Earth's internal heat drives rapid ice flow and subglacial melting in Greenland

Earth's internal heat drives rapid ice flow and subglacial melting in Greenland
Conceptual view of the interplay between the mantle and the Greenland Ice Sheet across the plume track. Credit: A. Petrunin, GF

Greenland's lithosphere has hot depths which originate in its distant geological past and cause Greenland's ice to rapidly flow and melt from below.

To understand Greenland's of today researchers have to go far back into Earth's history. The island's lithosphere has hot depths which originate in its distant geological past and cause Greenland's ice to rapidly flow and melt from below. An anomaly zone crosses Greenland from west to east where present-day flow of heat from the Earth's interior is elevated. With this anomaly, an international team of geoscientists led by Irina Rogozhina and Alexey Petrunin from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences could explain observations from radar and ice core drilling data that indicate a widespread melting beneath the ice sheet and increased sliding at the base of the ice that drives the rapid ice flow over a distance of 750 kilometres from the summit area of the Greenland ice sheet to the North Atlantic Ocean.

The North Atlantic Ocean is an area of active plate tectonics. Between 80 and 35 million years ago tectonic processes moved Greenland over an area of abnormally hot mantle material that still today is responsible for the volcanic activity of Iceland. The mantle material heated and thinned Greenland at depth producing a strong geothermal anomaly that spans a quarter of the land area of Greenland. This ancient and long-lived source of heat has created a region where subglacial meltwater is abundant, lubricating the base of the ice and making it flow rapidly. The study indicates that about a half of the ice in north-central Greenland is resting on a thawed bed and that the meltwater is routed to the ocean through a dense hydrological network beneath the ice.

The team of geoscientists has now, for the first time, been able to prove strong coupling between processes deep in the Earth's interior with the flow dynamics and subglacial hydrology of large ice sheets: "The geothermal anomaly which resulted from the Icelandic mantle-plume tens of millions of years ago is an important motor for today's hydrology under the ice sheet and for the high flow-rate of the ice" explains Irina Rogozhina. "This, in turn, broadly influences the dynamic behaviour of ice masses and must be included in studies of the future response to climate change."

Earth's internal heat drives rapid ice flow and subglacial melting in Greenland
Present-day location of the Iceland plume and zones of the mantle plume-induced thinning of the lithosphere and active melting at the ice base. Credit: A. Petrunin, GFZ

These secrets of Greenland's past have been hidden by the 3 km thick ice sheet covering the landmass and are now revealed by the researchers using an innovative combination of computer models and data sets from seismology, gravity measurements, ice core drilling campaigns, radar sounding, as well as both airborne, satellite and ground-based measurements on the thickness of the ice cover. The location and orientation of the zone of elevated geothermal heat shows where Greenland moved over the Iceland mantle plume.

This unexpected link between hotspot history and behaviour shows that the influences on ice sheets span a huge range of timescales from the month by month changes of the ice cover to the multi-million year epochs over which the Earth's mantle and tectonic plates evolve. Besides this, the results of the study provide an independent test for models of the opening of the North Atlantic which after a three-decade-long debate still is not fully understood.

The study is published in Nature Geoscience.


Explore further

Heat flow from Earth's mantle contributes to Greenland ice melting

More information: Melting at the base of the Greenland ice sheet explained by Iceland hotspot history, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2689
Journal information: Nature Geoscience

Citation: Earth's internal heat drives rapid ice flow and subglacial melting in Greenland (2016, April 4) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-earth-internal-rapid-ice-subglacial.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
111 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 04, 2016
Greenland -- Imagine all the gold nuggets just waiting for the ice to melt. Good land for dairy cattle and wheat farming, once it warms up a bit more.

Apr 04, 2016
So the ice is melting from beneath the overcovering mass, not from the top. We need to get the Rant Brigade here to explain to us dummies, who know how to do Differential Equations, as why this report by accomplished scientists can't be true.

This does not fit the AGW Narrative of "ice melt", therefore it is only "common sense" to shelve this kind of information into the Rant Brigade's Pseudo-Science files.

Apr 04, 2016
"Good land for dairy cattle and wheat farming, once it warms up a bit more."

--------------------------------

Yeah, but everyone on Earth will be there, the last habitable place.

Apr 04, 2016
Bennikins, your differential equations will not save us.

What have you achieved with them, BTW?

Apr 04, 2016
As I have been trying to get everyone to understand for the last 30 years, Global Warming is about the warming of the planet beneath us, not the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!

Apr 04, 2016
And how did you come up with this amazing conclusion?


I have studied the subject for the last 53 years.

Apr 04, 2016
So all the climate scientists - are somehow misinformed - and you have the secret answer?

Very astute!

Apr 04, 2016
I have studied the subject for the last 53 years.
@rodkeh
then it shouldn't be a concern to actually present scientific peer reviewed journal papers from a reputable source

while you are at it, please explain why the evidence directly refutes your claim of [it's] "not the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate"

in order to substantiate your own claim it would require the refutation of the rest of the world scientists
Very astute!
Ah... never mind!

apparently you think there is a global conspiracy between disparate cultures that can't even agree on the edible tastiness of pork

gotcha

Apr 04, 2016
Do you have any links you could list for us - where we could education ourselves on this new wisdom - that "...the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate?"

You don't really want to know the truth, do you? You just have some personal agenda you want to promote. Okay, let's hear it.

Apr 04, 2016
Greenland -- Imagine all the gold nuggets just waiting for the ice to melt. Good land for dairy cattle and wheat farming, once it warms up a bit more.


Tell that to Miami.

Apr 04, 2016
Bennikins, your differential equations will not save us.

What have you achieved with them, BTW?


......what I achieve is comparing myself with the apocalyptic philosophy of the AGW Rant Brigade versus the benefits afforded me through the rigors of my education. People don't drive past my property & see End of the World signs cluttering up the landscape.

Apr 04, 2016
I have studied the subject for the last 53 years.
@rodkeh
then it shouldn't be a concern to actually present scientific peer reviewed journal papers from a reputable source

while you are at it, please explain why the evidence directly refutes your claim of [it's] "not the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate"

in order to substantiate your own claim it would require the refutation of the rest of the world scientists
Very astute!
Ah... never mind!

apparently you think there is a global conspiracy between disparate cultures that can't even agree on the edible tastiness of pork

gotcha

Ramble on!

Apr 04, 2016
ou don't really want to know the truth, do you?
@rodkeh
if you can provide reputable peer reviewed journal papers that are validated that undermine the entire scientific consensus on AGW, then i would like to see them

more to the point, i would share them with the climate change community

problem is: i think you have some individual points you want to make but you are taking them as being far more important or a larger impact on the environment than they really are

the only way to find out is to have you post your evidence and then compare it with the rest of the evidence and then consider the science
You just have some personal agenda you want to promote. Okay, let's hear it
sure. it really is simple

the scientific method works
whether or not you understand it or the implications on reality
Ramble on!
so... ya got nothing and you just want to preach like the religious fundies?

are ya gonna start playing the liar-beni-kam cards next?


Apr 04, 2016
if you can provide reputable peer reviewed journal papers that are validated that undermine the entire scientific consensus on AGW, then i would like to

Why would I bother?
Here we have solid scientific proof of the facts of what I say, right here in this article but you choose to totally ignore those FACTS! Why would I expect you to do otherwise if I give you more?
You don't know anything and you don't want to know. You're just pushing your zealot agenda.

Apr 04, 2016
Here we have solid scientific proof of the facts of what I say
@rod

I'm not ignoring the above, but you gotta understand what it means before you claim it is proof that AGW doesn't exist
lets start simple, shall we?
1- greenland/iceland is not "global"
2- the known effects of CO2 and WV in collusion (Lacis et al)
3- how is the greenland/iceland evidence destabilising the jet stream? (Francis et al)
4- local effects insulated by ice can't actually account for the warming air above the ice

i will post more later.... after you actually account for just the above 4 points

.

unless you want to just give up and start preaching like beni, gkam and the other trolls

Apr 04, 2016
greenland/iceland is not "global"

LOL. The ignoRANT of the AGW Chicken Little.

Apr 04, 2016
I'm not ignoring the above, but you gotta understand what it means before you claim it is proof that AGW doesn't exist

Ramble on! The FACTS remain. All your attempts to avoid the those facts won't work. This research proves beyond any shadow of doubt, that the heat from the interior of our planet rises to the surface. And anyone who thinks that this Physical phenomenon exists only in this one spot on the planet, is a fool and an idiot!

Apr 04, 2016
Ramble on! The FACTS remain
@rod
so... what you're saying is that you do *not* want to actually address those points in order to justify your argument?

those points are important if you want to explain why your earth heating trumps solar radiation and atmospheric warming

so, you're saying this location specific research explains global warming because?

lets hear it for the beni tactic!
obviously rod thinks that, it must be true because he said it and repeated it based upon his interpretation of a singular article that he doesn't understand!
this Physical phenomenon exists only in this one spot on the planet
didn't say that, did i?
I asked how it heats the atmosphere while insulated

how does the rest of the earth get warmed with so few "hotspots"?
where is the validated evidence?

and i aint saying this aint a contributor... i'm saying you're lying about it's total output of contribution

.

.

thanks for playing
troll on, magma-girl


Apr 04, 2016
This research proves beyond any shadow of doubt, that the heat from the interior of our planet rises to the surface
@rod
so... why isn't there more heating?

and why are there cool spots on the land which are only warmed during the day?

more importantly, why doesn't the entire earth have a hotter temperature (and recorded temp history) that would demonstrate your heating from the earth theory?

here is more:
why are magma temperatures not showing higher temps in volcanic studies?

what is heating the core temps?

why would Earth be heating when it is radiating heat into space? what is holding in the heat?

i can continue if you like, but the first 4 points above (previous post) should be enough to make my case

Apr 04, 2016
Ramble on! The FACTS remain
@rod
so... what you're saying is that you do *not* want to actually address those points in order to justify your argument?

Give it up!
These researchers have just proven what I have been saying for the last 30 years. They are my proof!
The onus is not on me to prove anything, they did that for me.

The onus is on you to prove their research wrong!

So, let's hear it!

What proves them wrong?

Apr 04, 2016
Give it up!
@rod
sure... as soo as you address this
you gotta understand what it means before you claim it is proof that AGW doesn't exist
lets start simple, shall we?
1- greenland/iceland is not "global"
2- the known effects of CO2 and WV in collusion (Lacis et al)
3- how is the greenland/iceland evidence destabilising the jet stream? (Francis et al)
4- local effects insulated by ice can't actually account for the warming air above the ice
These researchers have just proven what I have been saying for the last 30 years
just because you don't get it doesn't mean we're all as stupid

you are claiming that this singular article proves your point, but you can't address the simple points above?

you take that argument to any scientists and they're just gonna call you stupid or worse

the onus of proof that the above trumps all the rest of the science is upon you to prove because (read carefully) *extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*

Apr 04, 2016
@roddie girl cont'd
What proves them wrong?
you gotta understand what it means before you claim it is proof that AGW doesn't exist
lets start simple, shall we?
1- greenland/iceland is not "global"
2- the known effects of CO2 and WV in collusion (Lacis et al)
3- how is the greenland/iceland evidence destabilising the jet stream? (Francis et al)
4- local effects insulated by ice can't actually account for the warming air above the ice

do i really need to keep pointing out the logical inconsistencies of your argument?
The onus is on you to prove their research wrong!
i am not saying the above article is wrong

I am saying that you don't understand the above and that it doesn't justify your argument that the AGW problem is because internal heating of the earth
The onus is on you to prove their research wrong!
*extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*

how does the above trump all the other evidence?
because that is your claim
now prove it

Apr 04, 2016
just because you don't get it doesn't mean we're all as stupid


Dido!

Apr 04, 2016
Dido!
@roddie girl TROLL
actually, that should be "ditto" or simply "
so.. you state because of your beni-kam argument that you studied this for decades - so it should be easy for you to provide the empirical evidence validating your claim that internal heating of the earth is heating the atmosphere... so where is it?

before you repeat the above ad nauseum
i am not saying the above article is wrong

I am saying that you don't understand the above and that it doesn't justify your argument

you gotta understand what it means before you claim it is proof that AGW doesn't exist

1- greenland/iceland is not "global"
2- the known effects of CO2 and WV in collusion (Lacis et al)
3- how is the greenland/iceland evidence destabilising the jet stream? (Francis et al)
4- local effects insulated by ice can't actually account for the warming air above the ice

when you answer those points, you will understand

(Francis & Lacis are each validated studies)

Apr 04, 2016
so @roddie-girl
you're saying you can't actually produce the validation that there is no effect coming from the sun and it's all geological heating?

[crickets]

.

.

are ya gonna address the 4 points in my last post?

[crickets]

.

.

.

ya gonna show the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims?

[crickets]

.

.

.

Or are ya gonna just keep posting circular beni-kam arguments about you are the only person who is right and no one else in the scientific community understands you because [conspiracy?] ??

let me know

i gotta leave for a bit

Apr 04, 2016
I am saying that you don't understand the above and that it doesn't justify your argument

What I don't understand is, what it is that makes you think I care, even an iota, what you think or what it is that would make you think, that I could be bothered to explain anything to likes of you!
Fools and idiots are a dime a dozen.
Go ahead, live your denial!

Apr 04, 2016
As I have been trying to get everyone to understand for the last 30 years, Global Warming is about the warming of the planet beneath us...


Earth's total geothermal heat flux: 47 terawatts
Solar radiation intercepted by Earth: 173,000 terawatts

the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!


Okay Dr. Rodkeh, can you explain why the climate on Pluto is different from the climate on earth?

Let me guess... all the astronomers are part of a giant conspiracy to implement One World Government?


Apr 04, 2016
Okay Dr. Rodkeh,

Spoken like a true scientific illiterate.
What a stupid question!

Apr 04, 2016
greenland/iceland is not "global"

Tell us stumpid, what is the globe?
Is CO2 avoiding Greenland and Iceland?

Apr 04, 2016
Okay Dr. Rodkeh,

Spoken like a true scientific illiterate.
What a stupid question!

No it is a good question, since according to you
"solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!".
So, any explanation not involving the sun being rather much further out ?

Apr 04, 2016
greenland/iceland is not "global"

Tell us stumpid, what is the globe?

The globe is that big round thing that Greenland and Iceland are a small part of.
Is CO2 avoiding Greenland and Iceland?

Good question, Chucky, especially for such a tiny muppet brain!
CO2 does not have a significant effect above ice covered surfaces since the infrared emission from it is small.
The temperature is low and also the emissivity of ice is small.
Visual light is reflected by the ice but not affected by CO2.

Apr 04, 2016
Okay Dr. Rodkeh,

Spoken like a true scientific illiterate.
What a stupid question!

No it is a good question, since according to you
"solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!".
So, any explanation not involving the sun being rather much further out ?

Another irrelevant, stupid question.

Apr 04, 2016
Okay Dr. Rodkeh,

Spoken like a true scientific illiterate.
What a stupid question!

No it is a good question, since according to you
"solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!".
So, any explanation not involving the sun being rather much further out ?

Another irrelevant, stupid question.

Simple smoke screen to pathetically dissimulate ignorance.

Apr 04, 2016
Okay Dr. Rodkeh,

Spoken like a true scientific illiterate.
What a stupid question!

No it is a good question, since according to you
"solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!".
So, any explanation not involving the sun being rather much further out ?

Another irrelevant, stupid question.

Simple smoke screen to pathetically dissimulate ignorance.

There is the problem in a nut shell, how does one communicate with the ignorant?

Apr 04, 2016
"There is the problem in a nut shell, how does one communicate with the ignorant?"
---------------------------------

You have to find him hiding in the woods.

Apr 04, 2016
Okay Dr. Rodkeh,

Spoken like a true scientific illiterate.
What a stupid question!

No it is a good question, since according to you
"solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!".
So, any explanation not involving the sun being rather much further out ?

Another irrelevant, stupid question.

Simple smoke screen to pathetically dissimulate ignorance.

There is the problem in a nut shell, how does one communicate with the ignorant?

I see we agree on one thing.
A formidable complication is that the ignorant thinks everyone else is stupid.

Apr 04, 2016
@rodkeh
Why don't you check in your posts how many of them involve calling someone or some question stupid.
This may provide an important clue to your successful self evaluation.
Good luck !

Apr 04, 2016
What happened to CO2? Trace gases dominate! There was a consensus!!!

Apr 04, 2016
I see we agree on one thing.
A formidable complication is that the ignorant thinks everyone else is stupid.

I doubt that we agree on anything.
After all, you seem to contest the findings of this research.
I on the other hand, whole heartedly support those findings, since they indisputably support my theory. A theory that I have expounded for about 30 years.
I predicted the increased glacial slide before it was first discovered, as I have with various other climate phenomena.

Apr 04, 2016
"What happened to CO2? Trace gases dominate! There was a consensus!!!"
---------------------------------

Settle down, eddie. You'll be okay.

This is an additional worry. With the AGW thinning and shortening the glaciers world-wide, this is just part of sea level rise.

I want to hear you screaming "There is no warming!" through your snorkel.

Apr 04, 2016
@rodkeh
Why don't you check in your posts how many of them involve calling someone or some question stupid.
This may provide an important clue to your successful self evaluation.
Good luck !

Thank you for pointing that out!
I do have a penchant for call a spade a spade.

Apr 04, 2016
"What happened to CO2? Trace gases dominate! There was a consensus!!!"
---------------------------------

Settle down, eddie. You'll be okay.

This is an additional worry. With the AGW thinning and shortening the glaciers world-wide, this is just part of sea level rise.

I want to hear you screaming "There is no warming!" through your snorkel.

I can hardly wait!
How about if you go down to the ocean and when it rises enough to go snorkelling, you come and tell us.
Okay?

Apr 04, 2016
It is already high enough to go snorkeling. Where do you live?

Stay there.

Apr 04, 2016
A formidable complication is that the ignorant thinks everyone else is stupid.
That's a pretty good definition of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

Apr 04, 2016
A formidable complication is that the ignorant thinks everyone else is stupid.

As opposed to the stupid like you, who believes they are intelligent. Fortunately, you are only a complication to yourself and the driver of the bus that hits you.

Apr 04, 2016
Um, folks. rodkeh's posts are rather poor trolling. Try to avoid the hooks...

Apr 04, 2016
A formidable complication is that the ignorant thinks everyone else is stupid.
That's a pretty good definition of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

Nope. You are the very definition. https://en.wikipe...r_effect

Apr 04, 2016
Do you have any links you could list for us - where we could education ourselves on this new wisdom - that "...the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate?"

You don't really want to know the truth, do you? You just have some personal agenda you want to promote. Okay, let's hear it.


Godamnit, how many times? It's the unicorns. Why won't people listen to me?

Apr 04, 2016
I want to live in a smarter world.

Oh, the dilemma of the ignorant like you and your conflicting wants.

Apr 04, 2016
Fools and idiots are a dime a dozen
@rod-girlie
yes, we know, we watch you & beni-kam post a lot
Go ahead, live your denial!
so what you are saying is, you have a faith because you've made up your mind
but you're not gonna share because (wait for it!)
... no one would believe you!

so... you come to a science site and post your faith based comment but can't understand why you're being question about the evidence?

(can you even guess that Zorcon's numbers mean?)
how does one communicate with the ignorant
with evidence
... you know, like the references i posted to you (Lacis & Francis)
I do have a penchant for call a spade
and if you look above, i don't have to call because i can prove you an idiot
why?
"evidence"

all you have are names
... care to continue?
care to bring your evidence against mine?
care to actually compare numbers, evidence, validated studies and reality?

Apr 04, 2016
I don't think trying to make global warming go away by shouting at it or insulting it is going to help very much.

Just sayin'.

Apr 05, 2016
@rodkeh hahaha - you must feel a right fool wasting 53 years of study on the false conclusions. I see em all the time. Intelligent people who wasted their lives on what essentially amounts to nothing. The closer they get to the end the more desperate they become for some recognition of their intellect. Theories get wilder, more off the mark while slowly sinking into obscurity.

Apr 05, 2016
Fools and idiots are a dime a dozen
@rod-girlie
yes, we know, we watch you & beni-kam post a lot
Go ahead, live your denial!.............................


Apr 05, 2016
@rodkeh hahaha - you must feel a right fool wasting 53 years of study on the false conclusions. I see em all the time. Intelligent people who wasted their lives on what essentially amounts to nothing. The closer they get to the end the more desperate they become for some recognition of their intellect. Theories get wilder, more off the mark while slowly sinking into obscurity.

Very profound!.............

Apr 05, 2016
Rodkeh
You just have some personal agenda you want to promote. Okay, let's hear it.
Thanks for asking. I want to live in a smarter cont.


Your monicker should read, "greenwithenvy" by the sound of it.

Apr 05, 2016
I want to live in a smarter world.

Oh, the dilemma of the ignorant like you and your conflicting wants.

You sound like someone with their head on straight, do you have a question?

Apr 05, 2016
Well...well... the only place in the Antarctic they can find GloBull warming is where there is known extensive geothermal activity and now it's the same story in Greenland. Have a gander at the surface temperature for Greenland [http://www.arctic...2008.jpg] and compare it with the geothermal activity in this study.

Apr 05, 2016
Well...well... the only place in the Antarctic they can find GloBull warming is where there is known extensive geothermal activity and now it's the same story in Greenland. Have a gander at the surface temperature for Greenland [http://www.arctic...2008.jpg] and compare it with the geothermal activity in this study.

Imagine that! Who'daThunk? Heat rising up from inside the planet? Where do they think all this rising heat is gonna come from? ....Anyway?...... Some peoples' kids!

Apr 05, 2016
.......at least one chance at being the genius that disproves trillions of hours of science. 53 years of studying the subject


One thing we know for sure from your own words is that you're not the "genius" when you can't do a simple math problem to figure out that "trillions of hours" cannot be packed into "53 years"...........and you AGWs wonder why those of us who can do Differential Equations have so much fun laughing at & making fun of your pet Funny Farm Sciences..

Apr 05, 2016
Wouldn't it be so interesting if the PO moderators limited Commentary to those who have had at least one semester of Calculus. .............All the above AGWs would be excluded from the site & then there could be rational & real scientific discussions going on here about earth sciences.........but then where would the good laughs come from if we didn't have the Stumpy fireplug crowd here to provide us with their inane forms of entertainment.


Apr 05, 2016
Those guys are screwed. Any science that counters or even 'distracts' from the GW narrative will be memory holed and the scientists responsible will suddenly have grant issues.


Apr 05, 2016
"trillions of hours" cannot be packed into "53 years"
apparently hyperbole, satire, sarcasm etc are unheard of on the internet
rational & real scientific discussions
yeah?
like when you can't do a simple math problem to figure out that a galactic year is not equivalent to the "chandler" wobble, nor is it close to the Milankovitch cycle
like you stated here:
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way.
http://phys.org/n...als.html

sometimes to ridicule the stupid like you is the only way to teach others how to think critically and see the power of the scientific method
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Apr 05, 2016
"sometimes to ridicule the stupid like you"
---------------------------------

Please outgrow your natural nastiness. It only betrays your educational and experiential insecurity.

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?

Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Apr 05, 2016
A formidable complication is that the ignorant thinks everyone else is stupid.
That's a pretty good definition of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

Nope. You are the very definition. https://en.wikipe...r_effect

Nope, you are.
That is the level at which you communicate: 6 years old.

Apr 05, 2016
I want to live in a smarter world.

Oh, the dilemma of the ignorant like you and your conflicting wants.

You sound like someone with their head on straight, do you have a question?

Do you two guys share a room?

Apr 05, 2016
@rodkeh
Why don't you check in your posts how many of them involve calling someone or some question stupid.
This may provide an important clue to your successful self evaluation.
Good luck !

Thank you for pointing that out!
I do have a penchant for call a spade a spade.

Then call yourself an ignoramus.

Apr 05, 2016
Wouldn't it be so interesting if the PO moderators limited Commentary to those who have had at least one semester of Calculus. .............All the above AGWs would be excluded from the site & then there could be rational & real scientific discussions going on here about earth sciences.........but then where would the good laughs come from if we didn't have the Stumpy fireplug crowd here to provide us with their inane forms of entertainment.


Why don't you move to North Korea where it is custom to suppress information.
The fact that you are still on this blog is only due to the total absence of moderation.
A moderator would have banned you years ago.

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?

Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Really? Does that mean that heat is rising up from the interior of our planet, everywhere?

Apr 05, 2016
@rodkeh
Why don't you check in your posts how many of them involve calling someone or some question stupid.
This may provide an important clue to your successful self evaluation.
Good luck !

Thank you for pointing that out!
I do have a penchant for call a spade a spade.

Then call yourself an ignoramus.

You on the other hand.............

Apr 05, 2016
I see we agree on one thing.
A formidable complication is that the ignorant thinks everyone else is stupid.

I doubt that we agree on anything.

But we just did. See, you deny the obvious.
After all, you seem to contest the findings of this research.

Did I, really? Quote me.

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?

Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Really? Does that mean that heat is rising up from the interior of our planet, everywhere?

Good question. Yes heat is rising up, by convection in the mantle. Also hot air rises up. A clear example is the hot air balloon.
https://en.wikipe...nvection

Apr 05, 2016
Good question. Yes heat is rising up, by convection in the mantle. Also hot air rises up. A clear example is the hot air balloon.

So, you are willing to admit that the Sun is not the only source of heat on this planet?

Apr 05, 2016
the Sun is not the only source of heat on this planet?
@roddie
quick question about that... given that you are ignoring the science, i just have something i need clarified
ok so, if it isn't the atmosphere or the Sun combined with GHG's
*and*
if as you say
Global Warming is about the warming of the planet beneath us, not the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!
*and*
the current increased temp globally
*then*
why isn't the ocean far hotter considering the exposure to the Mid-atlantic rift or other new land producing areas under the sea?

given your claim above and that the sun isn't a factor, why is the ocean temp not higher?

you state it is the earth warming, not the atmosphere
so why isn't the bulk of the earth covered in water not also warming from the bottom up?

while you are at it, link those studies proving your point and refuting the rest of the studies


Apr 05, 2016
you state it is the earth warming, not the atmosphere
so why isn't the bulk of the earth covered in water not also warming from the bottom up?

while you are at it, link those studies proving your point and refuting the rest of the studies

It is! As was demonstrated by the Japanese researchers who measured ocean floor temperatures across the Pasific, from Japan to the Aleutians. (Look it up yourself, maybe you'll learn something.)

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?

Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law.
Well, in a gravity field anyway. ;)

Apr 05, 2016
Good question. Yes heat is rising up, by convection in the mantle. Also hot air rises up. A clear example is the hot air balloon.

So, you are willing to admit that the Sun is not the only source of heat on this planet?

Why do you ask?

Apr 05, 2016
Good question. Yes heat is rising up, by convection in the mantle. Also hot air rises up. A clear example is the hot air balloon.
So, you are willing to admit that the Sun is not the only source of heat on this planet?
Why do you ask?

Too tough a question? Afraid to answer? Why?

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?

Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law.
Well, in a gravity field anyway. ;)

Gravity field is implied by the word rising.

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?
Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law. Well, in a gravity field anyway. ;)

Good to see someone who actually knows something of the subject.

Apr 05, 2016
Glad to be of service!

Apr 05, 2016
It is!
@roddie-girl
no, it isn't
and making a claim without the evidence linking proof can be dismissed as irrelevant posturing because it is your opinion
study, roddie?
Japanese researchers
well lets see what is out there: we got Fukishima claims
http://www.livesc...ean.html

but we want temp measurements - something you can't actually come up with

so i will get the info for you

lets see - we still got temps near freezing!
The bottom layers of the ocean are considerably colder – near freezing – than the surface layers
http://www.eoeart.../155111/

http://marinebio....dex.aspx

yeah, that is called an epic fail for you roddie

care to continue?

unless you can prove your Japanese researcher claims and link the study...
i got evidence on my side
... what do you have besides your claims or your 53 wasted years of not comprehending science?

Apr 05, 2016
you state it is the earth warming, not the atmosphere
so why isn't the bulk of the earth covered in water not also warming from the bottom up


It is just so entertaining watching the AGW Rant Brigade go so apoplectic, all because they see a cherished theory of theirs suddenly take a huge hit. Hey, Rant Brigade led by Stumpy the fireplug, go back & finish grade school science before attempting college level physics where Calculus is a pre-requisite.


Apr 05, 2016
It is!
@roddie-girl
no, it isn't
and making a claim without the evidence linking proof can be dismissed as irrelevant posturing because it is your opinion
study, roddie?
Japanese researchers
well lets see what is out there: we got Fukishima claims
http://www.livesc...ean.html

yeah, that is called an epic fail for you roddie

care to continue?

unless you can prove your Japanese researcher claims and link the study...
i got evidence on my side
... what do you have besides your claims or your 53 wasted years of not comprehending science?

Ramble on.....

Apr 05, 2016
[So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?
Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law.
Well, in a gravity field anyway. ;)
Gravity field is implied by the word rising.

Still afraid to answer the question?

Apr 05, 2016
Glad to be of service!

Guess you didn't read the whole post.

Apr 05, 2016
you state it is the earth warming, not the atmosphere
so why isn't the bulk of the earth covered in water not also warming from the bottom up


It is just so entertaining watching the AGW Rant Brigade go so apoplectic, all because they see a cherished theory of theirs suddenly take a huge hit. Hey, Rant Brigade led by Stumpy the fireplug, go back & finish grade school science before attempting college level physics where Calculus is a pre-requisite.


Yes, ignorance is a prerequisite for zealots.

Apr 05, 2016
So, I wonder if heat is rising anyplace else on this planet?

Heat always rises as predicted by the ideal gas law.
Well, in a gravity field anyway. ;)

Gravity field is implied by the word rising.

I'll buy that.

Apr 05, 2016
@Benni
Physics cannot explain the source of your amusement.


You're dead on the money right about this statement.

The source of my amusement is watching the Rant Brigade, such as yourself, as you try to convince those of us with advanced degrees in science that you know what you are talking about.

We've been trying to explain to you that a trace gas that comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere can't possibly create a big enough heat sink across the surface of the Earth to melt the Greenland snow & ice cover.....so you try backtracking your past claims of such thermodynamics with profuse quantities of name calling.

Apr 05, 2016
We've been trying to explain to you that a trace gas that comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere can't possibly create a big enough heat sink across the surface of the Earth to melt the Greenland snow & ice cover.

Maybe not, but the 0.0012% attributable to humans can, because there has been a con-sens-us.

Apr 05, 2016
Ramble on
@benji-roddie girlie twins
Awww isn't this cute
the great mathematician and the geriatric dolt can't actually support their conclusions with evidence so they've come together to console each other!

lets do a little experiment for them to test who is right, shall we?

(this is not designed to be definitive, but instructive on transferrence of heat - benji should be able to do this one in his head with simple ODE's - sarc/hyperbole)

Lets take a metal bowl filled with water and seal it in an atmosphere, then start heating the bowl & water from beneath till the temperature of the atmosphere in the sealed tank raises

Yes, ignorance is a prerequisite for zealots.

.

.

I think that if you watch the ratings - you will see that this is not the case
@Green
sorry, he's right... not everyone who posts science supports each other (for various reasons)

& we must address pseudoscience
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Apr 05, 2016
@benji cont'd
We've been trying to explain to you that a trace gas that comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere
unless there is some kind of feedback mechanism between multiple GHG's like say: CO2 and water vapor... like what was demonstrated in various validated studies and is discussed in Lacis et al (linked so many times already it aint even funny)

it isn't the only anything, just a majority player (See study)

but wait... who said it was only one source of heating?
Oh right... only you!
because the science actually says otherwise and demonstrates with evidence
which is the whole point of the argument, really

better yet, how come you can't actually support your own arguments with validated studies?

Oh right... because you're so intelligent that you have figured out what the bulk of the worlds climate scientists missed because you can do differential equations!

so... wait...

where is your Nobel and subsequent studies linked here for evidence again???
2Bcont'd

Apr 05, 2016
@Phys1, @greenos, you gotta roll with the punches sometimes. At a certain point after being followed around by one of these individuals and given a 1 for everything you post with no meaning to it but harassment, you gotta just ignore it. I occasionally give one of the smarter or saner ones a shot, but mostly it doesn't work out. That's OK; they deserve their shot every so often.

I find I can keep up with the site much better if I am liberal with the mute button. Leaves me a lot more time for real life and stuff.

Apr 05, 2016
@benji cont'd
so you try backtracking your past claims of such thermodynamics
Ah... so now we understand!

you're illiterate!
i've stated before we don't have all the info, but we know the major reasons for it's heating... so lets get serious!

here is the easy question that you should be able to find evidence for with a 2 second google search on just PO alone!!!!

who is the poster on PO who stated that the only possible source of our global heating of the atmosphere was singular? [single mechanisms only]

make sure you quote them and link that thread here to this thread!

i will start!
As I have been trying to get everyone to understand for the last 30 years, Global Warming is about the warming of the planet beneath us, not the atmosphere and solar radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with climate!
http://phys.org/n...ial.html

OK benji-girl
your turn!

remember: singular source heating only!

Apr 05, 2016
At a certain point after being followed around by one of these individuals and given a 1 for everything you post with no meaning to it but harassment, you gotta just ignore it
@Da Schneib
true.
in fact, you know you're doing it right when the obvious haters start downrating you and sick a sock army on you

if you're downrated by benji-girl, liar-kam or the rest of the hate squad, consider yourself doing something right... it is their only tool against their religious proselytization of pseudoscience

i have repeatedly offered a program to PO for a self policing moderation of current users who are degree'd and knowledgeable, but i don't see it ever being implemented

Mostly because they would instantly ban the most prolific posters of BS - which would affect the site stats (original poster profiles) and affect the ability to put numbers in front of advertisers who want exposure

Apr 05, 2016
"if you're downrated by benji-girl, liar-kam or the rest of the hate squad, "
-------------------------------------

It's MIRROR TIME!

Go check my ratings here by the Hate Squad, led by snipers Stumpy, Ira, and otto.


Apr 05, 2016
Go check my ratings here by the Hate Squad
@liar-kam
hey! great idea!
... don't forget to tell them to open up all the ratings... you know, where i started out rating you very high!
especially note that i uprated your good (or factual) content up until very recently

then ask them to consider the obvious question:
Why did i start downrating you?

i will answer the why!

it was because you started a campaign of downrating anyone who stated something against you with evidence proving you wrong, like here: http://phys.org/n...ess.html

you get what you deserve, beni-liar-kam

and since you started a campaign against anyone who wants proof or evidence and who proved you lied about basic science, you get downrated


Apr 06, 2016
in fact, you know you're doing it right when the obvious haters start downrating you and sick a sock army on you

That is rich coming from you Stumpid.

Apr 06, 2016
We've been trying to explain to you that a trace gas that comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere can't possibly create a big enough heat sink across the surface of the Earth to melt the Greenland snow & ice cover

Bang on! The Total mass of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, has a thermal mass equivalent to about an 8.5 km cube of water. About the same as one Canadian lake. Does anyone believe that raising the temperature of one Canadian lake 1.5 or 2.0 C, could affect the global climate? Even if you spread the water from that lake all around the globe, it still would be insignificant. But the real issue is, that climate is a long term event, typically spanning many millennia but even at its current accelerated rate we are still talking about, at a minimum, centuries.
The atmosphere is not a storage medium, it is a conducting medium and every night when it cools down, it gives up all the heat gained. There is no long term storage medium to manipulate climate.

Apr 06, 2016
it still would be insignificant
@roddie-girl
Lacis et al
the real issue is, that climate is a long term event
ok, you got one part right...
The atmosphere is not a storage medium
right. because there is no way we can store O2, Nitrogen, or any GHG on the planet to use for, say... breathing, or volleyballs... or [sarc/hyperbole]
every night when it cools down, it gives up all the heat gained
except under circumstances like, say... LAcis et al, or Francis et al, or... well, you get the pic, right?
BTW - those studies aren't just singular, but validated, so if you want to refute them with your claims of "the earth did it" you will need something more than a statement of opinion that "the earth did it"

i quoted references and i've linked the evidence proving you're wrong
where is your evidence?

https://en.wikipe...evidence

better hurry, your Nobel is waiting for your proof

Apr 06, 2016
it still would be insignificant
@roddie-girl
Lacis et al
the real issue is, that climate is a long term event
ok, you got one part right...
The atmosphere is not a storage medium
right. because there is no way we can store O2, Nitrogen, or any GHG on the planet to use for, say... breathing, or volleyballs... or [sarc/hyperbole]
every night when it cools down, it gives up all the heat gained
except under circumstances like, say... LAcis et al, or Francis et al, or... well, you get the pic, right?
BTW - those studies aren't just singular, but validated, so if you want to refute them with your claims of "the earth did it" you will need something more than a statement of opinion that "the earth did it"

i quoted references and i've linked the evidence proving you're wrong
where is your evidence?

https://en.wikipe...evidence

better hurry, your Nobel is waiting for your proof

Ramble on.

Apr 06, 2016
Ramble on
@roddie-girl
i love it... you want people to believe you and listen to your argument but you can't actually prove anything

and when you get evidence from me all up in your grill, you go all troll bait and repeat "ramble on" like a 5y/o parrot on crack

so you can't produce evidence but you somehow think the evidence supports your claims that "the earth did it".. only you won't link it because... why?

because the earths scientists are too stupid to figure it out?
or is it because your obvious superiority and intellect?

shame us all with evidence!

[crickets]
.

[crickets]
.

[crickets]
.

at this point it is painfully obvious why you won't actually link evidence: because there is none that support your claim

therefore you are here to be an attention whore and demonstrate the failure of the school system on you

can you say future darwin award?

Apr 06, 2016
rodkeh;

Does anyone believe that raising the temperature of one Canadian lake 1.5 or 2.0 C, could affect the global climate?


Well obviously not as a lake is not covering the globe as is atmos CO2. Like placing a plaster on your hand and standing naked as apposed to wearing clothes/gloves.

The back-radiating effect of CO2 is never exhausted as be would heat "in a Canadian lake" - it is a redirecting medium and not a source of energy.

Do try and understand the science and not pontificate bollocks.

Apr 06, 2016
so you can't produce evidence but you somehow think the evidence supports your claims that "the earth did it".. only you won't link it because... why?

because the earths scientists are too stupid to figure it out?


It's because Earth Scientists did figure it out, they're the source of this article that you've become so distraught over, thus prompting you to go on yet another profanity laced foul mouthed name calling binge against those who for a long time have questioned the AGW source of Greenland Ice Melt.

or is it because your obvious superiority and intellect?


In my case this is absolutely true, I can solve Rate of Reaction & Differential Equations, you on the other hand wouldn't recognize either of the two if someone suddenly plunked one or the other in front of your face & asked you to identify what is you're looking at.


Apr 06, 2016
The panic stricken mode the AGW fringe on this site has gone into over this article is a marvel to behold. The most credible content of real science on Greenland ice melt seen here in a long time has drawn nothing but hate content from the Stumpid/Schneib Rant Brigade.

The Rant Brigade needs to find a different retirement occupation rather than living on a science site all day long where their funny farm science of AGW, DM, etc, only attracts the attention of the pop-sci fringe base of our culture.

Apr 06, 2016
Yeah, but everyone on Earth will be there, the last habitable place.


It's not just greenland. In 20 years the whole north sea will be free of year-round ice and that opens up a trade route between northern Europe and far-east Asia, Canada and US west coast, cutting transit times by months because it's a shorter way around to go around near the poles.

https://en.wikipe...ea_Route

As a consequence, a whole lot of previously inaccessible, hostile and remote places in northern Russia/Siberia and Canada become pretty nice places to live in, with huge forests, rivers and natural mineral resources available - there's plenty of stuff to do there. It's going to be like the gold rush all over again.

Apr 06, 2016
"I can solve Rate of Reaction & Differential Equations"
----------------------------------

So can my computer.

What have you DONE with them?

Apr 06, 2016
It's because Earth Scientists did figure it out, they're the source of this article that you've become so distraught over
@benjiTROLL
i aint the distraught one
nor do i contest the article
nor do i challenge their findings
LOL

in fact, roddie and yourself are the ones in a lather about the article
questioned the AGW source of Greenland Ice Melt
you question all AGW, not just Greenland
I follow the evidence
big difference
I can solve Rate of Reaction & Differential Equations
yeah, like you did in these threads?
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

http://phys.org/n...als.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

lies don't make you more credible, benni

more to the point: just because there is warming under the ice doesn't mean it is the source or cause of AGW, as roddie proclaimed above

2Bcont'd

Apr 06, 2016
@benji-liar cont'd
The most credible content of real science on Greenland ice melt seen here in a long time has drawn nothing but hate
what i find more interesting is the complete misinterpretation you are making about the article
lets get serious about it, oh illiterate one!
there are key points
This unexpected link ... shows that the influences on ice sheets span a huge range of timescales from the month by month changes of the ice cover to the multi-million year epochs ...
Besides this, the results of the study provide an independent test for models of the opening of the North Atlantic which after a three-decade-long debate still is not fully understood
better yet
The team of geoscientists...able to prove strong coupling between processes deep in the Earth's interior with the flow dynamics and subglacial hydrology of large ice sheets
yeah... just because we didn't have answers before doesn't mean we will never have them, ODE-girly

Apr 06, 2016
@benji-roddie girlies cont'd
Rate of Reaction & Differential Equations, you on the other hand wouldn't recognize either of the two if someone suddenly plunked one or the other in front of your face & asked you to identify what is you're looking at
funny you said this because when challenged to do exactly that... twice... you failed miserably (see links above)

so what did we learn above?

neither benji nor roddie can read

and benji lies about his abilities to do ODE's

just for you , benji-girl and roddie-chica - because i care about your future
... get out of the basement and let your mom read these links for you

http://www.litera...literacy

http://www.readingbear.org/

Apr 06, 2016
Just for you Cap'nStumpid.
You should do it like this - https://www.youtu...2FiFv8tU
Not like this - https://www.youtu...LIU4ze0g

Apr 06, 2016
Just for you Cap'n
@antiG
you know i never go to any links of yours unless they're to a reputable journal with a peer reviewed paper, right?

i don't waste my time on your youtube propaganda crap

if you can't link evidence, you get ignored... especially after that fiasco where you started making a claim about the trends while not knowing what a trend was, then intentionally swapped up the woodfortree's dates to show the "trend line" you wanted because your own dates didn't reflect the trend line you stated

that means you intentionally ignore evidence for your faith

proselytize to someone else, uba-tard

Apr 06, 2016
Just for you Cap'n
@antiG
you know i HEE HAAW HEEE HAAAWWWW HEEE HAAAWWWWWW


Apr 06, 2016
Just for you Cap'n
@antiG
you know i HEE HAAW HEEE HAAAWWWW HEEE HAAAWWWWWW


imagine that!

... you tried to post and instead your true nature came out and you brayed like a jack*ss instead

well, i am not surprised

there is help for a gobshite like you, though, starting here:
http://www.litera...literacy

http://www.readingbear.org/

if you can pass those courses, get your GED
then go here: http://ocw.mit.ed...hscience

maybe you can learn how to talk science and evidence rather than bray and post rhetoric that is known stupidity

good luck

Apr 06, 2016
imagine that!

... you tried to HEE HAAW HEEE HAAAWWWW HEEE HAAAWWWWWW

https://www.youtu...LIU4ze0g

Apr 06, 2016
Yeah, but everyone on Earth will be there, the last habitable place.


It's not just greenland. In 20 years the whole north sea will be free of year-round ice and that opens up a trade route between northern Europe and far-east Asia, Canada and US west coast, cutting transit times by months because it's a shorter way around to go around near the poles.

https://en.wikipe...ea_Route

As a consequence, a whole lot of previously inaccessible, hostile and remote places in northern Russia/Siberia and Canada become pretty nice places to live in, with huge forests, rivers and natural mineral resources available - there's plenty of stuff to do there. It's going to be like the gold rush all over again.

Exactly, global warming is our only hope to be able to provide for the coming population boom.

Apr 10, 2016
"I can solve Rate of Reaction & Differential Equations"
----------------------------------

So can my computer.

What have you DONE with them?


Oh, you really want to go there with that snarky remark?..........Ok, I'll tell you. I own four trucks, two pickups, a cargo van, and a SUV, all paid cash for. We're getting rid of the SUV & plan to replace it with a Tesla S, cash. Own many acres of property, no mortgage. I enjoy turning my education into a nice paycheck, that's what I've done with learning Differential Equations.

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