-decay of Carbon-14...?

If you can show evidence, saying that carbon containing slightly more C13-O2 is spectroscopically different to C12-O2...I'm all ears.  

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

15 minutes ago, Devonian said:

I beg to differ...

Especially when you start out with an unequivocal statement...

So do you think all the geothermal activity in that location has nothing to do with destabilising or just ‘pure coincindence’?  To me it definitely seems a more ‘reasoned’ path for the localisation of the issue

 

BFTP

Edited November 1, 2018 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

1 minute ago, Ed Stone said:

The only difference between organic and inorganic CO2, that I know of, is isotopic; Organic CO2 has very slightly more Carbon-13 than its inorganic counterpart, due to the beta-decay of Carbon-14...?

If you can show evidence, saying that carbon containing slightly more C13-O2 is spectroscopically different to C12-O2...I'm all ears.  

There’s a study out on that Pete, I’ll try and dig it up.  

 

BFTP

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

On a different note, found this quite interesting.  Almost chiselled off

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45953252

 

BFTP

[Devonian]

4 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

So do you think all the geothermal activity in that location has nothing to do with destabilising or just ‘pure coincindence’?  To me it definitely seems a more ‘reasoned’ path for the localisation of the issue

 

BFTP

You STATED it was the cause. I beg to differ....

The volcanoes haven't suddenly appeared, they have suddenly been discovered. There is no reason, imo, to think the amount of heat they release has suddenly changed just because they have been discovered - besides if they have such an influence why is there any ice there at all?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Just now, Devonian said:

You STATED it was the cause. I beg to differ....

The volcanoes haven't suddenly appeared, they have suddenly been discovered. There is no reason, imo, to think the amount of heat they release has suddenly changed just because they have been discovered - besides if they have such an influence why is there any ice there at all?

Correct, I agree and maybe they are becoming and have become more active. I’ll rephrase then that I believe with their presence in the location where instability is registered that they are much more likely to be the reason for that instability than manmade CO2.  

 

BFTP

[inghams85]

42 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

I beg to differ.....

 

BFTP

You can differ all you want. Your not a acclaimed climate scientist. I'd prefer to listen to evidence provided by experts. You aren't an expert as much as you seem to think you are