Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica

Nov 17, 2013
Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica
Mount Sidley, at the leading edge of the Executive Committee Range in Marie Byrd Land is the last volcano in the chain that rises above the surface of the ice. But a group of seismologists has detected new volcanic activity under the ice about 30 miles ahead of Mount Sidley in the direction of the range's migration. The new finding suggests that the source of magma is moving beyond the chain beneath the crust and the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Credit: Doug Wiens

It wasn't what they were looking for but that only made the discovery all the more exciting.

In January 2010 a team of scientists had set up two crossing lines of seismographs across Marie Byrd Land in West Antarctica. It was the first time the scientists had deployed many instruments in the interior of the continent that could operate year-round even in the coldest parts of Antarctica.

Like a giant CT machine, the seismograph array used disturbances created by distant earthquakes to make images of the ice and rock deep within West Antarctica.

There were big questions to be asked and answered. The goal, says Doug Wiens, professor of earth and planetary science at Washington University in St. Louis and one of the project's principle investigators, was essentially to weigh the ice sheet to help reconstruct Antarctica's climate history. But to do this accurately the scientists had to know how the earth's mantle would respond to an ice burden, and that depended on whether it was hot and fluid or cool and viscous. The seismic data would allow them to map the mantle's properties.

In the meantime, automated-event-detection software was put to work to comb the data for anything unusual.

When it found two bursts of seismic events between January 2010 and March 2011, Wiens' PhD student Amanda Lough looked more closely to see what was rattling the continent's bones.

Was it rock grinding on rock, ice groaning over ice, or, perhaps, hot gases and liquid rock forcing their way through cracks in a volcanic complex?

Uncertain at first, the more Lough and her colleagues looked, the more convinced they became that a new volcano was forming a kilometer beneath the ice.

The discovery of the new as yet unnamed volcano is announced in the Nov. 17 advanced online issue of Nature Geoscience.

Following the trail of clues

The teams that install seismographs in Antarctica are given first crack at the data. Lough had done her bit as part of the WUSTL team, traveling to East Antarctica three times to install or remove stations in East Antarctica.

In 2010 many of the instruments were moved to West Antarctica and Wiens asked Lough to look at the seismic data coming in, the first large-scale dataset from this part of the continent.

"I started seeing events that kept occurring at the same location, which was odd, "Lough said. "Then I realized they were close to some mountains–but not right on top of them."

"My first thought was, 'Okay, maybe its just coincidence.' But then I looked more closely and realized that the mountains were actually volcanoes and there was an age progression to the range. The volcanoes closest to the seismic events were the youngest ones."

The events were weak and very low frequency, which strongly suggested they weren't tectonic in origin. While low-magnitude seismic events of tectonic origin typically have frequencies of 10 to 20 cycles per second, this shaking was dominated by frequencies of 2 to 4 cycles per second.

Ruling out ice

But glacial processes can generate low-frequency events. If the events weren't tectonic could they be glacial?

To probe farther, Lough used a global computer model of seismic velocities to "relocate" the hypocenters of the events to account for the known seismic velocities along different paths through the Earth. This procedure collapsed the swarm clusters to a third their original size.

It also showed that almost all of the events had occurred at depths of 25 to 40 kilometers (15 to 25 miles below the surface). This is extraordinarily deep—deep enough to be near the boundary between the earth's crust and mantle, called the Moho, and more or less rules out a glacial origin.

It also casts doubt on a tectonic one. "A tectonic event might have a hypocenter 10 to 15 kilometers (6 to 9 miles) deep, but at 25 to 40 kilometers, these were way too deep," Lough says.

A colleague suggested that the event waveforms looked like Deep Long Period earthquakes, or DPLs, which occur in volcanic areas, have the same frequency characteristics and are as deep. "Everything matches up," Lough says.

An ash layer encased in ice

The seismologists also talked to Duncan Young and Don Blankenship of the University of Texas who fly airborne radar over Antarctica to produce topographic maps of the bedrock. "In these maps, you can see that there's elevation in the bed topography at the same location as the seismic events," Lough says.

The radar images also showed a layer of ash buried under the ice. "They see this layer all around our group of earthquakes and only in this area," Lough says.

"Their best guess is that it came from Mount Waesche, an existing volcano near Mt Sidley. But that is also interesting because scientists had no idea when Mount Waesche was last active, and the ash layer is sets the age of the eruption at 8,000 years ago. "

What's up down there?

The case for volcanic origin has been made. But what exactly is causing the seismic activity?

"Most mountains in Antarctica are not volcanic," Wiens says, "but most in this area are. Is it because East and West Antarctica are slowly rifting apart? We don't know exactly. But we think there is probably a hot spot in the mantle here producing magma far beneath the surface."

"People aren't really sure what causes DPLs," Lough says. "It seems to vary by volcanic complex, but most people think it's the movement of magma and other fluids that leads to pressure-induced vibrations in cracks within volcanic and hydrothermal systems."

Will the new volcano erupt?

"Definitely," Lough says. "In fact because of the radar shows a mountain beneath the ice I think it has erupted in the past, before the rumblings we recorded.

Will the eruptions punch through a kilometer or more of ice above it?

The scientists calculated that an enormous eruption, one that released a thousand times more energy than the typical eruption, would be necessary to breach the ice above the volcano.

On the other hand a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice. "The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice—many lakes full," says Wiens. This water will rush beneath the ice towards the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.

By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica.

"We weren't expecting to find anything like this," Wiens says

Explore further: Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

Related Stories

Weighing the Antarctic ice sheet

Sep 27, 2013

One of the last big unknowns in the global climate equation is Antarctica. How stable is the Antarctic ice sheet? More than a mile thick, on average, it locks up 70 percent of the Earth's fresh water.

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

Oct 09, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Giant channels discovered beneath Antarctic ice shelf

Oct 06, 2013

Scientists have discovered huge ice channels beneath a floating ice shelf in Antarctica. At 250 metres high, the channels are almost as tall as the Eiffel tower and stretch hundreds of kilometres along the ...

Scientists help retrieve ice core from West Antarctica

Oct 23, 2013

A slice of ice from 17,500 years ago can help scientists figure out how the Earth came out of the Ice Age and how climate change can happen in the future, according to South Dakota State University Professor ...

Recommended for you

Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

11 hours ago

A team of geologists in the U.S. has finally found an analyzable sample of the most abundant mineral in the world allowing them to give it a name: bridgmanite. In their paper published in the journal Science, the te ...

Volcano in south Japan erupts, disrupting flights

17 hours ago

A volcano in southern Japan is blasting out chunks of magma in the first such eruption in 22 years, causing flight cancellations and prompting warnings to stay away from its crater.

User comments : 70

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (33) Nov 17, 2013
"By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica."

But ice is being rapidly *gained* in Antarctica, even along the anomalously hot western coast. The ICESat satellite showed that a full 50% of coastal ice mass loss from Greenland was offset by gains in Antarctica:

"During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry."

Antarctic sea ice area reaches record highs every few years:
http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Why do Climatology members run disinformation campaigns like this?

Activi$t noble cause corruption!
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (30) Nov 17, 2013
Just before Climategate allowed a decade of crowd sourced skeptical savvy to finally reach real news outlets, Hockey Stick Team member Eric Steig achieved a radical revision of Antarctica trends on the very cover of Nature:
http://www.nature...ture.jpg

Just four years earlier, as still seen on the NASA.gov web site, the bulk of Antarctica was correctly mapped out with a significant cooling trend:
http://svs.gsfc.n...dex.html

Actual NASA *satellite* scientists don't go around deleting old data like Jim Hansen did when he disappeared (old data = 404!) his US temperature plot from 1999 before he disappeared the alarm busting dust bowl era spike.

When this scam self-organized itself around a massive boost in funding, personal fame and riches, not only did the sociopathic players fail to predict a lull, but failed too to predict blog organized muckracking, though they still have the flailing NY Times.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2013
But ice is being rapidly *gained* in Antarctica, even along the anomalously hot western coast. The ICESat satellite showed that a full 50% of coastal ice mass loss from Greenland was offset by gains in Antarctica:


For "anomalously hot" read still well below freezing and as such more snowfall will occur.

Mr Watts just cannot seem to get his facts straight Nik. I wonder why? Is it perhaps because he has an agenda to push. Surely not. WUWT is a paragon of worthy and informed science.

http://www.scienc...111/1183

"Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. …."

http://www.nature...621.html

"After applying the model to 99 months (from August 2002 to December 2010) of GRACE data, we estimate a CONTINENT-WIDE ice-mass change of −69 ± 18 Gt yr−1……."
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Nov 17, 2013
I didn't reference Tony Watts, Tony, but what *agenda* does your snide innuendo point to?

My readily found reference is to a 2012 NASA publication:
http://ntrs.nasa....20013495

What "fact" isn't straight here?

It's not surprising that your referenced paper's "models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment" can reverse simple data to fit alarm, at least along the west coast where alarming publications can then cherry pick away and grab headlines about Antarctica as a whole.

Your attempt to smear NASA with reference to a blog being maligned by a hundred million dollar a year real PR firm campaign? Noted!

Altimetry says the West is *actually* getting higher, so of course it's really getting lower, and it only took 47 coauthors to figure that out!
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
My apologies to the Watts ref: he was just in several returns on my search and I assumed that was the source of the info.

http://www.psmsl....80th.pdf

but what *agenda* does your snide innuendo point to?


Nik: you surely dont think he is unbiased? Like when does he ever publish papers that point to warming .... like the majority.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (25) Nov 17, 2013
The public deception is ironic since Antarctica is indeed so terribly far below zero that a warming world, by simple physics, will make it *grow* due to much more snow caused by higher humidy in a more tropical world. Ah, but that would spoil alarming stories of submerged little Tuvalu, where sea level remains steady, facts indeed be damned. So, you *see* Antarctica is now melting away, alarmingly, even as record high sea ice area happens nearly every year.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
Altimetry says the West is *actually* getting higher, so of course it's really getting lower, and it only took 47 coauthors to figure that out!


Look at the elevation map on the IPCC report. West Antarctica seems to be about even in elevation increase/decrease. Which is alarming as there must be increased snowfall - yet loss is matching it.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 17, 2013
"By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

This was suggested many years ago to account for rivers of ice flowing in to the sea. It is much more sense than the asserting that AGW heat is conducting through thousands of meters of ice to melt the ice at the base of the glacier.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (25) Nov 17, 2013
Is wanting to expose a perceived fraud an agenda, Tony, or is it just a part of all primate instincts to actively do so? He very *often* cites alarmist papers, *exactly* to subject them to crowd sourced post publication review by myriad experts. Steig's BS Antarctic paper was repeatedly featured until a few skeptics finally gathered the findings of many and published a full debunking of it. Without Tony's site, contemporary academics would have innocently cited it in their own work, throwing their own conclusions off. This once and for all ridicules your slanderous innuendo that skeptical blogs are not real scientific players in a changing world where Academia is losing its monoply status.

Your own reference shows ice loss centered exactly atop the newly discovered volcano which this study's own authors claim is responsive for ice loss!
http://www.nature..._F1.html

runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
This was suggested many years ago to account for rivers of ice flowing in to the sea. It is much more sense than the asserting that AGW heat is conducting through thousands of meters of ice to melt the ice at the base of the glacier.


The link you post is a special case – how warming works to shift glacier ice (at least in the Greenland context) is that fissures form on the ice-sheet surface and melt-water then percolates down through the sheet to reach the underlying bedrock – hence the lubrication. There is no "conduction" possible through ice (beyond a rise to 0C). Further, at the margins where the sheet meets ocean, extra heat from underlying water will increase melt.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2013
Is wanting to expose a perceived fraud an agenda, Tony,


Of course it is Nik. WUWT exists purely to pour as much scorn on the science as they can credibly muster. He frequently relies on guest posters to "debunk" the science. Non-experts. This is NOT science my friend. If he had any real evidence WUWT would be full of peer-reviewed papers supporting his view. There are very few. Hence the agenda…..

"the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group" OED
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2013
ice-sheet surface and melt-water then percolates down through the sheet to reach the underlying bedrock –


How does this happen in Antarctica when the surface ice does not melt?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (21) Nov 17, 2013
"what Dr. Helen Fricker of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California found is a system of fast-flowing rivers and reservoirs underneath the ice."
"Scripps says it seems the rivers transport the majority of the water from the deep interior of the ice sheet out to the ice shelves, and ultimately to the ocean."
"
Global warming didn't create the rivers and lakes; they lie more than half a kilometre under the surface -- too deep to be affected by temperature changes on the surface."

Read more: http://www.ctvnew...kwqP9Apg
"Antarctica's Spectacular Rivers Of Ice"
http://www.spaced...99c.html
Sigh
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2013
Why do Climatology members run disinformation campaigns like this?

What does this have to do with climatology? The article reports geologists finding a volcano. Or do you post your accusations of corruption whenever a few key words come up? You seem as hair-triggered as the cold fusion or dense aether enthusiasts.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (22) Nov 17, 2013


" WUWT exists purely to pour as much scorn on the science as they can credibly muster. He frequently relies on guest posters to "debunk" the science. Non-experts. This is NOT science my friend."
You don't seem to understand the scientific method. This requires that you make an hypothesis which you the try and prove wrong with rigorous testing. Thus debunking and skepticism are exactly what science is. The fact that it is often left to amateurs in the bloggosphere to do this is an indication of the appalling group think into which climate science has descended. Confirmation bias is the enemy of science.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (25) Nov 17, 2013
The expansive Skeptical Empire has created a great disturbance in the Force of naive idealism and its "permanent paradigm paralysis" (Dr. Judith Curry).
Humpty
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2013
My girlfriend likes ice, she says it produces lubricant.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2013
NikkieTard - "The expansive Skeptical Empire has created"

Nothing
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2013
So there is some volcanic activity and quakes under the ice, which means there would be heat rising through the crust and conversion of some quake energy to heat as well and we know snow & ice could be functional insulators of sorts, some heat is lost to conduction.

However, what happens at the high pressures where the ice presses upon the rock above this volcanic activity, we know pressure on ice forms a liquid - seen any skater on an ice rink ?

The same is obviously occurring on a larger scale with the added source of influence rising heat and quakes and probably volcanic gasses permeating and affecting the structural integrity of the lower ice layers such as also reducing the freezing temperature of the gas/water mixtures.

Might we see more ice motion whilst we also see more snow fall, this ice motion results in more glacial sliding into the sea, more cold water going into the southern oceans ?

There does seem to be an overall ice mass loss estimated, any reason to discount it ?
goracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
My girlfriend likes ice, she says it produces lubricant.

I suspect your girlfriend says whatever you program her to say.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (22) Nov 18, 2013
This is the *second* active underground volcano found flanking where runrig's reference shows maximum ice loss in Antarctica. The first one was found in 2008 in nearly the same location. I have taken a map of known volcanoes in Antarctica and overlaid small red dots for known surface volcanoes and two large red dots for this pair of previously unknown underground ones:
http://s23.postim...noes.jpg

The correlation is stunning, but remember, volcanoes are merely the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, of thin mantle hydrothermal energy.

Another Phys.org article shows that *exactly* where runrig's Nature reference has it's dark blue maximum ice loss is also where the ice sheet is warming "twice as fast as previously thought":
http://phys.org/n...eet.html

This outlier hot spot is a cherry picker's, er I mean, Climatologist's delightful Hell, as they scream about Global Warming Armageddon.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 18, 2013
runrig's other reference, from Science, includes a cross section map of Antarctica from satellite studies, that shows that this hot spot is where volcanic land really does jut up broadly and right through surface and there is only thin ice in the region, not something so thick as to be immune to hot rocks!
http://s8.postimg...tion.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (21) Nov 18, 2013
(A) NASA showed cooling in 2004:
http://earthobser...?id=6502

(B) By 2007, NASA shows warming, despite a flatlined satellite data *plot*:
http://earthobser...?id=8239

(C) Satellite data plot:
http://s13.postim...ctic.jpg

(D) From 2008: "Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds":
http://www.scienc...2855.htm

(E) Hockey Stick Teamster Steig arrives on the cover of Nature in 2009, smearing ground thermometer data from the volcanic hot spot over the whole interior:
http://s21.postim...Temp.jpg

"You can keep your climate data if you like your climate data. Period."

(F) Thanks to the skeptic who runs the UAH satellite data, indeed we can, with a trend map:
http://nsstc.uah...._alt.png

(G) A new hockey stick from Climategate U?!:
http://climate4yo...1957.gif

Back in biz!
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (20) Nov 18, 2013
WUWT exists purely to pour as much scorn on the science as they can credibly muster.


Isn't that exactly the point of peer review anyways?

To really test a theory, you have to throw every objection you have at it and see if it sticks. That also means treading the line between credible and incredible counter-arguments.

NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 18, 2013
Phil Jones who still runs the most cited global average HadCRUT temperature series at CRU in the UK violated the central defining principle of the scientific method in his e-mail response to Warrick Hughes:

"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

[Wall Street Journal reference of "The Climategate Whitewash Continues": http://online.wsj...73414140 ]

But skeptics are anti-science activists? Hey, wait...that's *backwards*!
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2013
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" - NikkieTard quoting Phil Jones

Jones is correct in his sentiment of course. He wasn't responding to a scientist who would be honest in his review of the data. He was responding to a nobody, interested in whining about any trivial irregularity or pattern he/they could find and exploiting such triviality for the purpose of maligning the research.

It is best to follow Einstein's lead on these matters, and simply nod your head while the chattering classes chatter, and then politely show them the door when the first opportunity arises.

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
"Isn't that exactly the point of peer review anyways?" - Eikka

Of course not. Peer review does not exist to pour scorn on research.

Peer review exists to provide a balanced and fair appraisal of research to assure that it meets the scientific standards of the publisher and reviewer.

What's up with that of course, publishes un-reviewed nonsense posted by internet bloggers who have no scientific training and who are motivated by political ideology rather than scientific reasoning.

It is the last place anyone should go to find valid information of any kind.

runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2013
You don't seem to understand the scientific method. This requires that you make an hypothesis which you the try and prove wrong with rigorous testing. Thus debunking and skepticism are exactly what science is.


And you don't seem to understand that the peer-reviewing has already been done once a paper is published. Note the word "peer". And not "lay" reviewed. It is not scientific to have people who have a motive to reject the science (or who are non-experts) to have a voice on whether the science is correct or else we, by definition, will never have that science see daylight if it's filtered through a stopper as would be the likes of WUWT. Open minds are needed. And yes scientists are. Mr Watts et al isn't – or are you going to argue he is?
runrig
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
My girlfriend likes ice, she says it produces lubricant.

I suspect your girlfriend says whatever you program her to say.


Prob also depends of how much air he pumps into her as well.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
Isn't that exactly the point of peer review anyways?


No. As I've said lower down, peer-review requires expertise to see it's veracity and an open-mind to not reject simply because its not liked. Are you another one who can point to the multitude of balancing opinion/papers that Watts likes/supports on his Blog from the "warmists" side.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 18, 2013
"After the Wegman Report (like the NAS panel) determined that Mannian principal components was an erroneous methodology, the Wegman Report considered a different question: given the defects of Mannian principal components, how did the methodology pass peer review and then remain unchallenged by specialists in the field? Wegman's question pertained only to statistical methodology. Whether you could "get" a similar answer by a different method had no bearing on the failure of specialists to call an invalid statistical methodology.to account."
" Climategate provided the missing evidence, Climategate documents showed that clique member Phil Jones had reviewed papers by other members of the clique, including some of the articles most in controversy – confirming what the Wegman Report had only hypothesized."
http://climateaud...othesis/
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
.......scientific method in his e-mail response to Warrick Hughes:

For those who would like to have the full story of the kind of harassment the likes of Mr Jones had to contend with through his email inbox….

Via a FOI request …..

https://www.whatd...0072.pdf

"The enormous volume of emails give a picture of thoroughly decent scientists increasingly finding themselves in a nightmare. One refers to the atmosphere moving to something akin to that created by Joseph R. McCarthy. Their professional reputations are suddenly at risk.. They write each other in disbelief, protesting "I have never been political. I am an honest scientist." They are threatened, and "sting" operation FOI requests are set up to ensnare them and keep them from doing their work."

cont
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
cont

"Yes, it was a trap. An elaborate sting operation…. At first the emails talk about requests for data, and they mention to each other that so and so wants the data, I just referred them to all the data we have placed in the public domain. Sometimes they write that they sent more on request, but something seems strange as they do not think the people wanting the data are actually proper scientists. The emails are the story of serious science up against blogs."

Draw your own conclusions - I have and it's that there was no intent at honest investigation by the "emailers".
Pastello
Nov 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2013
Pastello has missed a few things with
"In my theory the global warming is just of http://physicswor...ths-heat with dark matter cloud at the galactic plane passing through solar system"
If you have a credible way of testing such hypothesis then propose an experiment or at least some maths to describe the nature of the heat, particle emissions, sub-atomic reactions etc

I have to ask though why you are completely ignoring the known properties of CO2 & generally how rate of temperature rise has already a correlation of sorts with CO2 & there is no evidence either that the atomic components of CO2 are undergoing some altered form of exposure to decay products or any sort of observable radioactive effects being consistent with the tremendous thermal differentials involved ?

Are you under the impression CO2 has been ignored in terms of its basic thermal properties & distribution as primary cause of AGW ?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2013
harassment the likes of Mr Jones had to contend with through his email inbox….

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/data.
Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc. put themselves on point reaping what they had sown.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the lab.
Pastello
Nov 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2013
Hey Nik. Good news! You've joined the ranks of crackpots like Calipo, Hannes alfvin etc. in that I totally ignore your posts and won't read them ever again. You sir, are an idiot. Go away!
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2013
harassment the likes of Mr Jones had to contend with through his email inbox….

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/data.
Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc. put themselves on point reaping what they had sown.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the lab.


Extra-ordinary claims? Reaping what they had sown? What?

They just compiled global temp data from instrumental and proxy data. There is no "extra-ordinary" evidence/data. It's on the record/public data for all to access.
If their scientific peers thought it was crap it wouldn't get published. A group of "activists" don't count as peer-reviewers needing extraordinary evidence/data.

The CRU of East Anglia did not own the data – it came from GHCN and as such there were/are several groups arriving at the same conclusion with that data. As the emailers/hackers knew because those analyses were already published by the IPCC.

cont
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2013
Cont.

Well done. You achieved your goals – a firmly planted seed of doubt in the (true) skeptics mind to add to your number. All because of stolen emails, made 2+2 =5 and twisted logic to make them sound conspiracist, when in reality they were overwhelmed by the viciousness of it. Simply using well used words in their circle (trick) and using real data to "hide the decline" in a proxy known to be erroneous … for a magazine graph no less. Never let the truth get in the way of a good debunk – ask Mr "lord" Monckton knows well.

http://www.climat...-record/
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2013
Obama 2013: "OK. On the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working as — the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn't be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great."

Obama 2016: "OK. On the climate, I was not informed directly that the government climate model would not be working as — the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn't be going out saying, boy, this is going to be a disaster."

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

P.S. I just love when runrig of the MET Office confirms my quick history lessons as not just being made up, as his buddies call me crazy, and the Net's most notorious death threat flinging troll of all, Vendicar Decarian, runs interference.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2013
If their scientific peers thought it was crap it wouldn't get published.

How many 'peers' are there?
That was an issue with Mann's hockey schtick.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
Right lets work out some numbers here…

Now 1Km^3 of ICE is 10^3x10^3x10^3 = 10^9m3 ICE
Density of ICE = 920Kg/m^3
Latent heat of Fusion is 334x10^3 J/Kg

Therefore Mass 1km^3 ICE = 920 x 10^9 Kg

And so 920 X 10^9 x 334 x 10^3 = 307280 x 10^12 J
Or 0.31 x 10^18 J

Now from… http://www.nature...1-1.html

"…the world's 45 most active volcanoes, which are responsible for the majority of the Earth's volcanic heat. Over 2001 and 2002, these volcanoes kicked out about 5 x 10^16 joules per year - enough to power New York city for a few months."

5 x 10^16 J is 0.05 x 10^18 J
or put another way 6.2 YEARS of the TOTAL observed (sat) Volcanic heat energy to melt just 1km^3 of Ice.

I hazard to suggest that in the great scheme of things any melting below Antarctica Ice via volcanic activity is *literally* a drop in the ocean.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2013
Hey, runrig, why doesn't Mann sue Berkeley physicist Richard Muller?

Muller in 2010: "The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that. What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license."

Muller 2011 on Climategate: "So that's what they did. And what is the result in my mind? Quite frankly as a scientist? I now have a list of people whose papers I wont read any more. You are not allowed to do this in science. I get infuriated with collegues of mine who say well you know, it's a human field, you make mistakes. And then I show them this and they say, uh, no…that's not acceptable."

The YouTube video of this statement is *still* there, despite Mann's hyperactive lawyers:
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk

Uh oh...mainstream climatologist Judith Curry dedicated that very clip to top skeptic McIntyre!

Lots of "crackpots" reject Sandwich Board Mann.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2013
Local ice loss, runrig, by this study authors' own suggestion, merely requires vulcanism to lubricate a thin layer. That is their entire basis for claiming ice loss due to vulcanism in this thin ice hotspot area. Your own references implied ice loss there, and indeed ice loss there by enhanced ice flow promoted by vulcanism, would result in more ice pushed out to sea, as is exactly what is seen. Yet, this elegantly natural give and take is being used to kill people by destroying their access to nuclear and hydrofracking energy, and the effective nuclear ban isn't even rational, just genocidally anti-human.

How can you people *gloss* over calls for "Enroncare" emergency energy rationing?

Are you consciously evil?

Your close ally Vendicar(E) certainly seems to be.

Blah, blah, blah...equations, but energy starve typhoon victims *ASAP* and ignore antibiotic resistance funding?

Who are the baddies here?:
http://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
There is no equivalent realization for skeptics.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2013
What may rile Tony Banton (runrig), a UK MET Office forecaster is that Tony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com) is also a retired weather forecaster, but only one Tony is now famous, the one that installed solar panels, runs a weather instrument design company and now has a web site that dwarfs the traffic of RealClimate.com and SkepticalScience.com combined.

But *here*, one Tony can be a big fish, as he avoids the big sea.

Now that a whopping 48% of American meteorologists *agree* with skeptics that most of last century warming was *not* man made, the pressure is on, even resulting in Orwellian calls for de-certification of such "crackpots."

See, but unlike normal meteorologists, one Tony worked for a truly alarmist outfit in partnership with Climategate University, so honor is at stake, energy starved typhoons victims very well be damned.

What riles the Gorebots in general is their growing realization that my main motivation here is blasé iPhone addicted procrastination, merely.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
Are all these majority forming scientists and engineers "crackpots"?

"Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

http://www.forbes...-crisis/

Fact: the two major claims of a 97% consensus amount to junk science originally and literally Evangelical pseudoscience in the latest.

Fact: Al Gore alone is on record for promoting a $300m/yr public relations campaign to smear skepticism of his petrodollar money machine:
http://www.google...wrsfZt4A
goracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
Nik the lamp guy: "...now has a web site that dwarfs the traffic of RealClimate.com and SkepticalScience.com combined."
I'm not sure that repeated visits by the Truthers, Birthers, anti-vaxxers and assorted conspiracy nuts of the world is something to be bragged about. After all, the latest Kardashian gossip probably gets hits too.
goracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
Are all these majority forming scientists and engineers "crackpots"?

"Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

http://www.forbes...-crisis/

Forbes? engineers? If you are going to stoop to that level of extremely dubious credibility, why not go all the way and include dentists, chiropractors and massage therapists with your non-experts. Did they include any former Spice Girls in this survey like they did that other time?
runrig
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2013

Local ice loss, runrig, by this study authors' own suggestion, merely requires vulcanism to lubricate a thin layer. That is their entire basis for claiming ice loss due to vulcanism in this thin ice hotspot area.


Nik: So supposing we are talking of a slow melt causing lubrication and slippage.
Do you agree that we would have to have a large area of under ice-sheet provided with lubrication? Have you looked at a photo of the summit of a volcano recently? Not very wide eh? Are you proposing a long string of them along the WAIS?
No, the article above mentions both melt (into lakes) and slippage.
So actually we are both correct.
By "thin layer" – you mean a thin layer of ice melted? Well OK - I buy that, but the above must apply if a significant area of ice is caused to move and float over the sea as an ice-shelf. And inconsistent melt/movement would surely create more fracturing/calving off the ice shelf.

http://www.unep.o...wRes.pdf
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2013
Nik:
Mr Watts, was I believe, a "weather-caster". Now, no disparagement, but I briefed same extensively professionally and ( over here anyway) they are NOT employed for their knowledge, but for their communications skills.

If you search recent threads we have interacted on you will find links to papers that show 14% of US Met peeps are "weathercasters" and that a large majority of the total *48%* are motivated by their politics and not the science. The US is not the world my friend. I know that may shock you - but it's true.
The "truely alarmist" organisation I worked for is nothing of the kind - it merely concurs with all other World Met/Climate organisations in it's estimation of the threat of AGW.
How many times is it possible for the term "climategate" to be used by one person in the pursuit of an agenda? Even when ping-ponged back repeatedly with the glaringly obvious truth of it. Give it rest mate - at least when talking to me. I've gainsayed you irrefutably on that.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
goracle psychologically *projects* "anti-vaxxers" onto skeptics, all the while the core Hockey Stick Team web site is still *owned* by indeed anti-vaxxer PR firm Fenton Communications!

I mean, really, do you also dress up as a clown, "goracle"?

RealClimate.org domain administration of Fenton = EMS:
http://whois.doma...mate.org

"The advertisement was constructed by Fenton Communications, the same group that had been hired to gain media attention for cases against silicone breast implants and Alar. J. B. Handley, Fenton Communications, Jenny McCarthy, Jerold Kartzinel, and other like-minded crusaders against vaccines were now doing their part to educate the public (which consists of potential jurors)...."
http://cup.columb.../excerpt
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2013
Phil destroyed the data, Tony.

First he privately said he would delete it, to friends.

Then he publicly said he had already deleted it back in the 1980s, to enemies.

You are a co-conspirator in this fraud.

Any jury will eventually agree.

Enron's carbon trader CEO Ken Lay died of a heart attack, Tony, might you avoid a hard landing too, by not digging deeper but allow justice to properly trash your old corrupted allies?

I am a whistle blower.

You are an overly invested scam artist, allied to mouth frothing cultists.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2013
"Oh shit, even Al Gore cashed out!"

http://www.google...wyMs0LMA
"Bloomberg reported on Monday that the former U.S. vice president and Current TV founder reportedly made an estimated $70 million for his 20 percent stake when he sold his progressive cable network to Al Jazeera."

Do you too comb your oily hair back like that, Tony?

...like Tony Robbins seminar boiler room scammers who steal retiree savings and *all* accessable credit lines, based on Utopian dreams, and hypnotic mind fucking scripts?

Tony isn't doing so well lately, given his association with lowest low con artists, that the Internet allowed victims to expose.

NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2013
Are these people masochists? They afford me white space, at least, here on my muckraking blog, called Phys.org. Or did they already short sell the spawn of Enron/Solyandra, so now want green energy stocks to tank, so they overplay a "losing" hand?

Or are they just pathetic guttersnipes?
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2013
Phil destroyed the data, Tony.

http://www.climat...-record/

"… there was no intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other groups—primarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also in Russia—WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely independently.

Cont
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2013
Cont.

They made different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results."

You are an overly invested scam artist, allied to mouth frothing cultists.


Having bad day are we?
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2013
runrig & Co. are dedicated to providing bad days to most everybody, especially poor people.

It's a crisply cold humid evening on the Upper West Side.

Those of us who spent years to critique and then shockingly untangle junk science Apocalyptic Armageddon, we don't suffer many "bad days" that runrig truly to *this* climatically boring day wish to abusively render onto young students, like an old Pink Floyd The Wall worthy schoolmaster!

So Tony...

"Since, my friend, you have revealed your
Deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before
Your peers.
Tear down the wall!" - Pink Floyd
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2013
Tony is like one of those tattoo-faced rogues, bragging about his evil criminal genius on FBI Most Wanted Facebook pages.

Tony isn't bad weird though, mostly good weird.

Thus I like him more than I could ever muster to actually, sincerely despise him.

I'm not St. Peter, just a hopefully enlightening jester.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2013
@runrig. Peer review = pal review. Your justification for an exclusive climate 'team' that should dictate to the rest of the planet how they should live their lives and should be immune from the transparency that we take for granted in democratic countries is a little alarming. Of course we should bow down before you and give up our freedoms. You know what's best for us despite the fact you don't have any hard evidence.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
Are they boringly evil or just usefull idiot dupes?

Maybe they are just Runrigs.

Or maybe they are a truly useful counterpoints to obsolete Christian psychosis.

Are they the vanguard?

To the extent that they KILL obsolete religion, they are indeed a potent vanguard.
NOM
2.9 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2013
I'm not St. Peter, just a hopefully enlightening jester.

Clown, yes. Enlightening, no.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2013
Truth filter?

Bullshit detector?

BROKE?
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
@runrig. Peer review = pal review. Your justification for an exclusive climate 'team' that should dictate to the rest of the planet how they should live their lives and should be immune from the transparency that we take for granted in democratic countries is a little alarming. Of course we should bow down before you and give up our freedoms. You know what's best for us despite the fact you don't have any hard evidence.


There is no "climate team" that dictates anything - this persistent and wholly wrong assertion *you* bring up us the root of denial. The scientists for the IPCC inform government, who are elected by society to act on their behalf. That's all. Why is not possible for *you* to divorce information from power? It has to start somewhere
I do though see the point about "pal review". But this is human nature and can't be avoided practically. if your boss doesn't like you then no matter how good your work you wont get on eg. What better way is there?
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
Truth filter?

Bullshit detector?

BROKE?


Must be, you are able to post here.
EnricM
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013


But ice is being rapidly *gained* in Antarctica, even along the anomalously hot western coast. The ICESat satellite showed that a full 50% of coastal ice mass loss from Greenland was offset by gains in Antarctica:


Have you been bought by the pro-climate nazis?
It's a fact that Antarctica does not exist. It is an invention of the IPCC and the Global Secret Government of Climate Scientists (GSGC) in alliance with Spectra. A global scheme made up to distract your attention and steal your sandwiches while you are spamming the interwebz!

NOM
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2013
Nazis, this one's done.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2013
Pastello went to too much trouble for nothing with
The experiments and observations proving the connection of dark matter and the speed of decay of radioactive elements do exist already (http://tinyurl.com/69xy2s....)
This is *not* proof.
Sorry English is not your first language.

Please understand "proof" can only occur *after* the nature of 'dark matter' is known *fully*, conjecture does not cut it one bit.

Please use your second language properly & look up the definition of the word "proof" and how to use it in English sentences, we both might progress under those rare circumstances :-)

Please, might also be worth u looking at theory vs observable facts.

Eg. Gravity is a theory (works at observable scales, not the very small or the very large) but, the observation the apple fell is a per-eminant 'fact' !

See proof in that context and your second language might become useful to u as its precision as a world economic and scientific language is paramount, thanks :-)

Cheers
Humpty
1 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2013
It's not actually a volcano under the ice.

It's the south pole entrance for the hollow earth UFO base.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2013
http://phys.org/n...eet.html

In the above thread, I talked about how an active volcano (on land) under the ice of the WAIS could cause the ice above it to form meltwater that would, in turn cause slippage and flow of the ice above the active volcano to move toward the sea. Certain others were blaming the warming on AGW and CO2 and resorted to ad hominem attacks toward me and anyone who agreed with me.

I am not surprised that evidence of at least one active volcano has been found under the WAIS, since Antarctica did split off from the rest of the land mass billions of years ago and continued to move to its present location. It's just more evidence of volcanic "hot spots" around the globe.

Those who agreed with me that it was caused by volcanic action are now vindicated with this new finding BY SCIENTISTS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2013
Hi there lying retard

I see you finally found your way out of the parking garage? Promise yourself youll never park your pinto in there again 'kay?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2013
Still boozing it up, eh OttoBlotto? What parking garage and pinto are you talking about, retard?

As for lying, I have no reason to lie about the volcano I spoke about in http://phys.org/n...eet.html

You remember that one, don't you? The one where you kept saying your usual bullshit to impress everyone and only proved you are a delusional dummy.

So how come you couldn't find my comments? Gave up?
I've been here in this Physorg almost every day under different user names. LOL

You still haven't showed me the thread where I said anything about 800 foot martians.

Where is it? Inquiring minds want to know.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.