Uh oh: Study says 'collapsing' Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica melting from geothermal heat, not 'climate change' effects

ThwaitesTongue-600x423[1]Remember the wailing from Suzanne Goldenberg over the “collapse” of the Thwaites glacier blaming man-made CO2 effects and the smackdown given to the claim on WUWT?

Well, never mind. From the University of Texas at Austin  and the “you can stop your wailing now” department, comes this really, really, inconvenient truth.

Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources

AUSTIN, Texas — Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.

The Thwaites Glacier has been the focus of considerable attention in recent weeks as other groups of researchers found the glacier is on the way to collapse, but more data and computer modeling are needed to determine when the collapse will begin in earnest and at what rate the sea level will increase as it proceeds. The new observations by UTIG will greatly inform these ice sheet modeling efforts.

Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth’s crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Knowledge of the heat distribution beneath Thwaites Glacier is crucial information that enables ice sheet modelers to more accurately predict the response of the glacier to the presence of a warming ocean.

Until now, scientists had been unable to measure the strength or location of heat flow under the glacier. Current ice sheet models have assumed that heat flow under the glacier is uniform like a pancake griddle with even heat distribution across the bottom of the ice.

The findings of lead author Dusty Schroeder and his colleagues show that the glacier sits on something more like a multi-burner stovetop with burners putting out heat at different levels at different locations.

“It’s the most complex thermal environment you might imagine,” said co-author Don Blankenship, a senior research scientist at UTIG and Schroeder’s Ph.D. adviser. “And then you plop the most critical dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It’s virtually impossible.”

That’s why, he said, getting a handle on the distribution of geothermal heat flow under the ice sheet has been considered essential for understanding it.

Gathering knowledge about Thwaites Glacier is crucial to understanding what might happen to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. An outlet glacier the size of Florida in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, it is up to 4,000 meters thick and is considered a key question mark in making projections of global sea level rise.

The glacier is retreating in the face of the warming ocean and is thought to be unstable because its interior lies more than two kilometers below sea level while, at the coast, the bottom of the glacier is quite shallow.

Because its interior connects to the vast portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that lies deeply below sea level, the glacier is considered a gateway to the majority of West Antarctica’s potential sea level contribution.

The collapse of the Thwaites Glacier would cause an increase of global sea level of between 1 and 2 meters, with the potential for more than twice that from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The UTIG researchers had previously used ice-penetrating airborne radar sounding data to image two vast interacting subglacial water systems under Thwaites Glacier. The results from this earlier work on water systems (also published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) formed the foundation for the new work, which used the distribution of water beneath the glacier to determine the levels and locations of heat flow.

In each case, Schroeder, who received his Ph.D. in May, used techniques he had developed to pull information out of data collected by the radar developed at UTIG.

According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.

The presence of water and heat present researchers with significant challenges.

“The combination of variable subglacial geothermal heat flow and the interacting subglacial water system could threaten the stability of Thwaites Glacier in ways that we never before imagined,” Schroeder said.

###
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
SasjaL

From the department of recycled news …

Marcos

The article I read about this paper (on Fox News I think) made it sound like things were extra bad because the geothermal heat was combining with the effects of CAGW to make the ice shelves collapse super fast…

cirby

No, it’s because the Global Warming is soooo bad that it’s melting the glacier – from underneath! And it’s heating the rocks, too! Aaaaagh!

Jfisk

The more we know, the more we realise the little we really know about our planet

M Seward

One of my father’s favourite sayings was “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”. He used it often to rebut my youthful, bolshie ravings in the late 60’s and early seventies. I now know that, after his time as a field commander in the SW pacific campaigns, he finished WW2 as a brigade/divisional intelligence officer and such an expression must have had particular resonance and “dangerous” was not just that of being wrong in an academic sense.
Doesn’t it speak so eloquently to “Climate Science” and in particular aspects of it such as the West Antarctic Ice sheet behaviour.

Rud Istvan

Even if Thwaites were the size of Florida (it objectively is not) the entire Amundson Embayment is much larger, and IF all its ice was ever lost (so that part of west Antarctica would be bare naked) it would amount to 1.2 meters SLR. All the evidence (ice flow rates, snow accumulation) say that will never happen. Whether or not subglacial volcanos are contributing. Just another PhD thesis.
More Warmunist alarmism.

TomRude

That must be the missing heat that went directly into the asthenosphere and finally comes back up.

jones

It’s all the CO2 destabilising the tectonic plates….or something….

Kevin Hearle

The use of the gas top burner together with an average of 0.1 to 0.2 watts/sqm confuses the issue somewhat given the vast area under research. We might have a number of concentrated hot spots that would have a very different effect to an average increase in heat over the entire area.

Ken

At last, we have the missing link between man-made CO2 and magma dynamics. The atmosphere is heated by CO2. It heats the glacier. The superheated melt water under intense pressure from the overlying 4km of ice heats the magma to its melting point. One more reason to reduce CO2 output.

Leo Geiger

Remember the first sentence of the press release being quoted? Maybe the selective highlighting is needed here:

Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat…

Well never mind. Ignore the undesirable part in bold then.

R. Shearer

We think we know so much about the earth, yet we don’t have the historical data from the last thousand years to compare notes with. Just like every other controversial subject in this country, there is normally corrupt lobbying power behind it for one reason or another. We need more transparency in everything that is digitally printed.

rogerthesurf

The glacier is retreating in the face of the warming ocean and is thought to be unstable because its interior lies more than two kilometers below sea level while, at the coast, the bottom of the glacier is quite shallow.”
Now correct me if Im wrong.
This glacier is not floating ice.
This glacier is not land borne ice either because its below sea level.
Now someone correct me here, but -if- this glacial is largely below sea level, and ice having a larger volume compared with water, will the complete melting of this glacier not tend to make the sea level fall?
At least the below sea level part will have an effect on how much contribution it makes to sea level change. That is assuming that it actually melts within a time of a few hundred years, not more than 2,000 years the IPCC gives to the Greenland ice cap.
And of course, if it is melting because of seismic activity, I can see why we simply have to ban all coal fires in the world! Not!
Cheers
Roger
http://thedemiseofchristchurch.com (My blog on Agenda21 and my earthquaked city)

Mark Luhman

I love this line “Current ice sheet models have assumed that heat flow under the glacier is uniform like a pancake griddle with even heat distribution across the bottom of the ice” My question is who was the idiot, yes I use idiot a lot, but show one place on earth where the geothermal heat is evenly distributed. The answer is no place on earth does that occur. The sad reality is those that can do those who cannot teach. I just did not realize how bad those who cannot are!

geo

Damn that man-made C02 –now it’s causing geothermal heat! Is there no limit to the atrocities man has committed on mother gaia?

Odd.
from http://earth.esa.int/workshops/ers97/papers/lucchitta/

THWAITES GLACIER
The Thwaites Glacier (Fig. 1) is the fastest moving ice stream in West Antarctica and drains an area of 121,000 km2 [Ref. 15]. The subglacial floor of the drainage area reaches the Byrd Subglacial Basin, more than 2000 m below sea level [Ref. 4]. The glacier lacks a buttressing ice shelf.

But the area of Florida is only 170,304 square km’s.
Even if you include the entire area that the Twaites drains it is ,er, uhm, considerably smaller than Florida.

“According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.”
These figures aren’t huge. 100 isn’t a lot greater than average. 0.1 W/m2 is tiny compared with average sunlight, even in Antarctica. It’s enough to melt about 1 cm thickness of ice per year.
As I read the paper, they aren’t saying that geothermal is melting the main mass of the ice, but that it has “the potential to modulate ice sheet behavior and stability by providing a large, variable supply of meltwater to the subglacial water system, lubricating and accelerating the overlying ice”.
With things like geothermal, the natural question is, if it is having a big effect now, why not before?

Bill Illis

Most glaciers are melting from below through geothermal heat, either volcanic or simple bedrock temperatures.
That is why the oldest ice on Greenland is only 128,000 years old yet the island has been glaciated for 2.7 million years to 8.0 million years.
That is why the oldest ice on Antarctica is only 800,000 years old yet the location where this old ice formed has been glaciated for over 42 million years.
The issue is, a headline is needed to promote the warming agenda. Thermodynamics tells a different story. It is a sad story, this global warming science.

hunter

Nick,
Perhaps the better question is to ask if the effect that is claimed to be so big is actually so big?

RCM

At least we finally know where all that missing heat in the ocean is hiding…

Odd. Another “interesting” factoid from this 1992-1994 study of the Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers that don’t make sense when compared to last month’s hysteria about the two melting/toe lines/retreat/grounding lines propaganda (er, publicity) prior to the EPA’s new rules to destroy the US economy.
http://earth.esa.int/workshops/ers97/papers/lucchitta/

Abstract
Average velocities of Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers were measured for the time periods between 1992 and 1994 by tracking ice-surface patterns. Velocities of the central flow of the Pine Island Glacier range from 1.5 km/yr above the grounding line (separating the grounded from the floating parts of a glacier) to 2.8 km/yr near the terminus; velocities of the central Thwaites Glacier range from 2.2 km/yr above the grounding line to 3.4 km/yr at the limit of measurements on the tongue. Both glaciers show an increase in velocity of about 1 km/yr where they cross their grounding lines. The velocities derived from ERS-1 images are higher than those previously derived from Landsat images, perhaps reflecting acceleration of the glaciers. Both glaciers are exceptionally fast. The high velocities may be due to high precipitation rates over West Antarctica and the lack of a major buttressing ice shelf.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Pine Island Glacier (maximum velocity measured 2.8 km/yr) and Thwaites Glacier (3.4 km/yr) are faster than most Antarctic ice streams, which generally have velocities less than 1.5 km/yr [Ref. 18]). The Pine Island Glacier is buttressed only by its own floating terminus, wedged between ice walls; the Thwaites Glacier is not buttressed by an ice shelf at all. The lack of shelves may be partly responsible for the high velocities. Another likely cause is the high precipitation rate, around 300 to 400 mm/yr along the coastal areas of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet [Refs. 19 and 20].
Increases in velocity on the order of 0.4 km/yr were observed on both the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers, when comparing older Landsat-based with more recent ERS-based measurements. The apparent increases may be due to errors introduced by different imaging systems. However, some velocities remained the same despite the different systems used, suggesting that the velocity increases are correct. The increases could portend surging of the glaciers. Further monitoring is needed.
An increase in velocity of about 1 km/yr occurs where the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers flow across their grounding lines. This rapid change may be unique to fast moving glaciers lacking shelves. The observation points to the need to accurately correlate bottom-profile locations and velocities when calculating discharges across the grounding line. Also, only few displacement vectors were recorded by the automated cross-correlation program near the grounding lines. Perhaps this lack of trackable features delineates a grounding zone.
The Pine Island Glacier front has been relatively stable for the last 20 years, fluctuating only a few kilometers around the position of a small ice rise jutting into the glacier’s path on its southwest side. A subsidiary tongue on the east side of the Thwaites glacier lost a number of tabular icebergs totalling about 10 km in width between 1992 and 1993; since then its position has been stable.

So, in 1992-1994, there is NO MENTION AT ALL of any “at sea” grounding line .. only that both glaciers leave land (traveling at a slower rate over that land than they do when floating over sea water) and then extend into the sea past a “grounding line” and are “floating” while at sea. All of which makes sense: A glacier on land is going to be expected to move slower than a glacier floating on sea water, and a glacier on sea water will move away from the land far enough that – eventually – it will start to break off pieces (calve icebergs) and melt away.
But – in May – all we heard from the “experts’ was that the WAIS was “jammed” or stuck against an at-sea grounding line that was backing up the glacier and preventing motion. That, if the glacier tip continued to melt (from below where it had been stopped at the former/present grounding line) then the end of the glacier would move over the water (from the grounding line) and would lead to catastrophic melting of the whole WAIS.
WTF? This 1992-1994 study shows NONE of that could be occurring since the whole glacier is leaving from a well-known continental land mass edge out into open water. Has the Pine Mountain glacier and Thwaites glaciers EXTENDED further from the continental land boundary so far between 1992 and 2014 that the tip is NOW so far out that it NOW hits an underwater shallow spot that it could not have reached in 1992?

This is definitely a useful contribution because it explains why the rate of movement of the Thwaites Glacier is faster than what would be expected if the base of the glacier were locked to the bedrock and the movement is the result only of shear within the glacier.
This study, combined with others, explains [the] rate of movement from purely natural causes and not from accelerated warming caused by man.. .
However, the article contains an unscientific alarmist statement:
“The collapse of the Thwaites Glacier would cause an increase of global sea level of between 1 and 2 meters, with the potential for more than twice that from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
This statement is obviously calculated to inspire fear. It is unscientific because there is no time period, no indication if the rate of rise of sea level is faster or slower than now or in the past.
This is important, because sea level rises during interglacials and the longer the time between the onset of the interglacial, the more the sea level rises. During the last interglacial (Eemian), maximum sea level was at least 3 meters high than now. In the very long interglacial 400,000 years ago (MIS 11) sea level was about 20 meters higher than now.
If the astronomer André Berger and others are correct, that the present interglacial (Holocene) will last 50,000 years, mankind may witness sea level 20 meters higher than at present. But this would happen with or without the intervention by mankind. It would happen if all humans had continued with Stone Age technology.
Unfortunately, the level of scientific literacy is so low, even in the developed countries of the world, that the public has little defense against this sort of slanted reporting. The journalists are no more literate in science than their readers.
In my opinion, the thing that will eventually damp down climate alarmism is another 10 to 20 years of no warming or the onset of mild cooling.

Alex Webb

Some assumptions need to be made to do the math Mark, and in fact simply by choosing how to construct the model you make assumptions. The whole purpose of this fellow’s grant was to improve our poor understanding of glacial dynamics, i.e. collect the data necessary to improve those models and lift the poor assumption of even heat distribution. There is no “sad reality,” just a bad cliche.
To quote Newton, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

Richard

So the sea is melting the ice of the Thwaites glacier but not the ever increasing sea ice.

rogerthesurf says:
June 9, 2014 at 7:22 pm
We are not ignoring you.
We are agreeing with you.
We cannot figure out what the bloody Hades is going on down there.
We also cannot figure out what the actual “geological” shape of the ice is down there: What the elevations (topof ice) are ice, sides, areas, and altitudes of the top-of-rock are from head to tip of the glaciers, and what the seabed underwater depths actually are (edge-of-continent-to-last grounding line).
Somewhere in the middle of all these unknowns and the propaganda is gravity and the weight of ice and water. I just don’t have any confidence in the US “scientists” down there to have those facts available.

MinB

“…Schroeder, who received his Ph.D. in May,..” Sigh, another baby scientist

latecommer2014

Brings to mind chicken little. Does an increase in CO2 cause volcanic activity. If I can suggest it’s even worse than we could imagine can I get some grant money? ……..100K sounds about right. Does anyone know a good financial expert who can hide the money?

norah4you

SasjaL says:
June 9, 2014 at 6:46 pm
From the department of recycled news …
Yes, Sasja, recycled news as can be….. not only did you and I discuss this some years ago in my blogg, but I found out only the other week that this so called news was known in early 1960’s…. I have it written down in my notebook from 5th grade….. 😛

So how much is the planet being heated up from geothermal effects that affect climate change?

A better question might be; To what extent is Earth’s liquid molten magma iron core heating the worlds oceans, and what is that contribution to climate change?

richard verney

“It’s the most complex thermal environment you might imagine,” said co-author Don Blankenship, a senior research scientist at UTIG and Schroeder’s Ph.D. adviser. “And then you plop the most critical dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It’s virtually impossible.”
//////////////////////////////
Yet some would argue that we can model Earth’s climate (a system more complex by many orders of magnitude), and that we should rely upon these model projections for froming policy decisions.

bushbunny

Well it would depend on how deep the water was, I would say. They still haven’t found MH370. There are deep water vents with life living around them and using chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis to live and grow. It would be the poisonous gases that are released by volcanoes that can kill life on land and in the ocean.
But because of the volume of sea water around the globe they would have minimal effect on temps generally, but might alter the ocean currents for a while. Don’t know, but as far as the Antarctica is concerned there are active volcanoes around and under the sea. They have corals growing in some areas. But also pressures put on some sea ice from other sea ice can make them break away.
Anyway must go, I am receiving a dose of cosmic rays today, and with ET I don’t feel that bright and very tired. Might be the chemotherapy pill of course. Cheers everyone.

SIGINT EX

Reminds me of the movie “The Adventures of Bakaru Bonsai: Across the 8th Dimension” when Lord John Whorfin (Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Red Lectroids) aka Dr. Emilio Lizardo tries to “converge the laser beams with his feet and hands to achieve cross-over with his bummed over-thruster”; what a laugh riot !

bushbunny

Does America get hurricanes in winter too. Just asking.

Nick Stokes;
These figures aren’t huge. 100 isn’t a lot greater than average. 0.1 W/m2 is tiny compared with average sunlight, even in Antarctica.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Neither is the 3.7 w/m2 from CO2 doubling that is supposedly going to cause catastrophe.
Coming from the bottom of the glacier, it isn’t the 1 cm per year that is significant. It is the establishment of a layer of liquid between the ice and the earth surface which in turn acts like a lubricant to facilitate the flow of the glathier.
No that isn’t a misspelling. Anything named The Thwaites just ought to be a Glathier.

Considering nine-tenth of an iceberg lies under water, and a tenth protrudes upwards, then, if the ice extends down 2 km to rock below sea level, 0.X km of the ice extending above sea level is due to expansion, and could melt, along with the ice beneath, without effecting sea level at all.
There. Even a member of the “general public” can understand that.
Of course, it isn’t so simple. Further study, funding, and trips to sunny Antarctica during dark northern winters are needed to determine if the ice flows the same speed at the surface as at the bottom, and at the middle as at the sides. If the top of the ice flows off leaving the bottom in place it might lift sea levels.
The “general public” can also understand that, especially the word “funding,” when it concerns their tax dollars in a time of economic hardship.
The “general public” is not as stupid as some here think. Call them “sheeple” if you will, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Furthermore, once a minority produces definite evidence of dishonesty, awareness of the dishonesty spreads through the “general public,” and sometimes the awareness achieves a sort of critical mass and “goes viral,” (and this happened even before computers were invented.)
Some politicians in Washington hold the “general public” in complete contempt, thinking control of the media allows “sheeple” to be herded. Even in totalitarian dictatorships this has never been the case, and the leadership can never sleep, aware of the constant dissident murmuring they must constantly trod upon, or be burned by, for the human thirst for freedom and Truth is a fire that never goes out.
What the “general public” needs to know about is not so much scientist’s thirst for knowledge they could care less about, (such as the temperature of stone 2 km beneath ice in Antarctica.) Scientists always are studying obscure things, (such as how Luna moths can smell each other miles away.) Such study is par for the course.
Wasting tax dollars, and especially doing so in a manner using dishonesty, will get the “general public’s” attention. It is not studies such as the above study, but rather clearly written and concise examples of falsehood in science, that will bring the pseudoscience of Global Warming to its knees.
Rather than the South Pole, focus on the complete failure of the “death spiral” to manifest at the North Pole. There’s a lot of bang for the buck there, this summer.

PeterK

Sounds like they found the missing heat in the deeep, deeeep, deeeep ocean!!!

pat

R. Shearer says –
“Leonard Pitts blames the GOP.”
seems the ***Pew-connected Navy Sec is doing the same! LOL.
9 June 2014: Public News Service: Navy Sec’y: Don’t Politicize Military Climate Policy
CHARLESTON, W.Va – Stopping the U.S. Armed Forces from planning for global warming would be a bad mistake, according to an Assistant Secretary of the Navy. The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives has added an amendment to the defense budget. It aims to stop current plans to deal with the security threats from climate change..
But retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, now Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations & Environment, said the Navy sees serious national security issues in global warming. And he said Congressional politics should not get in the way of them doing their job…
According to McGinn, global warming is increasing the need for humanitarian missions after weather disasters, such as the recent typhoon that hit the Philippines. He also said rising seas threaten bases such as the huge installations in Hampton Roads, Va.
McGinn said disruptions in the climate will be dangerous for countries that already have brewing conflicts and weak governments. Storms or droughts will cause them to fail.
“Into that absence of power,” McGinn said, “will run all manner of bad people, paramilitaries, or terrorists, organized crime.”…
West Virginia Rep. David McKinley sponsored the amendment and did not return calls requesting comment. In a letter to other members of Congress, McKinley called the climate-change planning part of a politically motivated agenda.
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2014-06-09/climate-change-air-quality/navy-secy-dont-politicize-military-climate-policy/a39826-1
Aug 2013: Pew Environment Initiatives Press Release: Pew Applauds Confirmation of Retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and the Environment
(The Pew Charitable Trusts issued the following statements by Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew project on national security, energy, and climate, and former U.S. Senator John Warner, senior adviser for the project, on the selection of retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn as assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations, and the environment.)
“The Department of Defense and the Navy have set ambitious energy goals in order to ensure mission effectiveness, improve power reliability, and reduce costs,” said Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew project on national security, energy, and climate. “Adm. McGinn’s unique experience and expertise will enhance these efforts to achieve a more diverse and secure energy portfolio by deploying advanced biofuels, electric vehicles, efficiency technologies, renewable power, and traditional fuels.
***We have been honored to have Adm. McGinn travel across the country with Sen. John Warner and the project to visit with thousands of Americans in town halls meetings and highlight the ongoing energy innovations undertaken by the military. We applaud his selection and look forward to working with him in this new role.” …
The Pew project on national security, energy, and climate is dedicated to highlighting the critical linkages among national security, energy independence, the economy, and climate change.
http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/press-releases/pew-applauds-confirmation-of-retired-vice-adm-dennis-mcginn-as-assistant-secretary-of-the-navy-for-energy-installations-and-the-environment-85899494179

pat

Koch Bros = dirty, bad money…Tom Steyer = good, clean money – read it for Toobin’s reasoning?
10 June: New Yorker: Republicans United on Climate Change
Posted by Jeffrey Toobin
Remember when climate change could be a bipartisan issue? Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi did an advertisement together, boasting of their partnership on the challenge it posed. John McCain also believed that man-made climate change was an urgent problem. Now it’s virtually impossible to find any leading Republicans, including potential Presidential candidates, who will agree, without equivocation, on all of these points: that temperatures are rising, that human beings caused it, and that the nation and the world must take action to address it.
Republicans are unified in denial, and one good reason this is so is the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case. That decision revolutionized the law of campaign finance; what is less well recognized is that it transformed the climate-change debate, too…
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/06/republicans-united-on-climate-change.html

pat

China effectively kills the scam:
9 June: Reuters: David Stamway: Chinese official plays down emission cut expectations
Any near-term regulation of China’s greenhouse gas emissions would likely allow for future emissions growth, a senior government official said on Monday, discounting any suggestion of imminent carbon cuts by the biggest-emitting nation.
Sun Cuihua, deputy director of the climate change office at the National Development and Reform Commission, said it would be a simplification to suggest China would impose an absolute cap on greenhouse gas emissions from 2016.
No decision had yet been taken on a cap and the timing of such a measure was under discussion, she said. Several options were being considered and China would choose policies in accordance with its conditions and stage of development.
“Our understanding of the word ‘cap’ is different from developed countries,” Sun told a conference…
Sun’s comments are likely to cool hopes in international climate negotiations that China could significantly change the base lines by announcing sooner-than-anticipated CO2 cuts…
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/china-climatechange-idUKL4N0OQ0WB20140609

Mark Luhman

Alex Webb You said “Some assumptions need to be made to do the math Mark” I say if assumptions are made to do the math Which I full understand why they do it, What I do not understand why they make grand announcements about models that have been simplified they cannot begin to describe the complex processes going on in the real world, to the most part models are good what if games, but to use them to describe what may be happening in the real world is a fool’s errand, Yet by the sound of you and they do not understand this.Oh computer are no stranger to me I only been working on the for over 30 years. I seen enough garbage in garbage out to last a life time, I have seen people interpret what a computer is telling them completely backwards, the data was good the interpretation was a disaster.

Manufacturing a thought experiment introducing an idea like this to produce a self full filling prophesy is intellectually dishonest.
Paul B. Farrell Archives | Email alerts
June 9, 2014, 7:22 a.m. EDT
The 1 big reason GOP will lose the presidency in 2016
Commentary: Climate-science deniers can’t win with majority of Americans
“SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Warning to GOP: A new poll says you can kiss the presidency goodbye for 10 more long years: Why? “Voters have little tolerance for a presidential candidate in 2016 who doesn’t believe that climate change is caused by human activity.” More on that below. But that means the GOP is destined to be on the outside of the White House for 10 more years, playing by the same total-defense playbook that didn’t work the last two presidential elections.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-1-big-reason-gop-will-lose-the-presidency-in-2016-2014-06-07?link=mw_home_kiosk

GregK

Geothermal activity under ice sheets ?
Hardly new news [ or is that just “news” ?]
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=341
And a bit about ice sheets from a few years ago but still relevant…….
http://ff.org/images/stories/sciencecenter/greenland_and_antarctic_in_danger_of_collapse.pdf

tty

rogerthesurf says:
Now someone correct me here, but -if- this glacial is largely below sea level, and ice having a larger volume compared with water, will the complete melting of this glacier not tend to make the sea level fall?
No, but it will greatly reduce the effect of the melting on sea-level. Say that the glacier rests on bedrock 1,000 meters below sea-level. Since glacier ice has a density of about 0,91 and (cold) sea-water about 1.03 it will take about 1.03/0.91 x 1,000 = 1,130 meters of ice to “fill up” the space with sea-water, so only the part of the glacier >130 m a s l will contribute to the sea-level.

RexAlan

“bushbunny says: June 9, 2014 at 9:55 pm

Anyway must go, I am receiving a dose of cosmic rays today, and with ET I don’t feel that bright and very tired. Might be the chemotherapy pill of course. Cheers everyone.”
Good luck with your treatments Bushbunny!
May it also keep the anti-science alarmists away too.

Man Bearpig

In Brandon’s list I noticed near the top one for rbutr … which is a website rebuttal tool. It would seem that SkS were going to use this against sites in order to make their’s look more scientific. Time to reverse their plan ?
SkS have a post dated yesterday that claims ‘global warming’ is the cause.
http://rbutr.com/
Sign up then go to the website and rebut away.

Dr. Strangelove

This comedic duo are trying to make us laugh. To increase global sea level by one inch, you need to melt 9.6 x 10^15 kg of glaciers. At 150 mW/m^2 geothermal heat flow, it would take 4,000 years to melt that much ice. It’s a very long wait for one inch. To funniest part is it will not even contribute to sea level rise since the glacier in underwater.
tty
That 1130 meters ice vs. 1000 m water means ice occupies more space than water. Hence if you melt it, water will occupy less space. No sea level rise.