East Antarctica may be just as unstable as West

[SSDD]

Volcanic activity is not warming the sea water washing up along Antarctica's ice shelf. I think, just as with their GHG emissions, you find it easy to picture volcanoes as unimaginably enormous sources of energy when, in fact, the volcanoes under the Antarctic ice sheet provide no where near the energy required to produce the observed ocean warming or ice melting. And then there's Greenland. Do you believe all that to be volcanic as well?

So you have no answer to my two postings that directly address your crying "we are doomed" bullshit?

Snicker...…………….

You really didn’t expect anything different did you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Volcanic activity is not warming the sea water washing up along Antarctica's ice shelf. I think, just as with their GHG emissions, you find it easy to picture volcanoes as unimaginably enormous sources of energy when, in fact, the volcanoes under the Antarctic ice sheet provide no where near the energy required to produce the observed ocean warming or ice melting. And then there's Greenland. Do you believe all that to be volcanic as well?

So you have no answer to my two postings that directly address your crying "we are doomed" bullshit?

Snicker...…………….

You really didn’t expect anything different did you?

I like to put a pretender engineer on the spot, he has once again flunked the simple math angle.

Lets see if he can explain this away, using his pretender engineering math:

Antarctica set its coldest EVER March temperature (-103.5F)

Last Friday, Antarctica set a record for its coldest March temp ever recorded, not just for the day, but for the entire month.

The Vostok Station clocked a bone-chilling -75.3C (-103.54F) on the morning of Friday, March 20, as spotted by @TempGlobal on Twitter:

 

[mamooth]

Exactly how much energy do volcanoes under the ice sheet provide?

"DERP! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT MAGIC UNDETECTABLE VOLCANOES, THEREFORE IT IS! DERP!"

All the deniers left on this thread are profoundly stupid human beings. They all actually think that non-stupid people are going to believe their evidence-free claims of fairy magic, just because the cult commanded them to believe it.

Hey cultists, where are the heat plumes from these magic volcanoes? Where's the sulfur and chlorine pouring out? Oh, that's right. They're special magic undetectable volcanoes, ten thousand of them, which all suddenly roared into life in the past few decades, leaving no other trace but melting ice. Damn, that's a stupid theory, which is one reason why the world laughs so hard at deniers.

 

[SSDD]

Exactly how much energy do volcanoes under the ice sheet provide?

"DERP! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT MAGIC UNDETECTABLE VOLCANOES, THEREFORE IT IS! DERP!"

All the deniers left on this thread are profoundly stupid human beings. They all actually think that non-stupid people are going to believe their evidence-free claims of fairy magic, just because the cult commanded them to believe it.

Hey cultists, where are the heat plumes from these magic volcanoes? Where's the sulfur and chlorine pouring out? Oh, that's right. They're special magic undetectable volcanoes, ten thousand of them, which all suddenly roared into life in the past few decades, leaving no other trace but melting ice. Damn, that's a stupid theory, which is one reason why the world laughs so hard at deniers.

Poor hair ball...have you forgotten that the volcanic activity under east Antarctica was undetectable and unknown till it wasn’t? There were no heat plumes or clouds of sulfur and chlorine...and there still aren’t.
like the fake engineer you just make it up as you go and are dim enoough to believe your own BS.

the fact is that like the fake engineer, you have no idea and are just talking to hear yourself talk since no one takes either of you seriously.

 

[mamooth]

Poor hair ball...have you forgotten that the volcanic activity under east Antarctica was undetectable and unknown till it wasn’t?

So?

They weren't new volcanoes.

And they're still short in heat output by a factor of about 10 thousand to melt that much ice.

But then, you're a denier, so what's a factor of ten thousand? Facts and numbers are for those stupid egghead scientists and rational people, which is why all deniers reject such things.

 

[ReinyDays]

So?
They weren't new volcanoes.
And they're still short in heat output by a factor of about 10 thousand to melt that much ice.
But then, you're a denier, so what's a factor of ten thousand? Facts and numbers are for those stupid egghead scientists and rational people, which is why all deniers reject such things.

How much ice is melting? ... or should I ask ... where's all this melt water going? ...

Sea level isn't rising much faster today than it was 50 years ago ... ergo, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting away isn't happening yet ... this is just another bit of "ah ha, mine eye hath seen it" type of story ... one tiny little sliver of ice is moving slightly faster than what was expected ... not that this has been measured before, just that we can make scary headlines with it ...

Show me the extra water, because it isn't in the oceans ... or if it is, it's a trivial amount ...

 

[SSDD]

Poor hair ball...have you forgotten that the volcanic activity under east Antarctica was undetectable and unknown till it wasn’t?

So?

They weren't new volcanoes.

And they're still short in heat output by a factor of about 10 thousand to melt that much ice.

But then, you're a denier, so what's a factor of ten thousand? Facts and numbers are for those stupid egghead scientists and rational people, which is why all deniers reject such things.

not new? How old are they? How long have they been active?

whats that? No idea? Yet more fiction that I bet you believe.

You talk like you have some actual idea about the volcanic activity in East Antarctica. So tell me what we know so far...

what’s that?.....we don’t know jack?...that’s what I thought. So once again you are just making it up as you go...whatever you think supports your narrative is the story you make up and spew as if it weren’t pure fiction.

 

[Crick]

"The heat welling up from Earth’s interior beneath ice sheets and glaciers has nothing to do with the relatively rapid change in climate over recent decades, driven mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere. Heat sources from the deep Earth can remain steady for 50, 90 or 100 million years; human-driven climate change is occurring over mere decades and centuries. "

Fire below, ice above: volcanoes, glaciers and sea level rise - NASA Science

New observations and refined modeling allow scientists to peer beneath the ice of Greenland and Antarctica.

climate.nasa.gov

Hot spots, such as those that created Iceland and ripped a scar across Greenland, that created the Hawaiian Islands and exist beneath Antarctica, do not turn themselves on and off on a human time scale. The increased melting of Antarctica and Greenland have done precisely that.

 

[westwall]

"The heat welling up from Earth’s interior beneath ice sheets and glaciers has nothing to do with the relatively rapid change in climate over recent decades, driven mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere. Heat sources from the deep Earth can remain steady for 50, 90 or 100 million years; human-driven climate change is occurring over mere decades and centuries. "

Fire below, ice above: volcanoes, glaciers and sea level rise - NASA Science

New observations and refined modeling allow scientists to peer beneath the ice of Greenland and Antarctica.

climate.nasa.gov

Hot spots, such as those that created Iceland and ripped a scar across Greenland, that created the Hawaiian Islands and exist beneath Antarctica, do not turn themselves on and off on a human time scale. The increased melting of Antarctica and Greenland have done precisely that.

Opinions, that ignore actual facts, are nothing more than propaganda.

 

[ReinyDays]

"The heat welling up from Earth’s interior beneath ice sheets and glaciers has nothing to do with the relatively rapid change in climate over recent decades, driven mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere. Heat sources from the deep Earth can remain steady for 50, 90 or 100 million years; human-driven climate change is occurring over mere decades and centuries. "

Fire below, ice above: volcanoes, glaciers and sea level rise - NASA Science

New observations and refined modeling allow scientists to peer beneath the ice of Greenland and Antarctica.

climate.nasa.gov

Hot spots, such as those that created Iceland and ripped a scar across Greenland, that created the Hawaiian Islands and exist beneath Antarctica, do not turn themselves on and off on a human time scale. The increased melting of Antarctica and Greenland have done precisely that.

... the relatively rapid change in climate over recent decades ...

You need to work on your New Speak some more ... "decades" still means 10's of years ... the climate hasn't changed in 100's of years, that's "centuries" ...

"Rapid" means quickly ... nice that you qualified it with "relatively" ... and indeed relative to the complete life span of a red dwarf star, climate is crazy up and down, change over trillions of years, we don't have that much time to work with ...

NASA is great for aeronautical engineering and space flight ... but those folks aren't trained in either meteorology or climatology ... so your reference is flawed as "appealing to authority" ...

I ask again ... how much ice is melting? ... or should I ask ... where's all this melt water going? ...

 

[SSDD]

"The heat welling up from Earth’s interior beneath ice sheets and glaciers has nothing to do with the relatively rapid change in climate over recent decades, driven mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere.

Talk, talk, talk and more talk from the fake engineer pretending that he has a clue. Do you ever research anything beyond the effort it takes to drink the kook aid?

It is abundantly clear that you have no inkling of what is being learned in recent years about undersea volcanic activity. I guess you are completely unaware of the rapidly growing body of evidence demonstrating that El Nino events are the result of undersea volcanic activity. Do you want to try and make the case that El Nino has no effect on the climate? Here is a graphic showing the amount of geothermal emission from the surface of the earth. Clearly it is not an insignificant amount of energy.

Geothermal Emission at the surface

Heat sources from the deep Earth can remain steady for 50, 90 or 100 million years; human-driven climate change is occurring over mere decades and centuries. "

Fire below, ice above: volcanoes, glaciers and sea level rise - NASA Science

New observations and refined modeling allow scientists to peer beneath the ice of Greenland and Antarctica.

climate.nasa.gov

If undersea volcanic activity is responsible for El Nino events, then clearly the undersea volcanic activity is cyclical as well as there could be no La Nina events if the sea bed volcanoes and vents were steady in their output. You are operating 15 years behind fake engineer. Much has been learned and much evidence has been gathered while you and yours have been busy manipulating temperature data records.

Here...have a look at some science that isn't 15 years out of date.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

https://www.plateclimatology.com/further-proof-el-nios-are-fueled-by-deepsea-geological-heat-flowHot spots, such as those that created Iceland and ripped a scar across Greenland, that created the Hawaiian Islands and exist beneath Antarctica, do not turn themselves on and off on a human time scale. The increased melting of Antarctica and Greenland have done precisely that.

Again...try looking for some information that is not 15 to 50 years out of date. You claim to be an "ocean" engineer...how is it that you are unaware of all the new information and research happening regarding undersea volcanic activity. Science itself has freely admitted that it has "grossly" underestimated the extent of undersea volcanic activity.

And by the way, what "rapid" climate change are you talking about? Where is it happening? If one looks at the temperature history of the earth by region, most of the earth as seen very little change over the past 150 years...there are a couple of regions that have seen some warming and a few more that have seen cooling...the only place that global anything is seen is in the highly manipulate, homogenized, infilled, and completely meaningless global temperature data...and when you look at that data, it is clear that the warmest places on earth are invariably the places with the least instrumental coverage needing the most infilling...

 

[Likkmee]

That place is run by tuxedo wearing democrats !

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 320247
Geothermal Emission at the surface

View attachment 320249

That's some batshit crazy information there ... the US Eastern seaboard is emitting 600 W/m^2? ... that's over twice the amount of energy re-radiated from solar input ... a quick run through SB gives around 75ºC average in New Jersey ... really? ...

My understanding is that geothermal emission is too small to measure ... and is estimated at 1 W/m^2 ... and it's been constant enough over the past few million years to be safely ignored ...

BTW ... it was a different posted who claimed to be an ocean engineer, our resident expert on thermodynamics ... I don't think the OP in this thread would know what erg was unless he looked it up real quick ...

 

[SSDD]

"The heat welling up from Earth’s interior beneath ice sheets and glaciers has nothing to do with the relatively rapid change in climate over recent decades, driven mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere.

Talk, talk, talk and more talk from the fake engineer pretending that he has a clue. Do you ever research anything beyond the effort it takes to drink the kook aid?

It is abundantly clear that you have no inkling of what is being learned in recent years about undersea volcanic activity. I guess you are completely unaware of the rapidly growing body of evidence demonstrating that El Nino events are the result of undersea volcanic activity. Do you want to try and make the case that El Nino has no effect on the climate? Here is a graphic showing the amount of geothermal emission from the surface of the earth. Clearly it is not an insignificant amount of energy.

View attachment 320247
Geothermal Emission at the surface

View attachment 320249

Heat sources from the deep Earth can remain steady for 50, 90 or 100 million years; human-driven climate change is occurring over mere decades and centuries. "

Fire below, ice above: volcanoes, glaciers and sea level rise - NASA Science

New observations and refined modeling allow scientists to peer beneath the ice of Greenland and Antarctica.

climate.nasa.gov

If undersea volcanic activity is responsible for El Nino events, then clearly the undersea volcanic activity is cyclical as well as there could be no La Nina events if the sea bed volcanoes and vents were steady in their output. You are operating 15 years behind fake engineer. Much has been learned and much evidence has been gathered while you and yours have been busy manipulating temperature data records.

Here...have a look at some science that isn't 15 years out of date.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow — Plate climatology

www.plateclimatology.com

https://www.plateclimatology.com/further-proof-el-nios-are-fueled-by-deepsea-geological-heat-flowHot spots, such as those that created Iceland and ripped a scar across Greenland, that created the Hawaiian Islands and exist beneath Antarctica, do not turn themselves on and off on a human time scale. The increased melting of Antarctica and Greenland have done precisely that.

Again...try looking for some information that is not 15 to 50 years out of date. You claim to be an "ocean" engineer...how is it that you are unaware of all the new information and research happening regarding undersea volcanic activity. Science itself has freely admitted that it has "grossly" underestimated the extent of undersea volcanic activity. Scientists now think that 90% of the volcanic activity on earth is happening on the sea bed and only about 3% of that real estate is actively monitored... in short, science has no real handle on how much energy is being released by volcanoes that we can’t see, but they admit that they have grossly underestimated how much of it is happening at any given time.

And by the way, what "rapid" climate change are you talking about? Where is it happening? If one looks at the temperature history of the earth by region, most of the earth as seen very little change over the past 150 years...there are a couple of regions that have seen some warming and a few more that have seen cooling...the only place that global anything is seen is in the highly manipulate, homogenized, infilled, and completely meaningless global temperature data...and when you look at that data, it is clear that the warmest places on earth are invariably the places with the least instrumental coverage needing the most infilling...

 

[SSDD]

View attachment 320247
Geothermal Emission at the surface

View attachment 320249

That's some batshit crazy information there ... the US Eastern seaboard is emitting 600 W/m^2? ... that's over twice the amount of energy re-radiated from solar input ... a quick run through SB gives around 75ºC average in New Jersey ... really? ...

My understanding is that geothermal emission is too small to measure ... and is estimated at 1 W/m^2 ... and it's been constant enough over the past few million years to be safely ignored ...

BTW ... it was a different posted who claimed to be an ocean engineer ... our resident expert on thermodynamics ... I don't think the OP in this thread would know what erg was unless he looked it up real quick ...

No...crick claims to be an ocean engineer as well. The links within the link will take you to the source of the graph... eventually geothermal is going to overturn atmosphere as driving the climate.

 

[ReinyDays]

No...crick claims to be an ocean engineer as well. The links within the link will take you to the source of the graph... eventually geothermal is going to overturn atmosphere as driving the climate.

Crick is not an engineer of any kind ... I seriously doubt he's taken any college level science classes at all ...

I count six links in your link ... I'm not diving down that rabbit hole with you ... please post your "peer-reviewed scientific paper" link where you got this garbage ... and why exactly would comments about under sea volcanoes have anything to do with emission maxima along the US eastern seaboard? ...

 

[SSDD]

Crick is not an engineer of any kind ... I seriously doubt he's taken any college level science classes at all ...[/quote]

Of course he isn't...but that doesn't stop him from claiming to be one.. Here is a link to one of his posts claiming to be an engineer

#24

"I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering. That included two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermodynamics)."

I count six links in your link ... I'm not diving down that rabbit hole with you ... please post your "peer-reviewed scientific paper" link where you got this garbage ... and why exactly would comments about under sea volcanoes have anything to do with emission maxima along the US eastern seaboard? ...

My bet is that the emission along the seaboard has a great deal to do with the amount of nearly unbroken concrete to be found there.

In any event...the idea of geothermal energy driving the climate along with the sun makes far more sense than something as ridiculous as a trace "cooling" gas in the atmosphere driving the climate.

 

[westwall]

Crick is not an engineer of any kind ... I seriously doubt he's taken any college level science classes at all ...

Of course he isn't...but that doesn't stop him from claiming to be one.. Here is a link to one of his posts claiming to be an engineer

#24

"I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering. That included two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermodynamics)."

I count six links in your link ... I'm not diving down that rabbit hole with you ... please post your "peer-reviewed scientific paper" link where you got this garbage ... and why exactly would comments about under sea volcanoes have anything to do with emission maxima along the US eastern seaboard? ...

My bet is that the emission along the seaboard has a great deal to do with the amount of nearly unbroken concrete to be found there.

In any event...the idea of geothermal energy driving the climate along with the sun makes far more sense than something as ridiculous as a trace "cooling" gas in the atmosphere driving the climate.
[/QUOTE]






According to all scientific evidence we have, volcanic activity can only cool the planet.

It is only in computer models that warming ever occurs.

 

[SSDD]

According to all scientific evidence we have, volcanic activity can only cool the planet.

It is only in computer models that warming ever occurs.

right up there with the sun having little to do with the climate...

 

[ReinyDays]

Of course he isn't...but that doesn't stop him from claiming to be one

Okay ... you win this one ... my apologies ...

My bet is that the emission along the seaboard has a great deal to do with the amount of nearly unbroken concrete to be found there.

In any event...the idea of geothermal energy driving the climate along with the sun makes far more sense than something as ridiculous as a trace "cooling" gas in the atmosphere driving the climate.

No ... the graphic shows three times as much energy leaving the surface as what can be attributed to the Sun ... cite please ...

I'm sorry ... a tiny temperature increase can be caused by a tiny amount of extra GHG ... how much we don't know, the thermometers we're using aren't accurate enough to tell ... we need to wait 100 years for that ...