From the “it still doesn’t matter, your SUV is melting the continent” and the 0.3 watts/sq meter it contributes isn’t ANYTHING close to the “about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter ” forcing measured from CO2 department. Just ignore the big red dot first mapped in 2012..
UC Santa Cruz team reports first direct measurement of heat flow from deep within the Earth to the bottom of the West Antarctic ice sheet
The amount of heat flowing toward the base of the West Antarctic ice sheet from geothermal sources deep within the Earth is surprisingly high, according to a new study led by UC Santa Cruz researchers. The results, published July 10 in Science Advances, provide important data for researchers trying to predict the fate of the ice sheet, which has experienced rapid melting over the past decade.
Lead author Andrew Fisher, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, emphasized that the geothermal heating reported in this study does not explain the alarming loss of ice from West Antarctica that has been documented by other researchers. “The ice sheet developed and evolved with the geothermal heat flux coming up from below–it’s part of the system. But this could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable. When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly,” he said.
High heat flow below the West Antarctic ice sheet may also help explain the presence of lakes beneath it and why parts of the ice sheet flow rapidly as ice streams. Water at the base of the ice streams is thought to provide the lubrication that speeds their motion, carrying large volumes of ice out onto the floating ice shelves at the edges of the ice sheet. Fisher noted that the geothermal measurement was from only one location, and heat flux is likely to vary from place to place beneath the ice sheet.
“This is the first geothermal heat flux measurement made below the West Antarctic ice sheet, so we don’t know how localized these warm geothermal conditions might be. This is a region where there is volcanic activity, so this measurement may be due to a local heat source in the crust,” Fisher said.
The study was part of a large Antarctic drilling project funded by the National Science Foundation called WISSARD (Whillans Ice Stream Subglacial Access Research Drilling), for which UC Santa Cruz is one of three lead institutions. The research team used a special thermal probe, designed and built at UC Santa Cruz, to measure temperatures in sediments below Subglacial Lake Whillans, which lies beneath half a mile of ice. After boring through the ice sheet with a special hot-water drill, researchers lowered the probe through the borehole until it buried itself in the sediments below the subglacial lake. The probe measured temperatures at different depths in the sediments, revealing a rate of change in temperature with depth about five times higher than that typically found on continents. The results indicate a relatively rapid flow of heat towards the bottom of the ice sheet.
This geothermal heating contributes to melting of basal ice, which supplies water to a network of subglacial lakes and wetlands that scientists have discovered underlies a large region of the ice sheet. In a separate study published last year in Nature, the WISSARD microbiology team reported an abundant and diverse microbial ecosystem in the same lake. Warm geothermal conditions may help to make subglacial habitats more supportive of microbial life, and could also drive fluid flow that delivers heat, carbon, and nutrients to these communities.
According to coauthor Slawek Tulaczyk, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz and one of the WISSARD project leaders, the geothermal heat flux is an important value for the computer models scientists are using to understand why and how quickly the West Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking.
“It is important that we get this number right if we are going to make accurate predictions of how the West Antarctic ice sheet will behave in the future, how much it is melting, how quickly ice streams flow, and what the impact might be on sea level rise,” Tulaczyk said. “I waited for many years to see a directly measured value of geothermal flux from beneath this ice sheet.”
Antarctica’s huge ice sheets are fed by snow falling in the interior of the continent. The ice gradually flows out toward the edges. The West Antarctic ice sheet is considered less stable than the larger East Antarctic ice sheet because much of it rests on land that is below sea level, and the ice shelves at its outer edges are floating on the sea. Recent studies by other research teams have found that the ice shelves are melting due to warm ocean currents now circulating under the ice, and the rate at which the ice shelves are shrinking is accelerating. These findings have heightened concerns about the overall stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet.
The geothermal heat flux measured in the new study was about 285 milliwatts per square meter, which is like the heat from one small LED Christmas-tree light per square meter, Fisher said. The researchers also measured the upward heat flux through the ice sheet (about 105 milliwatts per square meter) using an instrument developed by coauthor Scott Tyler at the University of Nevada, Reno. That instrument was left behind in the WISSARD borehole as it refroze, and the measurements, based on laser light scattering in a fiber-optic cable, were taken a year later. Combining the measurements both below and within the ice enabled calculation of the rate at which melt water is produced at the base of the ice sheet at the drill site, yielding a rate of about half an inch per year.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ah, look where they touched the elephant.
=======
The next step is to “homogenise” the rest of the antarctic temperature record based on this station.
Link to the paper …
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/6/e1500093.full
This just in: lava is hot!
OH MY GOD, I never realized it looked like the head of an elephant. My education has failed me.
“Study finds surprisingly high geothermal heating beneath West Antarctic Ice Sheet”
Is that the same antarctic where the ice is at near record levels in spite of geothermal heating?
Decreasing Glacier ice on land is not the same as increasing sea ice. The paper seems to be saying there has always been this heat source but adding agw to it has made it worse than it otherwise would have been.
Whether the heat source might vary over time is crucial. Volcano activity seems to go in phases, for instance both Mann and miller reckon increased volcanic activity in the 13 th century, with the resultant sun obscuring emissionsm precipitated the ice age.
So whether this heat source varies appreciably or not and could be a cause of melting ice, if in its active phase , would seem worthy of research
Tonyb
Aye, there’s the rub. The paper apparently assumes that it varies from place to place, but is absolutely rock steady, otherwise. What nonsense!
“The ice sheet developed and evolved with the geothermal heat flux coming up from below–it’s part of the system. But this could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable. When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly,” he said.
Must append the shibboleth to every paper. Disgusting, innit?
Downright unnatural.
========
So the cycles of activity of the Sun, planetry orbits etc. had nothing to do with the LIA then?
Assuming constancy of a volcano. I could have pointed that as a bad assumption after doing a project on Mount St Helens in third grade. How could someone who definitely should know better possibly make that assumption?
“The ice sheet developed and evolved with the geothermal heat flux coming up from below–it’s part of the system. But this could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable. When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly,” he said.
“When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly,” = more money, please
“””””…..The geothermal heat flux measured in the new study was about 285 milliwatts per square meter, which is like the heat from one small LED Christmas-tree light per square meter, Fisher said. …..”””””
Time to buy some better quality Christmas tree lights Professor Fisher.
The very first LED Christmas tree lights that I ever made about 49 years ago didn’t generate anything like 285 milliwatt of heat, and they were rather inefficient so most of the electric energy that was supplied to them was converted to heat.
The input was 20 mA at 1.6 V forward voltage, so 32 mW power input; about one ninth of Prof Fisher’s LEDs.
Well they were the old vanilla red 650nm GaAsP 60/40 opaque (GaAs) substrate LEDs.
And some modern LEDs are over 50% external quantum efficiency, so now only half of the power input would appear as waste heat.
It’s kind of spooky actually seeing all that luminous flux coming from an LED and not getting the expected amount of heat.
285 mW of heat is more in tune with what one might get form a half watt power LED as used in LED illumination products. Hardly Christmas tree lights.
But then it is fashionable to exaggerate the heating when discussing climate issues.
I was about to call BS on the Christmas tree lights but you did it for me! Modern LEDs do well on about 10mA at 1.9V (red and orange) for 19mW – one fifteenth of the Prof’s LEDs.
These people set themselves up for a fall. Why did he not just say that the heat flux is 3-4 times the amount that is thought, on average, to percolate through the ocean floor from earth’s core?
See Table 2:
http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hofmeister2005.pdf
I just installed some of the new “florescent type” led lights in a pump house. While I was worried about the flicker leds have (making false no runs on rotating equipment” they appear to not have the strobe effect. The light is really bright which is probably due to the number of leds used. They do have heat but not much. We have a third in our store room so I may dissassemble it to see what type of controller it has. My best idea is to use it on my plants to see what they do…
This just in; climate scientists “discover” new, natural climate driver. Not to worry, though; CO2 is still in control Film at 11.
AP said, ‘ So the cycles of activity of the’Sun……. had nothing to do with the LIA’. Sadly, that’s what many of the so-called experts think., including our resident expert on this forum. This is the same Sun whose solar wind affects Jupiter’s huge mag, field, causing it to shrink by 1/3 of its maximum size when the solar wind is at its strongest. Of course it couldn’t have an effect on our climate, could it??, Jesus!
“…the 0.3 watts/sq meter it (SUV’s) contributes isn’t ANYTHING close to the 1about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter 1 ”
0.3 nowhere near 0.2 ?
The all-caps denote sarcasm, not shouting in this case…
I had always thought that all-caps meant shouting. Now knowing that it can also mean sarcasm, I would have also included the word “close” in all-caps since closeness is what we’re being sarcastic about.
For some folks, me included, caps means emfarsis; not shouting. I don’t shout.
Others may have italics or bolding, or underline, maybe even Greek, for emfarsis.
My keyboard only has caps.
Not my fault.
Besides, I don’t titter / winkle anyhow, so I don’t speak that langwidge. I use caps, when helpful.
g
Sorry I took it for shouting and sarcasm.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Italics for sarcasm works.
Could it be the “New Math ” ?
Judging by the insanity coming from the global warming crowd these days I would say it could be the “New Meth.”
Some people just don’t see sarcasm even when it’s staring them plainly in the face.
Common Core Math in action!
For Liberals, math is hard.
“The three-tenths of a watt per square meter it (SUV’s) contributes isn’t ANYTHING close to the about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter” – I missed that the first time too… interesting how the change from numerals to words ruins what the author is trying to say…
0.3 is 150% of 0.2, so, yes, nowhere near. Remind me not to let you near my investments please.
And in spite of this, Antarctic ice has been increasing. How much ice would there be if this wasn’t happening?
+1
Are you confusing ice area with ice mass?
Mmmm … I found this statement quite curious:
Since the area they are studying is overlain by hundreds of meters of ice, and since the heat flow is a function of ∆T, wouldn’t we EXPECT to find both a higher rate of heat flow under the ice, and a higher rate of change of temperature with depth, than “that typically found on continents”? And isn’t that exactly what they found?
Comments appreciated …
w.
Perhaps take all claims stated in a press release with a huge grain of salt?
Lets leave out the salt, we wouldn’t want to melt those glaciers any faster.
Another inarticulate sentence in the press realse is:
Should be: The results indicate a relatively rapid flow of heat near (or “at”) the bottom of the ice sheet.
Perhaps they want people to think that the “missing heat” from global warming is rapidly flowing towards the bottom of this ice sheet. It makes about as much sense as going into the deep oceans without heating the layers above, doesn’t it?
Heat radiates away from the source and towards cooler surroundings. So the statement is correct. That is volcano heat source to the frozen ice sheet.
I would ask, what do they really mean by ‘relatively rapid flow’?
Regards
Climatic Heretic
@Louis Hunt
This is a good example of “Immaculate Convection”, where heat flows to the bottom without impregnating intervening layers.
‘towards’ is the trick word here. I can think of about five different meanings of it in the phrase. More direction, please.
==========
Now here’s some error bars.
Fig 4 from the paper:http://d3a5ak6v9sb99l.cloudfront.net/content/advances/1/6/e1500093/F4.large.jpg
http://d3a5ak6v9sb99l.cloudfront.net/content/advances/1/6/e1500093/F4.large.jpg
My guess is the heat flow would be fairly consistent through out the year at Byrd, as the water temperatures overlaying the sediment probably doesn’t change much. Heat flow found in “continents” have to vary quite a bit over the year near the surface, so what are you comparing it to?
Looking at Minneapolis, in the dead of winter the ground is generally frozen down a ways, but in the summer the surface can reach 90F. In the tropics, ground temps are pretty constant over the year.
Throughout the year, possibly, but from year to year it can change as the magma in the chamber moves about.
Willis, the high heat could be caused by anoxic bacteria which use processes such as sulphate reduction etc to produce energy. These are often exothermic reactions. Many of the ice covered lakes have tepid highly saline waters, some with temperatures as high as 25 degrees centigrade. Thick bacteria slimes occur within layers in the basal waters of many Antarctic ice lakes.
Lake vanda is a good example of an Antarctic lake with warm water. Harold Wellman, a well known NZ geologist legend discovered plus 25 degrees centigrade waters in the bottom water at lake vanda in the 1950s. He lowered a thermometer through boreholes in the ice and found the rope coming up covered with bacteria slimes. There was a famous debate at the time over the cause of the warm, very salty water. Wellman considered it was due to heating of sunlight focussed by the covering ice. Others thought it geothermal although none of the chemistry or signs of geothermal fluid were present. I believe, the temperatures were from exothermic reactions by various bacteria in a closed water, ice-insulated lake.
I’d be interested to know if the sediment beneath the lake contained bacteria (the study showed that the lake waters certainly did and in very high levels) and perhaps also the mineral grieigite, a sulphide produced by anoxic activity by some microbes. The sediment would contain the heat better than water and not be dissipated by currents etc.
Note also that the pressure of overlying ice is very high and this will alter ice melt temperatures. Lake Vostok, near the centre of the continent is covered by several kilometres of ice and this huge body of ice covered water has a high ‘geothermal’ gradient. I suspect this is also caused by microbial activity, perhaps evolving over the millions of years since Vostok formed.
A finding of no great significance?
One thing about using common sense and plain speaking, the CAGW alarmists seem to display less common sense and more difficulty with words the deeper their need to deny nature in support of their beliefs and desired findings.
Now you’re just getting pedantic Willis. and clearly that Temperature gradient also makes brighter LEDs for Christmas trees.
g
Now you’re just getting pedantic Willis. and clearly that Temperature gradient also makes brighter LEDs for Christmas trees.
Isn’t it the CO2 that causes the increased heat from LEDs?
Yea but it sounds real sciencey.
Probably the thing to do Willis is see if anyone ever used a similar technique on any continental land to measure the heat flow through the ground, underground. Maybe its commonly done, I don’t know.
The same would apply to the bottom of the ocean. Surely that detail didn’t pass by whoever was determining geothermal heating rates for the planet. Surely.
But isn’t it “millions of degrees just a few miles down?”
Just about anywhere in the world you can keep your house at a nice temperature by drilling a bore hole to the right depth, and inserting a return system with a heat exchanger in the bottom of the bore hole. That is real green A/Con.
Yes. I would think that only a higher temperature than is typical in the rock beneath the ice would indicate geothermal heating. They would have to drill deep enough to reduce the effects of cooling from the ice sheet to detect such a heating. Either that or model the situation well enough to determine that a particular depth of ground is cold, but not as cold as it should be considering it is under an ice sheet.
Willis, you’re exactly right. Should be expected. Not sure if the quoted text indicates surprise or not.
Love the scary red colors in big red blob under a maissive ice sheet that simply indicate a correlation.
Q: Why not invert the colors? Why not use contours like a topo map for elevations?
A: Because a scary big red blob “looks scarier.”
I wonder what color they’ll use if the thing erupts? Infrared?
The chart is from a different paper with a different purpose, and it works from surface measurements, not the bottom of the ice sheet. Truthfully, it isn’t even appropriate for the paper it’s attached to, merely showing how much Byrd temps are like surrounding temps, not whether they are warming or not.
A swing and a miss this time.
The geothermal heat flux measured in the new study was about 285 milliwatts per square meter, which is like the heat from one small LED Christmas-tree light per square meter, Fisher said. The researchers also measured the upward heat flux through the ice sheet (about 105 milliwatts per square meter)
==============
where is the missing heat going? (285-105) = missing – conversion of ice to water?
Apparently that difference is how they computed the 1/2 inch per year of ice melt.
“But this could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable. When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly,” he said.”
CAGW is just like mono-sodium glutamate.
Simply add it to everything you serve-up. Not only will it be tastier, but it will have a distinct upward effect on your public purse income….
Not forgetting the splitting headaches msg (and cagw) causes many people.
And don’t forget , also maintains the color.
An LED Christmas light consumes no where near 285 mW. Too high by a factor of five or more.
I have a box of 50 Christmas LEDs that says 4 watts for the string. That’s 80 mW.
They found the missing heat!
http://www.sunnysplit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/split_snijeg39-030212.jpg
I don’t understand…. if the ice is melting how is it accumulating? I get that the wind pattern has shifted the ice and created an ice extent anomaly but nowhere have I seen anything but increased ice volume for the Antarctic.
Silly… It’s melting because the models clearly say that it is!
Lead author Andrew Fisher, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, emphasized that the geothermal heating reported in this study does not explain the alarming loss of ice from West Antarctica that has been documented by other researchers.
Except where is isn’t.
From 2004 Climate Variability in West Antarctica Derived from Annual Accumulation-Rate Records from ITASE Firn/Ice Cores
The ice cores from this study were analyzed to look for recent changes in accumulation rates. The period 1970–present was chosen due to numerous previous studies reporting changes in accumulation during this same time period. Mean accumulation since 1970 for each site was compared to the long-term mean and, due to the different time period covered by each record, the mean from 1922 to 1991 (the period of overlap between records) (Table 2). Results for cores 01-5 and 99-1 are disregarded because of the possible need for topographic corrections (see previous section). The results indicate a slight decrease (1–4%) in accumulation at sites 00-4, RIDS C and Siple Dome, and a larger decrease (9%) at site 00-5. Accumulation increased (5–10%) at sites 01-3, 01-2 and 00-1. The geographical clustering of these sites suggests that there has been an increase in accumulation since 1970 in the western sector of the Pine Island–Thwaites drainage system (00-1, 01-2, 01-3) (Fig. 2; Table 2).
http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=ers_facpub
So they compare average accumulation 1922 to 1991 against 1970 to present. It would take a 100% decrease before any ‘Alarming loss’ is seen. So far only one core is 9% less than average and the whole group shows growth not melting.
Thanks but the way I read that is as a decrease of up to 9% at two sites and an increase of up to 10% at three which sounds pretty much a wash. Is that right? I would expect that “accumulation” is kind of a tricky issue over time with the sort of winds shrieking across the ice field from time to time.
Sea ice is increasing. Glacial land ice is not, or within reasonable error bars, not known.
Please don’t look too closely at their work, as your liable to just find something wrong with it.
+1
The WAIS is not unstable there. Most of the colored region is the Amundsen embayment and Ross catchment basins. The ANDRILL program showed Ross is stable. True, Pine Island glacier in the Amundsen Embayment may have seen some recent acceleration and ice loss, and geothermal may be the explanation. But the same paper from Rignot at JPL last year showed the interior of the entire Amundsen catchment is stable to gaining ice. Essay Tipping Points.
All this paper does is explain why the lakes beneath the ice cap exist. But since they exist, that water is not flowing to lubricate the Slide of WAIS off Antarctica. WAIS is anchored by the Executive Committee and Ellsworth mountain ranges. Even grounded Ross is anchored by mountain ‘islands’ projecting up from the seafloor.
Even South Florida is doomed to ocean rise flooding by 2050 or 2100 or sometime else, because Mr Obama said so on Earth Day. How much more authority must I appeal too?
And if you dont believe he’ll have John Holdren get pseudo-Science Mag to publish another buddy review paper to further prove it.with more incontrovertible model results and adjusted data.
WUWT Rules!
From 2013: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/volcano-discovered-smoldering-under-a-kilometer-of-ice-in-west-antarctica/
Ohio State, Dudes: book mark WUWT. There’s a volcano down there. I Understand loot from the government [AKA citizens] spends well.
I bet it some Michigan fan that lit the volcano’s fuse. 😎
Of course any new melting has to be due to CO2, because as everybody knows, geothermal heat never increases or decreases.
Let’s do the math: geothermal heat + zero = geothermal heat.
Why do they always have to throw global warming into the mix without providing support for their claim? What evidence is there for global warming in the south polar region? Is the ice not expanding? Are surface temperatures getting warmer there? The only evidence of warming is under the West Antarctic ice sheet where geothermal activity happens to be going on. If ice is melting where geothermal activity is going on and is not melting anywhere else, guess what is causing it. Hint: It’s not global, so it can’t be due to ‘global’ warming.
Exactly !!! This study showed warming from below; in addition, the Robert Doyle link (above) defined an undersea volcano, These two items are ‘observable data’. But, there is zero observable data to link to any CO2 Global Warming.
‘Why do they always have to throw global warming into the mix ‘
want to keep your membership of the club , grant cash flowing in and invites to jambroies such has Paris , then you make sure your work includes pledges of allegiance to ‘the cause ‘ happy that you never have to actual back up your claims because it is ‘settled science’
right now one way is good news for your future and another is bad news , and the one that is good news is not a ‘good way to do science ‘
Louis…forgot to mention that your equation is spectacular.
If temperatures rise from -65 degrees F to -62 degrees F this has zero effect on melting. This is why the warming scare is so annoying. Slight changes in temperature at our poles isn’t melting much of anything. This is also why we must watch Hudson Bay: the ground zero for all Ice Ages lies there. If the Bay doesn’t melt in summer, this is a warning sign and this year it is high summer and half of the huge Hudson Bay surface is still covered in ice.
That color scheme is just used to scare people.!!!
I like this
“Fisher noted that the geothermal measurement was from only one location, and heat flux is likely to vary from place to place beneath the ice sheet.”
Imagine a temperature series done with one location
or SST done with one measurement.
where’s the uncertainty analysis…
funny
‘”Uncertainty Analysis?” I do not know him. Is he a folk singer?’
Whats funny? People went to the Antarctic one of the harshest land environments on the planet. They did some exploration, made some discoveries, gathered some samples, and finally recorded some data for the rest of the world to examine. Myself I think they did a good days work. I may not agree with some of their conclusions in regards to agw but what the hay, they’re increasing the boundaries of human knowledge.
So what have you been up to lately?
Michael
Sounds like standard temp measurement and analysis, doesn’t it? Read a thermometer at the airport and apply that temp to the surrounding 500 square miles of bare countryside.
What’s that about grid cell interpolation?
500 sq miles???? Ha! That is of course a circle of 12.62 miles radius. 125,000 sq miles might be more like it for most of the non devloped world.
One more response to AGW’s “what else can it be?” argument.
In a separate study published last year in Nature, the WISSARD microbiology team reported an abundant and diverse microbial ecosystem in the same lake. Warm geothermal conditions may help to make subglacial habitats more supportive of microbial life, and could also drive fluid flow that delivers heat, carbon, and nutrients to these communities.
People Ecosystems don’t, they take time and some stability to form? Has this ecosystem been ongoing for some time? Is it an Antarctic Yellowstone? This could get interesting
.
michael
Let’s hope not. Boredom is far superior.
Mike, there is no oxygen in these waters. The microbes are anoxic and produce energy (and heat) via various, often exothermic reactions. These organisms do not necessarily thrive in warmer water. Actually, the heat generated by anoxic microbes could cause the warming rather than the warming causing the microbial activity.
I’d be hesitant to label it geothermal. Often geothermal waters have distinct geochemical signatures and proximity to active volcanoes.
For an example of heat produced by microbes you should consider the heat generated in a compost heap or bales of damp hay which have been known to start fires. The exothermic heat generated by microbes should not be underestimated.
Hello exothermic lank
Okay I’ll buy that. Its the “abundant and diverse” statement they make that has me scratching my head.
Next do/did they have all the necessary skill sets to deal with what they came across? Seems they are generating more question then answers. Sometimes that is the way it goes. Its going to keep people busy I think.
michael
Well lets see. 500,000,000 years or so ago, Antartica was a plate jammed into Gondwanaland IIRC. In the previous several billion years it undoubtedly had lakes and such. It also certainly accumulated salt basins, much like the Great Basin of Utah, from evaporative cycles because it was a basin. Much like the hundreds of meters thick salt formations found by the many thousands throughout the world, oil and gas explorers love to see whats under the salt that sits under an ocean (frozen fresh water in this case). Many salt domes cap methane deposits. Maybe they are methanogens eating a steady diet of CH4 making heat and that magical molecule CO2 as products? Those Evil microbes need to be taxed.
sorry methanotrophs, not methanogens. Need another beer.
So what are you proposing is their energy source?
“Combining the measurements both below and within the ice enabled calculation of the rate at which melt water is produced at the base of the ice sheet at the drill site, yielding a rate of about half an inch per year.”
Half an inch a year melt say 1cm +or- and the ice sheet is about 3000M +or – thick. 3000 x100 =300,000 years to melt when it appears from other research that the ice is expanding across the continent. Next problem please. On another angle volcanism (usually point source) comes and goes, measure it in a years time and it may have disappeared as I can see by example observation out my window at White Island our most active volcano in NZ. The temperature on the crater lake goes up and down nothing scary just nature at work as usual and in the WAIS case totally protected from the CO2 from my SUV. When they have measured the heat change across the entire WAIS we might have a data base to get interested in.
Interesting technology used to get the measurements however.
Coastal west Antarctica has the second highest accumulation rate of ~ 1000mm year…. no one would notice a 1/2 inch missing from the bottom
Kevin, the high pressures at these depths should also be taken into account when considering melt rates.
If there was a White Island sized volcano near lake whillans you’d think they would have had found some seismic or geochemical evidence of it.
“Combining the measurements both below and within the ice enabled calculation of the rate at which melt water is produced at the base of the ice sheet at the drill site, yielding a rate of about half an inch per year.”
a rate of about half an inch per year – wow! Definitely worse than we thought! 😉
How many half inches per year accumulate on top of the ice or at the extent of it?
This is my favorite quote –
. “The ice sheet developed and evolved with the geothermal heat flux coming up from below–it’s part of the system. But this could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable. When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly,” he said.
Now, exactly how OLD is this guy to KNOW that the geothermal heat has always been there and not something that may have started, say, last century? What is the “proxy” that tells when magma moves nearer the surface? It is these cavalier comments that makes smoke come out of my ears. There may be a “proxy” that SUGGESTS since its based on “best guess” to start with, but there is nothing but being there would produce “I know for sure.”
In Yellowstone they have measured significant changes in heat flow from the magma chamber from year to year.
If this is the first measurement of this heat source under the WAIS, how can they conclude that it is stable and therefore say that “global warming” is exacerbating it? Isn’t this a data point of one? How do they know that it isn’t the geothermal source that has been changing?
Just a layman, askin’ questions.
Nothing unusual for station(s) built upon the Southern extent of the ‘Ring of Fire’.
Oh! we couldn’t possibly be upon a pinnacle of geothermal heat also known as a volcano. The sheer amount of brains used in the CO2 gambit is just amazing.
One hot water borehole, one deep sensor, one shallow sensor.
Why isn’t there interest in multiple boreholes and permanent sensor arrays? How about a seismic center?
“Why isn’t there interest in multiple boreholes and permanent sensor arrays? How about a seismic center?”
A journey of a million miles begins with one step. They made the first step. Good on them.
The wise thing, though, is to avoid announcing (especially to the kids in the back seat) “We’re there!” after that single step.
(Okay, I mixed some metaphors, but whatever.)
I’ve always liked mixed metaphors. Especially if you throw in some tomatoes and cucumbers before serving.
I guess that’s what happens when there is a subduction plate boundary under the ice.