• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (2 Viewers)

Stick This In Your Climate Model

It's all getting very, very unsettling. Volcanoes! By golly what will they think up next?

Ed :h?:
 

Attachments

  • Volcanism Melting West Antarctic Glaciers _ Climate Dispatch.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 29
It's all getting very, very unsettling. Volcanoes! By golly what will they think up next?

Ed :h?:

Contrary to what the author claims, the study does no such thing as "prove the Pine Island Glacier is melting and retreating from geothermal heat [...] not man-made global warming".
Excellent example of twisting a good scientific study to suit one's own agenda.

Sigh.
 
Please prove that it is melting and retreating from man-made global warming.

Ed

Sure :t:

Glaciers all over the Antarctic are showing accelerated rates of retreat:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0082-z
The vast majority of these are not over geothermally active areas; the only thing that's changes there over the past few thousand years is the climate.
So while the PIG may well experience (semi)continuous losses due to geothermal activity at it's base, this does not in any way preclude additional losses due to atmospheric warming, changes in precipitation or wind direction/strength. The author has no basis for ruling out anthropogenic climate change because a) the two factors are entirely unrelated; and b) his specific example cannot be extrapolated to adjacent glaciers in the region which are all retreating.

In addition, he ignores the fact that geological processes such as mantle plumes, hotspots etc. operate on time scales of millions to tens of millions of years. Thus, they are certainly drivers of global (and regional) climate on those time scales, but not on the ones we're talking about here (hundreds to tens of thousands of years). To give a simple example: the volcanic systems on Iceland (which is itself on top of a massive hotspot) have been active for millions of years yet for the majority of that time have been covered in glaciers and small ice caps. Even after subglacial eruptions or episodes of increased geothermal activity the ice caps remain and restore their mass in a relatively short space of time. Yet since the last few decades all Icelandic glaciers have experienced the same retreat we see everywhere else. Not related to plate tectonics, geostatic rebound and what have you, but simply due to atmospheric changes.

It puzzles me when a trained and experienced geologist ignores such basic facts.

Cheers,
Joost

Edit: more info on the theory here (http://www.plateclimatology.com/) - it is very poorly justified and a lot of the underlying assumptions fly in the face of current oceanography, geology and marine ecology knowledge. Just one example: "Increased ocean heat may also lead increased ability to absorb CO2" ignores high school grade chemistry: solubility of gases decreases with increasing temperature. Facepalm!
 
Last edited:
Joost,

I see no evidence that the Pine Island Glacier is melting and retreating from man-made global warming. Other than model-based conjecture, where is it?

I also can't find the statement "... Increased ocean heat may also lead increased ability to absorb CO2" in Kamis' Plate Climatology Theory link.

Ed
 
...Glaciers all over the Antarctic are showing accelerated rates of retreat:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0082-z
The vast majority of these are not over geothermally active areas; the only thing that's changes there over the past few thousand years is the climate.

The article you quoted was a survey done between 2010 and 2016. What could that inform us about changes over the past few thousand years? Recent research has also revealed the presence of upwards of a million sub-ocean volcanos (yeah, that gave me pause as well), but their effects are also not included in climate models.

Ed
 
Last edited:
The article you quoted was a survey done between 2010 and 2016. What could that inform us about changes over the past few thousand years? Recent research has also revealed the presence of upwards of a million sub-ocean volcanos (yeah, that gave me pause as well), but their effects are also not included in climate models.

Oh, well.

Background noise. Or is there evidence for a recent spurt of sub-oceanic volcanic activity sufficient to account for “modern” global warming?

Oh, well. . ..
 
Geothermally active areas in 2018. Yes, its been going on for a long, long time — because the earth is dynamic, not static. Climate models do not include these factors.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • 2018_ A New Year of volcanoes and earthquakes _ PSI Intl.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 19
  • West Antarctic Volcano and Fault Belt Part of 'Pacific Ring of Fire' _ PSI Intl.pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Honestly Ed, I don't even know where to begin to address this...and I'm not trying to be funny.

Maybe, for starters, buy an up-to-date geology textbook and see how you get on?
Then move on to oceanography, atmospheric science, glaciology, and finally biogeochemistry (the interactions of biosphere and planet).
It's fascinating stuff, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Reading an article like Kamis' is like watching a Lego-obsessed toddler telling an F1 engineer they've got it all wrong because the car isn't all colourful and made of bricks.

For those wanting a scientifically accurate overview of the West Antarctic Rift System look here:
https://www.nap.edu/read/12168/chapter/10

Contrast that with Kamis:
"To qualify as a scientifically acceptable segment of the Pacific Ring of Fire, the West Antarctic volcano and fault belt needs to clear three geological hurdles: contain an impressive number of active volcanoes, contain an impressive number of active faults, and connect in a geologically proper fashion onto the two currently defined horseshoe ends of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Reliable and abundant evidence proves that it clears all three hurdles."
As a scientist (and especially one with a degree in Earth Science) that makes me cringe. It reminds me of films like The Core, or more recently Geostorm.

Some more 'gems':
"[The Pacific Ring of Fire] is the sole heating source of 87,189,915,062 billion gallons of Pacific Ocean water. This geologically induced heating generates all El Ninos, the Earth’s most significant climate-altering phenomenon"
WTF? The sole heating source. Does this guy realize we orbit a star? Has he even heard of evaporation?

"Modern-day anomalous ice melting on the Antarctica continent is limited to the West Antarctic region"
That old chestnut. Shown to be wrong years ago but still desperately clung to by uninformed/disingenuous denialists.

Or this from his position "paper" on "Plate Climatology": "Given that deep ocean chemosynthesis exists, it is a logical next step to theorize that increased heat anomalies in the oceans also have an effect / alter shallow plankton blooms. More heat leads to more plankton, more CO2 consumption, and more oxygen generation."
Hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis produces sulfur, not oxygen. And it occurs around geothermal vents which are, oh 3 to 4 km below the photic zone where photosynthetic phytoplankton blooms occur. So if he actually meant phototrophs (which need sunlight) then how exactly are those influenced by deep sea geothermal areas? The easy answer: they aren't.

Ed, trust me on this one, it's complete codswallop.

It's no wonder he writes for Principia Scientific International - a group so fringe they even get into fights with 'mainstream' climate skeptics...

Oh and finally the IPCC has an entire section dedicated to volcanoes. And here is a nice special issue of Nature Geoscience on volcanoes & climate: https://www.nature.com/collections/dkktckckrh Might it just be possible that those thousands of smart and well-informed scientists considered those big rumbly smoky mountain things? Maybe?

Cheers,
Joost

P.S. sorry about the sarcasm, I know I should take a chill pill but I simply can't stand this kind of stuff. Because it actually matters.
 
Last edited:
Joost,

Gotta agree that you're not a poster boy for dispassionate reasoning. ;)

I just got back from an eye exam and can't see too clearly yet, — so I'll keep this short. Other than throwing the kitchen sink (sarcasm) at everyone who triggers your displeasure, and throwing a textbook at me, you have thus far avoided addressing the main question at hand. Given the factual evidence of strong volcanic activity beneath glaciers can you present a dispassionate argument to show that anthropogenic global warming is nonetheless the primary causative agent for glacial retreat? It seems to me what you are doing is simply dismissing any alternate explanation that doesn't suit you, masked by sarcasm about the author.

For example, I can't help but remember the caustic "sarcasm" on post #135 applied to an eminent geologist, Don Easterbrook, regarding his book "Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming." There, you said
...I'll happily overlook the fact that it looks like a piece of work cobbled together by a 16 year old and I can even get over the subjective writing style ("the lame excuse...", "have failed badly" etc.). However, beyond that it is an opinion piece, and by an infamous character at that ...

That "infamous character's" achievements are reflected in a bibliography as long as your arm (attached). As for Kamis, he has my respect for putting forward an interesting theory.

Just my opinion.

PS. Just read the skeptical science piece. Nope, it doesn't answer the primary question either.
 

Attachments

  • Don J. Easterbrook publications.pdf
    69.8 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Joost,

Gotta agree that you're not a poster boy for dispassionate reasoning. ;)

I just got back from an eye exam and can't see too clearly yet, — so I'll keep this short. Other than throwing the kitchen sink (sarcasm) at everyone who triggers your displeasure, and throwing a textbook at me, you have thus far avoided addressing the main question at hand. Given the factual evidence of strong volcanic activity beneath glaciers can you present a dispassionate argument to show that anthropogenic global warming is nonetheless the primary causative agent for glacial retreat? It seems to me what you are doing is simply dismissing any alternate explanation that doesn't suit you, masked by sarcasm about the author.

For example, I can't help but remember the caustic "sarcasm" on post #135 applied to an eminent geologist, Don Easterbrook, regarding his book "Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming." There, you said

That "infamous character's" achievements are reflected in a bibliography as long as your arm (attached). As for Kamis, he has my respect for putting forward an interesting theory.

Just my opinion.

PS. Just read the skeptical science piece. Nope, it doesn't answer the primary question either.

Ed, a number of things:

First, see attached.

Second, hope your eyes are fine, I'd hate for a fellow birder to loose their eyesight.

Third, I did address the specific position taken in the Kamis piece you posted (geothermal heat is the main driver for glacial retreat in the Antarctic) and gave various reasons why this is not the case. In a friendly and dispassionate way I might add. As usual in this thread (and the parallel cell towers one) every single point I made was ignored. So accusing me of 'avoiding addressing the main question at hand' and just resorting to 'sarcasm' is both incorrect and unfair. Note that I made a couple of observations about Kamis' lack of scientific basis as well (again ignored) - whilst these were put in an exasperated way they are nonetheless valid statements.

Fourth, you have to be a lot more precise in your question. It is important to distinguish between geothermal heat at the Earth's surface and gasses emitted during volcanic eruptions. So please define what you mean by 'volcanic activity', and 'strong' - and also whether you mean to include temporal variability in intensity. Additionally, please clarify whether you mean glacial retreat on a global scale, a regional scale (say, the Antarctic, or over the West Antarctic Rift System), or a local scale (e.g. Pine Island Glacier or the Amundsen Sector).
As currently phrased, is your position that subglacial volcanoes (either by erupting and/or producing geothermal heat) are the primary driver for accelerated recent glacial retreat on a global scale? Or do you want to rephrase the question? I'll await resolution before answering so we don't go back and forth whilst missing the point.

Fifth and final, I absolutely welcome scientists who question going theories, data quality, interpretations etc. What I cannot stand are scientists whose ideas are demonstrably incorrect, yet continue to present themselves as 'experts' at public platforms. Critical evaluation cuts both ways Ed, and someone like Kamis would do well to critically examine his own ideas because (as I've pointed out) there are glaring errors and misapprehensions in there. To then go and publicly criticise the work of all those 'mainstream' climate scientists is at best delusional and at worst dangerous. You may judge that harshly disrespectful, but unless such characters themselves respect the vast amounts of scientifically obtained information available to them, and hard-won expertise and reputation of their colleagues, then I'm quite comfortable throwing a bit of sarcasm their way.

Or failing that (and given they're mostly old white men) a kitchen sink will do.
That was a joke.
Ha. Ha.

Cheers,
Joost
 

Attachments

  • funny-good-morning-pics-funny-sassy-quotes.jpg
    funny-good-morning-pics-funny-sassy-quotes.jpg
    34.2 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
PS. Just read the skeptical science piece. Nope, it doesn't answer the primary question either.

The article was about geothermal heat, which I thought was what we were discussing? If it's volcanic eruptions you're after have a look at the other pages on the same site:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

And for a full list of rebuttals to the most commonly used 'climate myths' and misconceptions:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Cheers,
Joost
 
For example, I can't help but remember the caustic "sarcasm" on post #135 applied to an eminent geologist, Don Easterbrook, regarding his book "Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming." There, you said

That "infamous character's" achievements are reflected in a bibliography as long as your arm (attached).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html
https://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/don-easterbrooks-academic-dishonesty/

Fully deserved imo.

And by the way his publication list includes every single abstract or opinion piece he's written, so we're really talking half an arm of original research here (at best), most of it published decades ago and on geomorphology.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for spamming the thread today, but this study by (ex/current) colleagues just popped up in my inbox:
http://www.nessc.nl/polar-amplification/

"Polar regions warm up stronger due to increasing CO2, even when they were ice-free, new NESSC-research shows. A new reconstruction of ocean temperatures during the Eocene, a geological time period from 56 to 34 million years ago when both of Earth’s poles were not covered by ice and snow, shows that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 determines the changing temperatures of the entire planet, and that temperatures changed more in polar regions than in the tropics. The findings are published today in the leading science journal Nature."

Hopefully it is of interest; as always I'm happy to discuss the specifics

Cheers,
J
 
Last edited:
On post #461 I attached a Climate Dispatch article by James Kamis entitled: "Three New Studies Confirm Volcanism Is Melting West Antarctic Glaciers, Not Global Warming." One might think that an interested reader would click one or more of the links he provided to see what his underlying evidence amounted to. The first and most important was a 2018 article in Nature Communications entitled: "Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier." (attached)
Here is the opening abstract:
Tectonic landforms reveal that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) lies atop a major
volcanic rift system. However, identifying subglacial volcanism is challenging. Here we show
geochemical evidence of a volcanic heat source upstream of the fast-melting Pine Island Ice
Shelf, documented by seawater helium isotope ratios at the front of the Ice Shelf cavity. The
localization of mantle helium to glacial meltwater reveals that volcanic heat induces melt
beneath the grounded glacier and feeds the subglacial hydrological network crossing the
grounding line.
The observed transport of mantle helium out of the Ice Shelf cavity indicates
that volcanic heat is supplied to the grounded glacier at a rate of ~ 2500 ± 1700 MW, which is
ca. half as large as the active Grimsvötn volcano on Iceland. Our finding of a substantial
volcanic heat source beneath a major WAIS glacier highlights the need to understand subglacial
volcanism, its hydrologic interaction with the marine margins, and its potential role in
the future stability of the WAIS.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04421-3 OPEN
1

Here is what Klamis said at the end of his article:
Climate scientists strongly advocating the theory of the global warming to explain the WAIS melting should broaden their research and analyzation process to include the impact of geological forces, like subglacial volcanoes. ...
It sounds quite reasonable to me.

Joost, thanks for your concern about my eyes. The doctor was quite amazed that for an 82-year-old man I showed no signs of diabetic retinopathy. |:$|

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier.pdf
    1.9 MB · Views: 18
Last edited:
One might think that an interested reader would click one or more of the links he provided to see what his underlying evidence amounted to.

Ah I've long given up at being surprised when people persist in arguing from a position of complete ignorance. But it does still rub me up the wrong way ;)

WARNING: this is a long post, but there are a great many points to cover in countering the wilder claims made by Kamis in his “Climate Change Dispatch” article. The diligent reader will be able to find a lot of additional information with the help of Google and a good textbook or two.

Before we start, it is important to consider where the article posted by Ed was published. Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) one of the main climate change denier/skeptic websites. So when Kamis writes “Climate scientists […] should broaden their research and analyzation process […]. It’s time for all of us to help these well-intentioned scientists achieve this goal.” the implications are clear: those ‘mainstream’ climate researchers have 1) not yet considered subglacial volcanic activity, 2) therefore their interpretation of what is going on at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is incorrect, and 3) thus they are wrong about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in general. His already biased CCD audience will nod and agree, the vast majority ‘blinded by science’. A few might click the links to the original papers cited, but those are highly technical and difficult to understand for the layman. Thus, the duty for scientists to ‘simplify’ the information contained within those papers and convey the message(s) to their audience in a correct and dispassionate manner. So let’s examine whether Kamis has done so.

First, a small personal note and a bit of an introduction to the topic at hand.

As a young lad I was always fascinated by distant lands, exotic cultures, wildlife and landscapes. One particular image that stuck in my mind was a photograph (taken by a colleague-to-be as it turned out) of a 4x4 driving on an empty road in front of an imposing, ice-shrouded mountain range. Something like this (https://akamina.co/products/icelandic-road-2) but with a car in it. The picture was of the imposing Öræfajökull volcano in southern Iceland. It inspired me to take up Earth Science in university, and later on to spend a year in Reykjavík studying the local geology. In addition to punching well above its weight in international football, Miss World winners and horrible food, few places can compete with Iceland when it comes to the combination of volcanoes and glaciers. Unsurprising therefore that the ways these two interact were a significant topic in my degree, and Iceland hosts some of the world’s experts on subglacial volcanism.

When thinking about ‘volcanism’, it is important to keep in mind that this is not simply the eruption of lava and big clouds of smoke that wreak havoc on international air traffic. Volcanoes occur along weak spots in the Earth’s crust, either where tectonic plates drift apart (rift zones) or collide (subduction zones), or over particularly hot ‘plumes’ of mantle material (hot spots). Examples are the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and East African Rift Valley (both rift zones), the Andes (subduction zone) and Hawaii (hot spot). Iceland is a bit special because it’s a hot spot on top of a rift zone. The vast majority of volcanic activity occurs underground, but on the surface it leads to two things: geothermal heat and eruptions. Geothermal heat is (more or less) continuous and does what it says on the tin: warm up the surface. Not by an incredible amount, millions of people live in areas of elevated geothermal heat flow, but significant nonetheless and it’s on 24/7. For comparison, geothermal heat flow is only 0.03% of solar irradiance absorbed by the Earth. Volcanic eruptions on the other hand produce vast amounts of surface heat, but only episodically and for a short amount of time (especially geologically speaking). It’s true that some eruptions go on for years and years, but the vast majority don’t. In addition to producing heat and lava, volcanic eruptions also introduce gasses and dust into the atmosphere that can take years to settle down/dissipate (and may lead to temporary global cooling events, e.g. the late 18th century Laki eruption). Some people have argued that there has been a recent increase in volcanic activity, and even that this is what’s driving global warming. However, those claims are not substantiated by the data as eruption levels have remained ‘constant’ for the past 200 years at least (see discussion here: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-significant-increase-in-volcano-eruptions.t6225/).

So, on to glaciers and ice caps/sheets. It is important to keep in mind that these are hydro-meteorological surface features that form wherever accumulation of snow exceeds melting/ablation for a good number of years (enough for the snow to compact and form perennial ice). Typically this is in areas that are cold (high latitude and/or altitude) and receive a lot of precipitation. Thus, the primary driver for glacier formation and size is climate, specifically the interaction between local climatological conditions and topography, although a few other factors come into play (see below). As an example, Iceland’s relatively low mountains in the south and west have glaciers (due to high precipitation), while similar mountains in the north and east do not (too dry). Note that our weather systems generally move west to east due to the Earth’s rotation, so mountain ranges facing oceans to their west are particularly prone to high precipitation and glacier formation (e.g. Alaska, British Columbia, Patagonia, Norway, Antarctic Peninsula). Glaciers gradually slide downhill, with most of the mass accumulation happening high up, and most of the melt happening lower down. This mass balance is highly sensitive to changes in climatological conditions, and a sustained change in weather pattern over many years will induce significant growth or shrinkage. Again, note that this includes changes in both temperature and precipitation (and in many cases wind). It’s not as simple as saying ‘it got warmer/colder’, therefore the glacier got smaller/bigger’. The rate at which a glacier moves downhill is influenced by its mass balance, the bedrock topography (terrain roughness) and something called basal melt. Basal melt is mostly generated by friction, but can be increased by geothermal heat (more on that below), which creates river systems and sometimes lakes at the glacier bed, literally lubricating its base. However, many high latitude glaciers (Greenland, Antarctica) have very little basal melt, meaning the glacier is frozen to the bedrock and moves only very slowly. Finally, there are marine-based glaciers which terminate directly in the sea. These are particularly sensitive to changes in the marine environment (water temperature, sea level) as this can create a ‘pull’ factor because the end of the glacier literally floats at the sea surface.

How do the two combine? Well, Earth scientists have been studying the effects of subglacial volcanism (volcano under enough ice) on the behaviour of both volcanoes and glaciers for decades. They’ve even looked for them on Mars (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-volcano-01b.html). And the dynamics are quite well understood, with many recent observations coming from Iceland. So is geothermal heat on its own enough to affect or prevent formation of a glacier? Somewhat, but judging by the number of glaciers on top of active volcanoes the answer is a firm no, not if the annual snow accumulation rate is sufficient. And seen as geothermal heat flux is insufficient to prevent glaciers from forming even in places like Kilimanjaro, it certainly isn’t enough to completely melt through ice caps hundreds or thousands of meters thick. Elevated levels of geothermal heat do increase the basal melt which makes the glacier slide downhill easier, but remember that the final ‘speed’ depends on basal topography and ice mass balance as well. Volcanic eruptions are easily capable of blasting a hole through a thick layer of ice; for example, in 2010 Eyjafjallajökull melted through a few hundred metres of ice (generating that annoying ash cloud) (https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=372020). However, that ice cap is now recovering rapidly despite high geothermal heat flow in the caldera. Eruptions may be powerful, but they are infrequent and do not affect the situation in the long term. For that the hydro-meteorological conditions which are the driving force behind glaciation need to shift significantly.

After that long introduction, let’s have a look at the Kamis article and the claims made therein:

Climate scientists (including those working on Antarctic ice sheet dynamics) have not considered geological forces, like subglacial volcanoes
This is clear nonsense. I was taught about subglacial volcanism at uni 20 years ago. The processes involved are well understood, if not always well constrained on a case-by-case basis (more on that below). There is a large body of scientific literature spanning decades of research, some of which is cited in the Loose et al. (2018) paper kindly attached by Ed. What about the rift system beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? Surely that’s ‘new information’? Not really. This study from 2017 gives an in-depth overview of the WAIS and the underlying West Antarctic Rift System (http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7), which has been known to exist for decades.
Either Kamis truly believes his own statement (in which case he is woefully uninformed), or he made it in order to increase his own apparent authority for the readers of CCD.

The conclusions of the [Loose et al. 2018] research study […] cites bedrock geothermal heat flow as the root cause of Pine Island Glacier melting
Except…the paper doesn’t (surely you spotted that Ed?). The conclusions of the paper are entirely in line with what I discussed above; and they finish with the following:
“The magnitude and the variations in the rate of volcanic heat […] may impact the future dynamics of the Pine Island Glacier, during the contemporary period of climate-driven glacial retreat.”
In other words, either Kamis hasn’t read the entire paper, not understood it, or is lying for the benefit of his climate-sceptic audience. Take your pick.

This research study entitled “Bedrock in West Antarctica rising at a surprisingly rapid rate” shows that the very well-defined Marie Byrd bedrock mantle plume “hotspot” (MB plume) region is rapidly rising and forming an extensive high elevation dome.
Kamis refers here to a press release from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory about one of its own studies. Seroussi et al. 2017 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2017JB014423) parameterized geothermal heat flux above the MBL mantle plume (which incidentally has been in evidence since the Pliocene) with the following conclusion:
“The experiments show that mantle plumes have an important local impact on the ice sheet, with basal melting rates reaching several centimeters per year directly above the hotspot”.
Significant yes, and with important implications for overall WAIS stability. But several cm losses are easily within the range of glacial accretion rates for the Western Antarctic under current hydro-meteorological conditions – should those change then the additional basal melt may contribute to instability of the ice sheet, especially given that contains many marine-based glacier systems.

The Technical University of Demark (TUD) spearheaded the study which concluded that rapid elevation rise of the MB plume region is the result of post-glacial rebound. […]There are several problems with invoking post-glacial rebound as the cause of the MB plume region bedrock uplift [because 41 mm/year is] abnormally high when compared to normal post-glacial rebound rates [of] 25 millimeters per year
Kamis again cites a press release, but forgot to include the actual reference. It took a second to find it, because the work was not actually done at the TUD; the postdoc who did the work while at Ohio State University has since moved to the TUD (whoops, sloppy). Anyway the paper is in Science (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1335) and suggests the rapid uplift may actually help stabilize the WAIS in future, although this idea is disputed by others. What’s puzzling is Kamis’ assertion that 41 mm/year is too high for post-glacial geostatic rebound over mantle plumes – for example in Iceland rates of up to 92 mm/year have been calculated (http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/content/167/2/417). Thus, his next assertion is incorrect:
It is here likely that the rapid elevation rise rate of the MB plume region is caused by the uplifting action of geological forces and one has to wonder what other uplifting forces he has in mind? Presumably the mantle plume itself, but that was already included in the study he refers to, plus fully in line with known rates over mantle plumes.

Additional information concerning the geologically active Marie Byrd bedrock mantle plume “hotspot” and the giant deep-earth fault that fuels this plume…
Kamis demonstrates that, despite his undergraduate degree in geology, he has no clue what mantle plumes are. Hint: they are not fueled by giant deep-earth faults…

This study, entitled “New study suggests surprising wrinkle in the history of West Antarctic Ice Sheet”, proves that the WAIS significantly melted and retreated 10,000 years ago, then quickly recovered to its full extent. […] This information strongly indicates that ancient ice melting of the WAIS is almost certainly related to underlying bedrock geothermal heat flow from geographically specific geological features and not worldwide atmospheric global warming.
Another press release, not a study, and when you actually read it is says the following:
“The warming after the last Ice Age made the ice masses of West Antarctica dwindle rather rapidly. […] It retreated inland by more than 1,000 kilometers in a period of 1,000 years in this region—on geological time-scales, this is really high-speed. But now we detected that this process at some point got partially reversed. Instead of total collapse, the ice-sheet grew again by up to 400 kilometers. This is an amazing self-induced stabilization. However, it took a whopping 10,000 years, up until now. Given the speed of current climate-change from burning fossil fuels, the mechanism we detected unfortunately does not work fast enough to save today's ice sheets from melting and causing seas to rise.” (https://phys.org/news/2018-06-wrinkle-history-west-antarctic-ice.html)
So not at all a rapid reversal as Kamis claims…misreading again or twisting the facts?

Combining the data and conclusions of three brand new research studies with very telling older research studies and previous CCD articles, it becomes very clear that melting of West Antarctica’s Ice Sheet is the result of bedrock geothermal heat flow, not atmospheric global warming.
Leaving aside the scientific ‘credibility’ of previous Climate Change Dispatch articles, this is 100% Kamis’ own interpretation. All his cited sources disagree with him (but who in his audience is going to check?), and his reasoning flies in the face of geological knowledge (and common sense). Instead, I recommend the review article by Van Wijk de Vries et al (2017), which I cited earlier and which discusses the WARS and its impact on the long-term stability of the WAIS in detail: http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7. As the authors conclude:
“Geological evidence points to the likelihood that the WAIS experienced extensive retreat during Quaternary glacial minima and concurrently contributed several metres to global sea-level rise. Currently, the WAIS may be undergoing another such wholesale retreat, as ice in the Pacific facing sector has consistently been retreating from the time of the earliest aerial and satellite observations. We do not consider it likely that volcanism has played a significant role in triggering the current retreat, for which there is compelling evidence that the forcing has initiated from the margins, but we do propose that subglacial volcanism has the potential to influence future rates of retreat by (1) producing enhanced basal melting that could impact upon basal ice motion and (2) providing edifices that may act to pin retreat.”
Hopefully my long introduction has provided some background for this conclusion, which makes sense from a scientific point of view.

Finally, I wanted to link to this exhaustive review of the glacial history of Antarctica: https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb6/prof/GEO/Kilian/Ingolfsson_SUMMARY_Antarctica.pdf

Thanks for bearing with me, I hope the post was informative, and I urge everyone following the climate ‘debate’ to always fact check their sources.

Cheers,
Joost

P.S. happy to provide pdf’s or additional info as always!
 
Last edited:
I see no evidence that the Pine Island Glacier is melting and retreating from man-made global warming. Other than model-based conjecture, where is it?

I also wanted to reply to this query, because it has an oft-used argument at its heart, namely: 'The evidence for man-made global warming is based on (unreliable) computer models, there is no empirical evidence'. That is factually incorrect, as is discussed here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
AGW follows a sound theory based on extensive knowledge of atmospheric chemistry, and it is backed up by both direct and indirect/historic empirical observations. This is the evidence base, not the models itself. The latter are simply an attempt to predict the effects of increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, not justify the theory.

Cheers,
Joost
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top