New Antarctic island spotted as mammoth glacier retreats

[flacaltenn]

There's probably a lot of really cool stuff under the ice. Entire lost cities, perhaps.

I sthat a joke?

Only kinda --- probably.. There was probably LIFE on the continent around the Mezoic Era when all the continents of the Earth were one.. (if the science is right)... That "Pangea" stage had Antarctica NORTH of Australia.....

Cool stuff maybe... But no cities or villages or even Neanderthals..

 

[flacaltenn]

If you look a the data, theses volcanic fissures aren't new. They've been around thousands of years, at least.

Proved that false didn't we?? MOST were not known, mapped or measured until just a few years ago...
[

If you look at the data, the heat output would have to be a thousand times bigger to melt that much ice.

But the OLD theory was the footers of these glaciers were LIQUIFYING SOLELY from the 0.5DegC rise in GLOBAL WARMING surface temp about 30 STORIES ABOVE the footers at the ice surface...

Now you go compare the PROBABILITIES and the amounts of warming AT THE FOOTERS and tell me how much crust heating is required to OVERWHELM the influence from the measly couple Watts of GW at the surface..

Science aint settled Squidly,. You're gonna have to start forcing yourself to read it all...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

He's not a super genius....just loaded with facts....get a clue.

Thanks... I think...

Just a genius.

Not a super genius.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you look a the data, theses volcanic fissures aren't new. They've been around thousands of years, at least.

Proved that false didn't we?? MOST were not known, mapped or measured until just a few years ago...
[

If you look at the data, the heat output would have to be a thousand times bigger to melt that much ice.

But the OLD theory was the footers of these glaciers were LIQUIFYING SOLELY from the 0.5DegC rise in GLOBAL WARMING surface temp about 30 STORIES ABOVE the footers at the ice surface...

Now you go compare the PROBABILITIES and the amounts of warming AT THE FOOTERS and tell me how much crust heating is required to OVERWHELM the influence from the measly couple Watts of GW at the surface..

Science aint settled Squidly,. You're gonna have to start forcing yourself to read it all...

You'll notice mamooth exited the conversation after her first little turd of a post.

Not been back to get the bloodying she deserves.

 

[mamooth]

DUhhhh... But they weren't as mapped and MEASURED as they have been in JUST the past decade... It was definitely BIG NEWS that they extended under critical areas of the WAIS like Pig Island Bay..

As usual, you didn't address the actual point, which is that there's zero evidence that this vulcanism is anything new.

Why do you think that "A volcano was discovered under the ice sheet" means "A new volcano just started erupting under the ice sheet?". Nothing suggests that's the case, yet you make it the basis of your conspiracy theory.

Major bullshit award for that one... You can melt as much ice with 0.1degC over 10 years as you can with 1DegC over one year.. And to boot, we're talking about the FOOTERS of those glaciers where the thermo problem setup includes INTENSE PRESSURE and no adequate heat loss..

Let's do what you're allergic to doing, and run some numbers.

It takes 300 Joules per gram to melt ice. That makes 3E17 J to melt a gigatonne of ice. Ice loss of Antarctica is around 250 gigatonnes a year, making for 7.5E19 J. But since a lot of ice just slides off instead of melting, call it 1.0E19 J needed to melt the ice.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens released around 1.0E18 Joules.

So, according to your theory, ten Mt. St. Helens scale eruptions have been happening under the ice every year, totally undetected except for the ice melt.

And that's why your theory is laughed at.

Mt Erebus on this fissure line overlooking the major west coast research base down there has been ACTIVELY spewing for about 20 years now...

Mt. Erebus has been spewing constantly since discovered in 1841. Odd how it didn't start to melt Antarctica until just now.

"Conspiracy theory" my ass.. The papers EXIST..

And they don't make the bad conclusions that you make. That's all on you.

So I found THIS article especially for "STUDENTS" to try and penetrate the Mammoth "bubble"... Here ya go Squidward --- REAL disruptive GW NEWS aimed right at your bubble...

Please provide your evidence that brand new volcanoes suddenly started melting the Antarctic ice just recently. Understand that "But they discovered some volcanoes!" is not evidence that any volcanoes started erupting just recently, or that they're even erupting at all, no matter how many times you repeat that unsupported assertion.

Also explain the lack of any evidence for the multiple VEI7 eruptions each year that would be required to melt that much ice.

 

[flacaltenn]

DUhhhh... But they weren't as mapped and MEASURED as they have been in JUST the past decade... It was definitely BIG NEWS that they extended under critical areas of the WAIS like Pig Island Bay..

As usual, you didn't address the actual point, which is that there's zero evidence that this vulcanism is anything new.

Why do you think that "A volcano was discovered under the ice sheet" means "A new volcano just started erupting under the ice sheet?". Nothing suggests that's the case, yet you make it the basis of your conspiracy theory.

Major bullshit award for that one... You can melt as much ice with 0.1degC over 10 years as you can with 1DegC over one year.. And to boot, we're talking about the FOOTERS of those glaciers where the thermo problem setup includes INTENSE PRESSURE and no adequate heat loss..

Let's do what you're allergic to doing, and run the numbers.

It takes 300 Joules per gram to melt ice. That makes 3E17 J to melt a gigatonne of ice. Ice loss of Antarctica is around 250 gigatonnes a year, making for 7.5E19 J. But since a lot of ice just slides off instead of melting, call it 1.0E19 J needed to melt the ice.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens released around 1.0E18 Joules.

So, according to your theory, ten Mt. St. Helens scale eruptions have been happening under the ice every year, totally undetected except for the ice melt.

And that's why your theory is laughed at.

Mt Erebus on this fissure line overlooking the major west coast research base down there has been ACTIVELY spewing for about 20 years now...

Mt. Erebus has been spewing constantly since discovered in 1841. Odd how it didn't start to melt Antarctica until just how.

"Conspiracy theory" my ass.. The papers EXIST..

And they don't make the bad conclusions that you make. That's all on you.

So I found THIS article especially for "STUDENTS" to try and penetrate the Mammoth "bubble"... Here ya go Squidward --- REAL disruptive GW NEWS aimed right at your bubble...

Please provide your evidence that brand new volcanoes suddenly started melting the Antarctic ice just recently. Do note that "But they discovered some volcanoes!" is not evidence that any volcanoes started erupting just recently, or that they're even erupting at all, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Also explain the lack of any evidence for the multiple VEI7 eruptions each year that would be required to melt that much ice.

Dont know where the **** you got the math facts, but math facts for science are MORE dependent on setting up the problem CORRECTLY, than "showing your work"...

We're NOT MELTING gigatons of ice.. Ever since the glacial velocities picked up in the WAIS and the GO TO reaction was "GW from ABOVE", we've been told the glaciers are NOT MELTING.. the velocity pickup is because of "lubrication from beneath" at the footers.. RIVERS of fresh water melt at their BASES....

As to when this actually started --- NOBODY knows and it does not matter.. Because that volcanic rift and activity is a FAR BETTER explanation than "melting from above"...

I was reading papers in the 90s saying that this increased glacier velocity was PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN.. Meaning NO ONE knows when it started... And we probably won't ever know that..

But everyone LEPT to conclusions before we had 10 years to start studying the problem...

 

[flacaltenn]

And that's why your theory is laughed at.

NOT MY theory Squiddly... But we sure ARE laughing.. Keep it up... You have great denier potential if you can BLAME ME -- for the science you don't want to accept.... Or worrying about what millenium the glaciers picked up speed when science didn't know JACKSHIT about the WAIS about 20 yrs ago...

The science is NOT settled.. On this issue and many other GW issues as well...

 

[mamooth]

Dont know where the **** you got the math facts, but math facts for science are MORE dependent on setting up the problem CORRECTLY, than "showing your work"..

Then set up the problem for us. Cut my numbers by another factor of 10, and you're still requiring one magical undetectable VEI7 eruption each year in that spot. And that's absurd.

We're NOT MELTING gigatons of ice.. Ever since the glacial velocities picked up in the WAIS and the GO TO reaction was "GW from ABOVE", we've been told the glaciers are NOT MELTING..

No, we're most definitely told the glaciers are melting at the base due to higher ocean temperatures.

the velocity pickup is because of "lubrication from beneath" at the footers.. RIVERS of fresh water melt at their BASES....

Rivers of water which would have to be carrying the sulfur, chlorine, fluorine and other chemicals released from the volcano. In Iceland, for example, they observe such sulfuric water gushing out from the glaciers when a volcano erupts under the ice.

Antarctica? We observe none of that. Hence, we conclude there are no volcanoes of any significance.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then set up the problem for us. Cut my numbers by another factor of 10, and you're still requiring one magical undetectable VEI7 eruption each year in that spot. And that's absurd.

What makes you even think about comparing "hot rocks" under immense pressure to an actual "Mt St Helens" event???? THat's why I lectured you about 'setting up the problem"... THe set-up is --- how many DEGREES OF HEAT at those footers under pressure would be required to start lubricating the footers...

Think "hot springs" rather than full volcanic "eruptions"... If (to be generous) ONE ******* DEGREE of GW can do it from 500 FT ABOVE -- what FRACTION OF THAT is required to that in a pressure cooker at the bases?

Dont know why I even respond to you... Must be that you like me so much...

 

[mamooth]

What makes you even think about comparing "hot rocks" under immense pressure to an actual "Mt St Helens" event????

So give us some numbers. Just how much water is required to accelerate the glaciers?

Oh, that's right. You don't do numbers. You shout "I FEEL THIS MUST BE CORRECT!", and then demand everyone else accept it, even though you have zero evidence to back it up. Good luck with that.

Think "hot springs" rather than full volcanic "eruptions"...

Hot springs that would have to be massive and full of chemicals. Which we could detect in multiple ways. We don't detect such a thing, therefore those supermassive hot springs aren't there.

If (to be generous) ONE ******* DEGREE of GW can do it from 500 FT ABOVE

No, it's mostly being done from below, by the warming oceans. If you're going to critique the science, at least learn what the basics are.

Dont know why I even respond to you... Must be that you like me so much...

At this stage, you know you're spouting garbage. You're just don't want to admit that I'm right again. What, you actually think everyone doesn't see that?

 

[flacaltenn]

Hot springs that would have to be massive and full of chemicals. Which we could detect in multiple ways. We don't detect such a thing, therefore those supermassive hot springs aren't there.

AND THERE -- is the dead giveaway. You either didn't READ or UNDERSTAND the 2nd reference I provided on this.. For those that DID -- they KNOW we HAVE detected gas samples characteristic of volcanic ocean venting.

As to the MATH -- there's not enough info yet for experts to postulate... But YOU were SO FAR from setting up the problem to calculate with your Mt St Helen example -- that I'm not even gonna point out how WIMPERING SAD your pursuit of me is here..

Seems like someone who rants about these fissures and vents BEING there for "a long time", maybe a hundred or more years should KNOW that a Joule is a watt-second and the RAMIFICATIONS of a 2 day Mt. St Helens versus a HUNDRED YEAR much smaller power driver can be a COMPLETE TOSS UP in terms of heating the footers of those glaciers..

 

[flacaltenn]

Before I stop wasting time with you --- DO NOT feel bad.. Many GW scientists have confused power with energy units before.. And that's part of the reason their modeling is not mature AND NOT SETTLED....

 

[flacaltenn]

Antarctica? We observe none of that. Hence, we conclude there are no volcanoes of any significance.

OH -- THIS is rich.. Wisdom just FLOWS from my pursuer.....

Hold on to what ever is left of your dignity.... I COULD entertain myself ALL freakin night correcting all your misconceptions, but I'm buying a car tomorrow and got some research to do... More fun ya know...

Significant eruptions of Mount Erebus reported, Antarctica

Even took down an airplane in 1979... On the SAME RIFF system as the rest of the WAIS -- right NEAR Ross Island....



STRIKE 219.... there squiddly... Game's over...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hot springs that would have to be massive and full of chemicals. Which we could detect in multiple ways. We don't detect such a thing, therefore those supermassive hot springs aren't there.

AND THERE -- is the dead giveaway. You either didn't READ or UNDERSTAND the 2nd reference I provided on this.. For those that DID -- they KNOW we HAVE detected gas samples characteristic of volcanic ocean venting.

As to the MATH -- there's not enough info yet for experts to postulate... But YOU were SO FAR from setting up the problem to calculate with your Mt St Helen example -- that I'm not even gonna point out how WIMPERING SAD your pursuit of me is here..

Seems like someone who rants about these fissures and vents BEING there for "a long time", maybe a hundred or more years should KNOW that a Joule is a watt-second and the RAMIFICATIONS of a 2 day Mt. St Helens versus a HUNDRED YEAR much smaller power driver can be a COMPLETE TOSS UP in terms of heating the footers of those glaciers..

Agreed.

This involves more than simple things like latent heat of melting. This is a complex dynamics problem that seems to revolve around coeffients of friction.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What makes you even think about comparing "hot rocks" under immense pressure to an actual "Mt St Helens" event????

So give us some numbers. Just how much water is required to accelerate the glaciers?

Oh, that's right. You don't do numbers. You shout "I FEEL THIS MUST BE CORRECT!", and then demand everyone else accept it, even though you have zero evidence to back it up. Good luck with that.

Think "hot springs" rather than full volcanic "eruptions"...

Hot springs that would have to be massive and full of chemicals. Which we could detect in multiple ways. We don't detect such a thing, therefore those supermassive hot springs aren't there.

If (to be generous) ONE ******* DEGREE of GW can do it from 500 FT ABOVE

No, it's mostly being done from below, by the warming oceans. If you're going to critique the science, at least learn what the basics are.

Dont know why I even respond to you... Must be that you like me so much...

At this stage, you know you're spouting garbage. You're just don't want to admit that I'm right again. What, you actually think everyone doesn't see that?

A legend in your own mind.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dont know where the **** you got the math facts, but math facts for science are MORE dependent on setting up the problem CORRECTLY, than "showing your work"..

Then set up the problem for us. Cut my numbers by another factor of 10, and you're still requiring one magical undetectable VEI7 eruption each year in that spot. And that's absurd.

We're NOT MELTING gigatons of ice.. Ever since the glacial velocities picked up in the WAIS and the GO TO reaction was "GW from ABOVE", we've been told the glaciers are NOT MELTING..

No, we're most definitely told the glaciers are melting at the base due to higher ocean temperatures.

the velocity pickup is because of "lubrication from beneath" at the footers.. RIVERS of fresh water melt at their BASES....

Rivers of water which would have to be carrying the sulfur, chlorine, fluorine and other chemicals released from the volcano. In Iceland, for example, they observe such sulfuric water gushing out from the glaciers when a volcano erupts under the ice.

Antarctica? We observe none of that. Hence, we conclude there are no volcanoes of any significance.

What you are being told apparently is bullshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dont know where the **** you got the math facts, but math facts for science are MORE dependent on setting up the problem CORRECTLY, than "showing your work"..

Then set up the problem for us. Cut my numbers by another factor of 10, and you're still requiring one magical undetectable VEI7 eruption each year in that spot. And that's absurd.

We're NOT MELTING gigatons of ice.. Ever since the glacial velocities picked up in the WAIS and the GO TO reaction was "GW from ABOVE", we've been told the glaciers are NOT MELTING..

No, we're most definitely told the glaciers are melting at the base due to higher ocean temperatures.

the velocity pickup is because of "lubrication from beneath" at the footers.. RIVERS of fresh water melt at their BASES....

Rivers of water which would have to be carrying the sulfur, chlorine, fluorine and other chemicals released from the volcano. In Iceland, for example, they observe such sulfuric water gushing out from the glaciers when a volcano erupts under the ice.

Antarctica? We observe none of that. Hence, we conclude there are no volcanoes of any significance.

What you are being told apparently is bullshit.

What's amazing is all of the MAJOR mis-statements this member makes.. The one about "no volcanoes of any significance" is laughable.. Mt Erebus is one of the worlds most CONSISTENTLY active volcanoes.. Located right on the riff and at the edge of the PIG bay...

Another in this thread where the member said multiple times "there is no chemical evidence of volcanic heating under the glaciers"... PROVING Squidward did not read the whole link I gave as 2nd reference.. Because the paper referred to REVEALED detected traces of gas associated with active ocean fissures..

Came up with a REAL rib tickler in another thread where Squiddly asserted that "measurements are models"....

It's sad to watch man.. Can't do it anymore.. Gonna go back to just funnying the posts...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dont know where the **** you got the math facts, but math facts for science are MORE dependent on setting up the problem CORRECTLY, than "showing your work"..

Then set up the problem for us. Cut my numbers by another factor of 10, and you're still requiring one magical undetectable VEI7 eruption each year in that spot. And that's absurd.

We're NOT MELTING gigatons of ice.. Ever since the glacial velocities picked up in the WAIS and the GO TO reaction was "GW from ABOVE", we've been told the glaciers are NOT MELTING..

No, we're most definitely told the glaciers are melting at the base due to higher ocean temperatures.

the velocity pickup is because of "lubrication from beneath" at the footers.. RIVERS of fresh water melt at their BASES....

Rivers of water which would have to be carrying the sulfur, chlorine, fluorine and other chemicals released from the volcano. In Iceland, for example, they observe such sulfuric water gushing out from the glaciers when a volcano erupts under the ice.

Antarctica? We observe none of that. Hence, we conclude there are no volcanoes of any significance.

What you are being told apparently is bullshit.

What's amazing is all of the MAJOR mis-statements this member makes.. The one about "no volcanoes of any significance" is laughable.. Mt Erebus is one of the worlds most CONSISTENTLY active volcanoes.. Located right on the riff and at the edge of the PIG bay...

Came up with a REAL rib tickler in another thread where Squiddly asserted that "measurements are models"....

It's sad to watch man.. Can't do it anymore.. Gonna go back to just funnying the posts...

Don't blame you.

When AGW is your religion, you don't pay attention to anything that defeats your narrative.

And, of course, you follow the left wing tactic of attacking your opponent.

Mamooth has pretty much been full of shit from day one.

 

[Crick]

I have a few questions for FCT if possible:

1) How many of the 138 volcanic cones seen under the ice are active?

2) If these volcanoes are producing enough heat to melt Thwaites, how did it ever form in the first place?

3) Why did the dozens, if not hundreds, of PhD geologists who created and have studied the BEDMAP data not spot the volcanoes in that data that this undergrad STUDENT claims to have discovered?

4) Out of 138 potential volcanoes, why has only one of them (Erebus) melted its way through to the surface?

5) Thwaites is crumbling around its edges. That is not where the volcanoes are located. How could they be the cause of that?

6) The relative motion between a glacial mass and the bedrock below it goes from zero at the top of the glacier to some maximum at its bottom. Where are these volcanoes and what is the ice velocity over them? This to consider the claim that they could not be showing cones due to glacial scouring.

 

[flacaltenn]

Odd that this hasn't attracted a single response in several days now. We could try a few answers on our own.

1) How many are active? Well, aside from Erebus, there is no evidence that any of them are active. While the existence of these potential volcanic cones certainly indicates the presence of a hotspot in the mantle it is quite likely that the hotspot is much smaller than the area subtended by the potential cones. See a topographical map of the sea bottom surrounding the Hawaiian islands.

2) If these volcanoes are producing enough heat to melt Thwaites, how did it ever form in the first place? Those who wish to credit these volcanoes with having caused the acceleration of the Thwaites Glacier suggest that they are all of recent genesis. How recent? That 138 volcanoes could form in the last, say, 50 years is more than a little stretch. Thwaites acceleration has been observed taking place within the last two decades. The first sounding radar data were collected in 2002 and ongoing acceleration in flow and thinning has been observed ever since. The edge of Thwaites sea ice shelf has been monitored via aerial photography since 1947. The breakup of that edge has also accelerated since that time. These changes are all of far too rapid and widespread a nature to have been caused by a field of active volcanoes. Thwaites has been known to losing more mass than it gains for several decades. Obviously, the glacier could not have survived long term, much less grown from scratch to its present size under such conditions.

Hey genius -- you're not gonna find ocean bed heating under the glaciers with "aerial photography" or ground penetrating radar. What other great ideas you got?

There's no traffic on this thread because it DIED months ago. And someone just popped it back open.

They are NOT PRODUCING enough heat to "melt glaciers" YET.. I dont think you understand the concern about glaciers SPEEDING up as they move to the sea. The glaciers were never REALLY MELTING from anything there. They were ACCELERATING towards the sea and CALVING more.

Because there's JUST enough heat in the BEDROCK to "grease the skids". But here's the IRONY -- We could spend DECADES and $$$Trillions to "fix" GW and then suddenly in a matter of a couple months, we could start filling up the oceans with new pure glacial water if those fissures DO start actively venting UNDER the feet of those glaciers.

MUCH BETTER explanation for the accelerated motion of the WAIS than just 3.2Watts of power from GWarming at the surface.