The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Following the hilarious post on how Climate Change now causes volcanoes to erupt “everywhere”, Josh opines, “What next, anthropogenic sunshine?”
Cartoons by Josh
The logic of ‘anthropogenic vulcanology’ reminds of this cartoon:
Catastrophic Antroproghenic policy based ideas?
When you consider how some scientists FEEL about the state of climate and action, the cartoon is quite up to date.
Yep, “feeling” is far more important than “thinking” for all the poor dumbded down brainwashed peeople these days. One of my grandsons in junior highschool was given an assignment to write a letter to the Minister for the Environment to protest about either coal mining or the potential damage to the Great Barrier Reef due to development.
Clearly geography teachers have morphed into climate activists.
Back in my day we learned about the carbon cycle in primary school. I loved those really sweet pictures full of animals and crops and industry, clouds, hills and oceans and how everything was in balance.
Antonia, assignments mean marks…so any refusal to follow such dictates would result in bad grade?
did his parents question this at all?
Well, that should be reported at once. There is no way that without written approval of both parents/guardians a child should be ‘required’ to write to express the opinions of others to ANYONE let alone a government official.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Minister wrote back to the child / student explaining how the real world works!
They do tend to get a little cheesed if they feel their climate gravy train is threatened.
$160+ billion to NOAA to study climate change since 2002 … I’d say that’s one massive gravy boat indeed.
This, from someone who considers gravy its own food group.
Seriously? NOAA’s entire budget is less than $6 billion a year, and they do many things besides study climate change. http://www.noaa.gov/about-noaa.html
Seriously? Heartland’s budget is less than $6 million a year. Mostly voluntary contributions. And they do many things unrelated to the climate issue.
They get as much accomplished as NOAA, for one-thousandth the cost. Maybe NOAA should copy their business plan, and give hard-bitten taxpayers a break.
You’d think for $6 billion a year they could stop volcanoes from erupting, you know like they are stopping the climate from changing.
they do many things besides study climate change.
how many government agencies does it take to study climate change?
NOAA’s entire budget is less than $6 billion a year
Oh, ONLY $6 billion. We’ll that sure makes me feel a whole lot better. I thought for a moment you might be talking about some serious coin. What is a couple of billion here of there? After all, it isn’t like it is money that would have otherwise been used to feed and clothe children.
If we let taxpayers actually keep some of their own money they would just waste it on drink or drugs. They are so much better off without it. Out of sight out of mind. In many ways, the more money NOAA spends on climate change, the less harm taxpayers can cause through their bad habits. In the end governments spend much more wisely than the common people.
Barry, the question isn’t how much is spent studying climate change but how competent the climate science is.
Estimates of climate sensitivity have become no more accurate in the last 30 years. The errors are still as big. Yet the computers have definitely improved.
It’s not a technology issue – it’s the scientists and their biases.
Stop throwing good money after bad.
This is a response to M Courtney. This is true across the government–whether the money spent accomplishes the stated goal. I could spend millions on voice lessons (yes, millions) and I will never, ever sing at the Met.
Barry, I went to the website you have listed, and there does not appear to be any discrete amount declared as a yearly budget. I clicked two layers deep on everything clickable, and do not see any dollar amounts. Do you have one discrete website that corroborates the amount you say is the total yearly budget?
I could not find standalone financial reports for NOAA but they are contained (hidden) in this 240 page monstrosity from the US Department of Commerce which is where NOAA s command and control is situated . Financial spreadsheets start at page 41
I think they really believe their own BS.
Does anyone have the heart to inform the AGW extremists who are so excited about this link of climate change and volcanoes, that volcanic eruptions tend to provide global cooling?
shhhh – don’t confuse them when they are so screwing up
Holy Cow !! don’t you know anything!!! The heat’s hiding in the ocean, then it get’s transferred to deep in the earth, then volcanoes!!! See if you were a climate scientist, you’d understand this counter intuitive logic. (sarcasm).
JimS, short-lived cooling at the expense another environmental boogeyman: acid rain. Ain’t nuthin’ for free on this rock.
Brandon Gates, you must be a whole lot smarter than I am, because I cannot understand a thing you write.
Well I’ve heard that one before but normally only in cases where I have actual expertise and the other party doesn’t. I’m generally game to field questions and offer clarifications.
The acid rain bogey died years ago. Come on lad keep up with your fellow scammers or they might start attacking you.
Josh opines, “What next, anthropogenic sunshine?”
JimS writes: Josh, I recommend you make the cartoon now for anthropogenic sunshine even now, because the AGW extremist crowd will come through. Mark my words.
I kinda like the idea of Anthropogenic sunshine. It has potential.
In the Climatology is known basically as Anthropogenic Radiative Forcing.
It is the back-bone of the whole AGW thingy….:-)
The commitment to ideological extremism by media players is never limited by fact or reason. This Time article is jut one recent (and hilarious) example of how extremists nearly always arrive, ultimately, at stupid.
The mindless majority will buy it anyway.
Aha, the planet does have a fever. Josh has drawn the model and just look at it churn out homongrifried data.
A hole emitting ash? Apparently it takes one to know one.
Climate change causes volcanoes, volcanoes cause aerosols, aerosols cause transient cooling, and cooling reduces volcanoes. So even if this idiotic claim were true, volcanoes would just be another negative feedback that keeps warming in check. What is there to be alarmed about? Just stay away from active volcanoes.
It kind of looks like the face of the Grinch in the volcano’s cloud.
I see Jerry Garcia. Hmmmm,…. 8^D
David, I’m so grateful that you mentioned that . . .
Greg Laden causes Anthony and other reasonable people to erupt.
Let’s kick some ash!!
I’m sorry, Josh, but this is getting unfair. Fish in a barrel. Please show some compassion 🙂
Josh has been in fine form recently. A trifecta with SpongeBob, Where truth Lies, and now Anthropogenic vulcanology. Granted, there has been an increasing amount of source material produced by the warmunists.
I see the smoke… just not seeing the mirrors,,,,,(8>))
So are they contending that volcanos eruption all over the surface of the Earth, are covered with glaciers? Was Krakatoa in 1883 covered by glaciers? Pinatubo? El-Chicon?
Yes, but they were rotten glaciers.
So are they contending that volcanos eruption all over the surface of the Earth, are covered with glaciers?
No. The study was limited to observed phenomena in Iceland, which has been experiencing deglaciation.
And “climate scientists” claim deglaciation everywhere, Brandon, so his question is valid.
Iceland, which has been experiencing deglaciation.
Makes sense. Volcanoes produce magma. Magma is hot. Really hot. Really hot things melt glaciers.
QED. The volcanoes in Iceland are causing deglaciation. Amazing what climate science discovers. Most certainly your average person in the street could never figure out that increasing volcanoes would melt ice. Amazing. The mind staggers with the brilliance that shines form from the minds of climate scientists. they are truly gods.
His question was: “So are they contending that volcanos eruption all over the surface of the Earth, are covered with glaciers?”
“Nobody” is claiming that all volcanoes are covered with ice, so his question is not valid.
Makes sense. Volcanoes produce magma. Magma is hot. Really hot. Really hot things melt glaciers.
From the TIME article:
Perhaps anticipating the climate change [redacted]s’ uncanny ability to put two and two together and come up with five, the researchers took pains to point out that no, it’s not the very fact that Icelandic ice sits above hot magma deposits that’s causing the glacial melting. The magma’s always been there; it’s the rising global temperature that’s new. At best, only 5% of the accelerated melting is geological in origin.
It seems some things are predictable as clockwork.
Actually the study was limited to blaming AGW for something else. The real reason for Iceland’s vulcanism is well known. It sits astride an active divergent tectonic plate where mother nature is pushing magma up and increasing the size of the Atlantic. Without this vulcanism which has been ongoing since the Triassic there would be no Iceland to be glaciated. The Iceland hot spot is believed by geologists to be the result of a magma plume over 100 km across. In comparison human endeavours are puny in the extreme.
The real reason for Iceland’s vulcanism is well known.
Good thing then that this study is about more than basic grade school plate tectonics.
The Iceland hot spot is believed by geologists to be the result of a magma plume over 100 km across. In comparison human endeavours are puny in the extreme.
On average, a standing human occupies 0.2 m^2. Times 7.125 billion of us, that works out to 1,425 km^2, or a square that is 38 km to a side … roughly the size of Los Angeles, which is just but one puny human endeavor. If somehow we all managed to find ourselves standing on chairs within that 100 km square magma plume and jumped off simultaneously, the impact energy would be on the order of a 3.5 MT nuke, roughly a 7.5-7.6 magnitude earthquake.
I don’t know what any of that means, but it’s as least as relevant as the comparison you just attempted to make. For more serious science I refer you to this paper …
… which was kindly provided down the page a bit by Les Johnson on January 31, 2015 at 2:04 pm. No human intervention required to melt Iceland ice, subsequently followed by an increase in local vulcanism. The debate you really want to be having here is what’s contributing to the ice melt. Got it?
Gah, make that a 3.5 kiloton nuke, which is a 5.5 magnitude quake. I really should not try to count higher than 20 past my bedtime ….
February 1, 2015 at 8:45 am
Gah, make that a 3.5 kiloton nuke, which is a 5.5 magnitude quake. I really should not try to count higher than 20 past my bedtime ….
Your an idiot. 3.5Kt = 5.5 richter ? IDIOT. Find out what the 500 megatonne russian bomb registered and then come back. LOSER
Tsar Bomba was a 50 MT shot, not 500. But hey you only misplaced one decimal place whereas my original post was off three orders of magnitude.
The 3.5 kiloton to 5.5 Richter magnitude conversion is total energy yield. Had the Tsar Bomba been a deep underground test, the realized shaking would have been in the neighborhood of an 8.4 magnitude quake. But as it was an air burst, most of the energy was dispersed into the atmosphere. The energy which reached the ground was good for an estimated 5.0-5.2 magnitude quake.
brandon, way to miss my point. If deglaciation causes volcanoes to erupt, then what accounts for the millions of volcanic eruptions which took place over the eons without glaciers existing on said volcanoes? Why haven’t we seen Kilimanjaro erupt?
These volcanoes are erupting because they exist on the Mid-Atlantic ridge. They’ve been erupting for tens of millions of years. This ‘study’ ia alarmist hype.
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter),
If deglaciation causes volcanoes to erupt, then what accounts for the millions of volcanic eruptions which took place over the eons without glaciers existing on said volcanoes?
Way to miss, again, the point of the paper. It’s very simple: reduce the mass balance over a thinnish portion of crust and what’s already below pushing up will be able to push a little further and faster in the vertical direction. That translates into a slightly higher frequency of volcanic events
Why haven’t we seen Kilimanjaro erupt?
Oh good grief. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Let’s start with Kilimanjaro being dormant and go from there, shall we?
These volcanoes are erupting because they exist on the Mid-Atlantic ridge. They’ve been erupting for tens of millions of years.
Yah, the authors made that point already because they went to a special volcano sk00L. Point they’re making is the change in rate from a baseline established in the thousands of previous studies from which you are drawing the very factioids you’ve just regurgitated. Thing you need to wrap your mind around is that they’ve probably forgotten more about what goes on in the Mid-Atlantic ridge than you’ll ever know if your present level of comprehension is any indication.
While obviously misstating cause and effect, there’s very likely a link between climate change and increased volcanic activity. Both are influenced by the electrical connection between the sun and Earth.
To be fair,
The idiocy in play with the global climate change-vulcanism link was committed by a journalist (Time’s senior science editor), not by a scientist.
idiocy in play with the global climate change-vulcanism link was committed by a journalist
Silence is assent. If respected climate scientists do not speak up against this idiocy, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they agree with it. In which case, they are a party to idiocy, which speaks mountains as to their credibility as scientists.
I didn’t read anywhere in that article (or in the actual published paper) a statement saying that volcanic activity would increase everywhere — it said it would have an effect everywhere, which we know happens because of volcanic injections into the stratosphere. But this would seem to be a negative feedback, since these gases and aerosols can have a cooling effect: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
So, I think the criticism of this study is precisely wrong, and anti-CAGW folks should be embracing it and pointing out these negative feedbacks rather than criticizing it and (apparently) putting words in the authors’ mouths.
Barry, agreed. My comment above was incorrectly placed as a reply to “Mark.”
The idiocy in play with the global climate change-vulcanism link was committed by a journalist (Time’s senior science editor), not by a scientist.
I appreciate your instinct to separate journalistic hyperbole from more considered statements of scientific findings. However, the research article itself does invoke climate change as a distal cause, right in the title of the paper, “Climate driven vertical acceleration of Icelandic crust measured by CGPS geodesy”.
In my mind the most troublesome statement of the TIME article is, “The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.” The word “everywhere” is too strong, and the statement is rather too vague — it wants qualification which it doesn’t receive until a few paragraphs further down in the article. To wit, the 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull which significantly disrupted commercial air travel in large portions of Europe over the course of several weeks.
Which was not a disaster. But it was costly, and to me that does warrant concern.
The 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull is concerning. However we are still quite a ways away from saying humanity was the key to that eruption. With many things related to climate, we can identify factors that influence climate, but cannot identify how much and under what conditions. Melting ice in a region could be due to a combination of factors, the results of the melting ice could have various levels of influence to volcanic activity depending on the region and other conditions present or manifesting.
A temperature of 1 degree Fahrenheit is not life threatening for short periods of time, 1 degree and a 25 mph wind and we risk losing noses, fingers and ears to frostbite in minutes. We know the relationship between temperature and wind and human physiology in order capably predict frostbite, we do not know the relationship between the elements of climate well enough to be predictive as much as Climatology and the IPCC want it to be.
How we view severe natural events is dependent on location and timing. An unexpected snow whiteout during rush hour at night on a highway is catastrophic, a much worse whiteout in an uninhabited region is of no consequence and not noticed. So perceptions of it being a good or bad weather year depends on where the weather hits and how many people live there. I am sure there is much volcanic activity that no one gives a hoot about.
The 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull is concerning. However we are still quite a ways away from saying humanity was the key to that eruption.
A fair point, and I’ll go one further: I’m doubtful we’ll ever be able to say any single eruption is primarily due to human activities. The study mainly makes an argument about frequency of events in the region increasing in inverse proportion to ice loss. I have the same problem with saying humans did Eyjafjallajökull as I do with the argument CO2 is responsible for Superstorm Sandy. Climate is defined by the statistics of weather over decades of time, not single events. I see no issue slotting plate tectnonics into the same paradigm.
With many things related to climate, we can identify factors that influence climate, but cannot identify how much and under what conditions.
It’s challenging to be sure. I tend to reserve impossible for things like building perpetual motion engines. Doing good, important science is among the most difficult of human endeavors. I think it’s important to keep that difficulty in mind when making major decisions based on the results of published research.
Melting ice in a region could be due to a combination of factors, the results of the melting ice could have various levels of influence to volcanic activity depending on the region and other conditions present or manifesting.
Well yes, you’re all but guaranteed to be correct.
A temperature of 1 degree Fahrenheit is not life threatening for short periods of time, 1 degree and a 25 mph wind and we risk losing noses, fingers and ears to frostbite in minutes.
Mmmhmm. Over long periods of time, seemingly small deviations can have larger effects than one might intuitively expect. The Eemian interglacial peaked out at ~2 K above the Holocene average, yes? The time spent over the 0 K “normal” was good for some 6-8 m higher sea levels than present … which would unarguably be doubleplus ungood for today’s major coastal infrastructure.
We know the relationship between temperature and wind and human physiology in order capably predict frostbite, we do not know the relationship between the elements of climate well enough to be predictive as much as Climatology and the IPCC want it to be.
Cue my standard response: that uncertainty is the exact reason to exercise prudent caution. Some things we don’t want to find out empirically.
I am sure there is much volcanic activity that no one gives a hoot about.
The undersea ones can be great at creating real estate which didn’t used to exist … 🙂
See the paper I reference below. It raised the same questions about aerosols, but concluded that the aerosol effect was shorter lived. In fact, it suggests that the younger Dryas may have been the result of increased volcanic activity at the end of the last glacial.
Les, the YD was almost certainly caused by the loss of the St. laurence seaway icedam, which cause a multidecadal surge of pent up meltwater from paleo ‘Lake Agassiz’ into the North Atlantic. That interrupted the thermohaline circulation. Just too much geological and seabottom core evidence to think otherwise. The paper’s speculation is another reach that does not discuss all the counterevidence, contrary to Feynman’s admonition.
YD was almost certainly caused by
The only certainty in science is that there is no certainty.
Good to see that you agree with us on at least one of the negative feedbacks.
I hate to say it, but there may be some truth to the deglaciation/volcano linkage. I googled volcanoes and inter glacial, and a lot of hits suggested an increase in vulcanism after the ice starts melting.
This paper says a 2 to 6 fold increase over background levels. They also reference a lot of papers that support this, at least on the regional level. This appears to be a meta-study.
The good news is that most of the vulcanism occurs shortly after deglaciation starts, and occurs almost exclusively in the deglaciated areas.
That is almost certainly true. Geological evidence is found in Iceland, and long North America’s Pacific northwest. One a near Arctic rift, the other a subduction zone under the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. And the geological evidence ended about 10000 years ago. So cannot be projected to 2100 or whatever.
Les and Rud, I tip my cap to you both for having done due diligence on digging into what prior and current research actually says.
What’s keeping Greenland’s melting ice sheet from sprouting more volcanoes?
shhhhh don’t confuse people with the facts. They are having such fun ranting about what they *wish* the article said.
tjfolkerts. Perhaps you were sarcastic.
In case not, the Time article extended the very dubious Iceland paper where there are smallish (now) glaciers to the world. You know, places like Hawaii and the Pacific Rim of Fire (Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Kamchatka penninsula, northwest North American coast, central America–where there basically are no major glaciers, and in most places (Alaska excepted) never were major ice sheets.
Such dry humor might need a /sarc.
Rud Says: ““In case not, the Time article extended the very dubious Iceland paper where there are smallish (now) glaciers to the world.”
No. Read more carefully.
1) The original paper seems pretty well founded, both with previous observations (“During the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago… geologic records suggest that volcanic activity across the island increased as much as 30-fold) and theory (“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases… and makes it easier for more deeply buried magma chambers to escape”).
2) The claim was NOT extended to the rest of the world (“At the current pace, the researchers predict, the uplift rate in parts of Iceland will rise to 1.57 in. (40 mm) per year by the middle of the next decade, liberating more calderas and leading to one Eyjafjallajökull-scale blow every seven years.”)
The article is rather clear that eruptions in ICELAND may become much more frequent. It says NOTHING about increases in other areas you mentioned like Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Kamchatka peninsula, northwest North American coast, or central America.
The ‘global impact’ would be from these Icelandic volcanoes messing strongly with Europe (eg flights grounded for several days) and messing to a lesser degree with the rest of the world (eg ash blocking sunlight).
This is from the time article. ““The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.”
I guess you are saying “everywhere” only includes Iceland or you are immediately notifying Time magazine of the error and demanding correction.
Something along the lines of, “There is evidence in ancient geological times of increased volcanic activity in areas where glaciers melted away. Since this de-glaciation occurred prior to anthropogenic influence, the premise of AGW causing increased present day and future volcanic activity is unfounded, both in areas with glaciers and of course areas without glaciers.”
I mean we wouldn’t want to leave a misleading and inaccurate representation out there, would we?
Alx says: “I mean we wouldn’t want to leave a misleading and inaccurate representation out there, would we?”
The thing is, this article only seems to be misleading people wanting to see problems. The article could have been written a little clearer perhaps, but I still have not seen any quote from the article that is seriously wrong.
“I guess you are saying “everywhere” only includes Iceland”
Don’t guess! Read the article and read what I wrote. Quote something that you think is incorrect in the article or in what I wrote.
The article only uses the word ‘everywhere’ in this sentence: “The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.” The bad news [more eruptions in Iceland] is for the whole world. There is nothing about more volcanoes for the whole world. Is it a bit sensational? Sure! (They are trying to sell magazines.) Is the title a little brief? Sure. (But no one writes titles like “How Climate Change Leads to V̶o̶l̶c̶a̶n̶o̶e̶s̶ Increases Volcanic Eruptions in Iceland, Which Can Cause Global-Scale Problems”.)
“Something along the lines of, “There is evidence in ancient geological times of increased volcanic activity in areas where glaciers melted away. Since this de-glaciation occurred prior to anthropogenic influence, the premise of AGW causing increased present day and future volcanic activity is unfounded, both in areas with glaciers and of course areas without glaciers.” “
You are replacing ‘possibly misleading’ with ‘wrong’ — hardly a step in the right direction. WHATEVER the cause of ice melting, the decrease in glaciers would reduce pressure which would lead to more eruptions. So the sentence should be something like “Since any de-glaciation — no matter the cause — would cause a similar effect, then if AGW is causing a similar de-glaciation now, we would expect similar results.”
At this point, you could argue whether AGW is real, but that is a different issue all together.
Aw, come one. The Time piece in question did extend to RoW. Unless you dont comprehend english.
January 31, 2015 at 8:17 pm
“… Is it a bit sensational? Sure! (They are trying to sell magazines.) …”
And this is your rationale for why there’s no problem with stupid AGW propaganda pretending to ‘explain’ volcanism mechanisms with pseudo-scientific contrivance?
Nice. You must be one of little bo-peep’s lost sheep.
“WHATEVER the cause of ice melting, the decrease in glaciers would reduce pressure which would lead to more eruptions.”
Given the proposition of the article is that AGW leads to glacial melting that leads to eruption hazard you must think everyone is as damaged, deranged or drunk as you.
“Oh, the pain … the pain!” – Dr. Smith, Lost in Space
Unmentionable says: “pretending to ‘explain’ volcanism mechanisms with pseudo-scientific contrivance?”
What part of the explanation do you find pseudo-scientific? Here are the three key statements from the article. Let us know which one (or two or three) is a “pseudo-scientific contrivance”.
“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases”
“As you reduce the pressure, you effectively lower the melting temperature.”
“The result is a softer, more molten subsurface, which increases the amount of eruptive material lying around and makes it easier for more deeply buried magma chambers to escape their confinement”
Me >> “… Is it a bit sensational? Sure!”
Unmentionable > “And this is your rationale for why there’s no problem with stupid AGW propaganda …”
So this is YOUR rationale for why there’s no problem with stupid ANTI-AGW propaganda? Two wrongs make a right?
Read the first sentence of the post: “Following the hilarious post on how Climate Change now causes volcanoes to erupt “everywhere” “. Where is YOUR outrage this that is NOT what the article was saying? Where are your comments asking Josh to get HIS facts straight about the article only discussing increased vulcanism in Iceland? Or perhaps clearly false anti-AWG propaganda is OK in the fight to against merely misleading pro-AGW propaganda?
And before you revert to an hom attacks again, see if you can find any quote from the TIME magazine article of the original research paper that states “Climate Change now causes volcanoes to erupt “everywhere” “. If you can, I would be happy to read about what you have found.
tjfolkerts February 1, 2015 at 6:57 am
” … Read the first sentence of the post: “Following the hilarious post on how Climate Change now causes volcanoes to erupt “everywhere” “. Where is YOUR outrage this that is NOT what the article was saying? Where are your comments asking Josh to get HIS facts straight about the article only discussing increased vulcanism in Iceland? Or perhaps clearly false anti-AWG propaganda is OK in the fight to against merely misleading pro-AGW propaganda? …”
Get a grip. That ‘published research’ is clearly mischief-making inapplicable utter nonsense. The phenomena of decompression induced eruptive events is hardly news to volcanology. My old igneous prof would have laughed and made synced shrugging and head shaking movements reading such an absurd screed trying to present itself as insights in volcanology and earth science.
The cAGW circus is merely attempting to hitch its donkey to poor Gaia, which it is so suffering under the boot-heel of humanity, that it just ends up vomiting rocks and copious CO2 into the air! Oh my! Were doomed! It’s a positive feed back!
Whilst vapid loons come in here to defend such madness as informative, scientific and worthwhile, and not the obviously ludicrous waste of everyone’s time and bandwidth that it is.
We aren’t all lower-brain-functioning zombies yet.
The whole proposition is so cynical and fraudulent that it’s “not even wrong” – it’s just very, very dumb.
Unmentionable says: “That ‘published research’ is clearly mischief-making inapplicable utter nonsense. ”
Really? What part of it? Here is the abstract of the (scare quotes) published research:
Earth’s present-day response to enhanced glacial melting resulting from climate change can be measured using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. We present data from 62 continuously operating GPS instruments in Iceland. Statistically significant upward velocity and accelerations are recorded at 27 GPS stations, predominantly located in the Central Highlands region of Iceland, where present-day thinning of the Iceland ice caps results in velocities of more than 30 mm/yr and uplift accelerations of 1-2 mm/yr2. We use our acceleration estimates to back-calculate to a time of zero velocity, which coincides with the initiation of ice loss in Iceland from ice mass balance calculations and Arctic warming trends. We show, through a simple inversion, a direct relationship between ice mass balance measurements and vertical position and show that accelerated unloading is required to reproduce uplift observations for a simple elastic layer over viscoelastic half-space model.
Note that there is NOTHING about anthropogentic climate change. There is nothing about “the whole world”.
They are publishing measurements of the uplift across Iceland. Is that “mischief-making”?
They are successfully relating observed accelerations to observed warming trends and ice-loss. Is that “inapplicable”?
They are successfully relating observed uplift to standard geological models. Is that “utter nonsense”?
It is important to separate the science from the hype.
* The science is fairly basic and fairly non-controversial. Your ‘old igneous prof’ would have no problem with the research article itself.
* The Time Magazine article is a bit hyped and potentially misleading if oyu are not paying attention, but not incorrect anywhere that i can see. And so far I haven’t seen you or anyone else point out a specific error.
* OTOH, the top post here is clearly wrong and definitely misleading when it talks about “how Climate Change now causes volcanoes to erupt “everywhere””. Talk about “vapid loons here to defend such madness as informative, scientific and worthwhile”! Post after post starts with this incorrect assumption and attacks a strawman, rather than actually looking at either the TIME magazine article or the actual scientific paper.
Even Germany has a large caldera complex that erupts after the glacial load is released at the end of each ice age and then goes quiet until the next ice age ends. See the Laacher Sea caldera which erupted with a VEI 6 about 12,900 years ago.
Did not know that. Many thanks for the new information. Now I have a new research project for early Superbowl Sunday. Regards, Bill.
You do realise that many of the active volcanoes in Iceland lie beneath ice caps and glaciers don’t you ?
Bárðarbunga which is currently erupting likes beneath under Vatnajökull, Iceland’s largest glacier
The volcano under the Eyjafjallajökull ice cap caused considerable disruption to air travel when it erupted in 2010, the previous eruption in 1824 was even more severe and occurred at the peak of modern glaciation in the little ice age.
Geologists are convinced that Hekla is about ready to erupt again as the rising magma is casing the mountain to bulge and has melted most of the snow and ice that covered it.
This rather contradicts the notion that vulcanism occurs almost exclusively in the deglaciated areas except in so far as the magma tends to melt the ice when it erupts.
dbteasley, I’m sorry you have no idea what government agencies do. For one thing, NOAA collects, compiles and documents vast amounts of actual data on the earth system. The also issue weather and natural hazards forecasts, which millions of people (and businesses, and the military) rely on. I’ll admit I’m not familiar with all of the things Heartlands does, but in the area of climate change it seems they fund a small group of people to review original published work and either cherry pick or twist it around. And doing the original work is a lot more difficult (and yes, more expensive) than putting a bunch of papers through a sausage maker.
Yes, NASA/GISS and the NOAA entire budget and its bureaucracy is run for pleasure of and under the control of its bureaucratic leaders. Yes, they ARE petty dictators of their little turf and their power over the budgets THEY choose to promote and support.
NOAA IS funded to promote the doctrine and produce the data needed to support Big Government’s need for 1.3 trillion in carbon taxes for the democrat party. They have had now 21 years (since Clinton’s White House in 1994 came to power, though they were scarcely “controlled” effectively even under Bush I from 1990 – 1994) to maintain and entrench and promote their people and their programs and fund their programs.
Odd, isn’t it, that the very class who fight Big Government when it attempts to promote freedom and promote democracies and government overseas who oppose Communism and socialism and dictatorships are those who fight most strongly that “Big Government” bureaucrats are the ONLY people we trust with the world’s future because they ….. what? Have demonstrated any form of competency in ANY actions before?
“OAA IS funded to promote the doctrine and produce the data needed to support Big Government’s need for 1.3 trillion in carbon taxes for the democrat party”
They also do a pretty good job of hurricane forecasting too !!
You mean like this forecast ?
See, Barry, I don’t care what most gov’t agencies do. The only ones outside of State agencies that are Constitutionally legitimate are ones taking care of national defense, the courts, the post office, and a few other incidental jobs specified in the Constitution. Everything else should be handled by the several states.
IMO the Departments of Energy, and Education, and Labor, and the EPA, and Homeland Security, and most others should be promptly abolished, and the money returned to the states. Simply lay off all those bureaucrats.
When WWII ended it was proposed to simply dump ten million servicemen back into the workforce. Some folks cried out loudly that unemployment would skyrocket. Didn’t happen. Within six months the country was at full employment. So let’s start with the EPA, and see what happens. Wouldn’t that be fun?
We are the United States, not the United Feds. The federal government and federal bureaucracies have usurped so much power and money that they have wrecked the original design. Try to get a federal bureaucrat fired for doing nothing. You’d need to catch him with a naked boy in a public place before you could fire him. Even so, it would probably be a 50/50 proposition.
The feds are the reason the economy is in shambles. As the federal government ballooned, so did our current problems. See the connection?
And sure, we can vote out individual politicians. But try voting out bureaucrats — the ones writing endless rules and regulations. And now, even laws and spending bills are passed by unelected bureaucrats. We even have a President now who shovels taxpayer loot in any direction he wants, to enviro groups, or to Middle East terrorists without regard to the House of Representatives, which has the sole authority to pass spending bills.
So excuse me if I’m not impressed with what federal agencies do. They’re just not legitimate. I know it’s a losing battle. It was lost incrementally a long time ago. That doesn’t make it OK.
“without regard to the House of Representatives, which has the sole authority to pass spending bills.”
You need to re-read the constitution.
You don’t have a clue
The Senate has to pass the spending bill and the president has to sign it.
so much for “sole authority”
Apparently DB is a 10th Amendment fan: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …
The apparent conflict between those two short lines of text reflects a foundational … argument … that the US has never quite settled to most (vocal) folks’ satisfaction. Speaking for myself, the enumerated powers crowd drive me a bit batty, not least of which because for all their “X is not in the Constitution … STATES’ RIGHTS!!” mantras they ironically miss the point that their arguments hinge on an AMENDMENT. Were it not for the 10th, a broad interpretation of the General Welfare clause (which also appears in the Preamble) would be far less controversial in my view.
Oh, and this is a gem: The feds are the reason the economy is in shambles. As the federal government ballooned, so did our current problems. See the connection?
Someone needs to remind him that correlation is not causation. Somewhere I’m sure is an overlay chart showing that as corporate profits have risen, so have our current economic problems …. [grinz]
You are right Mr Gates regarding the 10th.
However, the part of the constitution that Mr Dbstealley is confused about is what is known as the “Origination Clause”
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
As you well know, there is a difference between “origination” and “authority”
As you well know, there is a difference between “origination” and “authority”
Indeed I do, but will cop to have missed the full import of that portion of your argument.
For all their talk, I’m of the opinion that small gumminters like Federal spending as much as anyone. My morbid curiousity is such that I almost want to see a Tea Party-dominated government just for the political theater of watching the hue and cry go up when the pork stops flowing back to those states which currently put less into the pot than they get in return.
When WWII ended it was proposed to simply dump ten million servicemen back into the workforce. Some folks cried out loudly that unemployment would skyrocket. Didn’t happen. Within six months the country was at full employment.
Even more remarkable considering that a lotta Rosie the Riveters didn’t want to give up being a wage earner. Of course this was back in the days when we used to actually build things on our own soil. Nowadays far more of our consumables come from China. Who also now owns most of our foreign debt. The vast majority of their market enterprise is state controlled. They are kicking our asses in economic growth, charging us interest for the privilege, and selling us our door prizes in the form of cheap plastic shit coated with lead-based paint.
The Feds didn’t pull off that caper, free market capitaliststs did. Always follow the money. Amirite?
Nuking the EPA and putting all those bureaucrats out of business would be as economically inadivasble as, oh, killing a similar percentage of the defense budget. Pick one. How about that lemon of an airplane the F-35? Much as I want the thing to work because it’s so darn cool, I don’t have a lot of hope for it.
In an environment where people are already struggling to find work, or working longer hours for less pay, the last thing in the world it makes sense to do is to slash and burn decent-paying, nominally stable civil service jobs. As in idiotic. We’re in nowhere near the same global market these days as existed in 1946 for crying out loud. Not even remotely close.
“What next man made (Anthropogenic) sunshine” http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/12/science/russians-to-test-space-mirror-as-giant-night-light-for-earth.html
As much as I’m amused by Josh’s cartoons I think he should’ve portrayed the smoke and flames coming out the other end.
Best wishes. And keep up the good work.
Someone ought to start a list of what CAGW doesn’t cause. It would be only two or three entries.
We know it doesn’t cause science to happen.
Some choose to dismiss this paper, but I’m uncomfortable with the implication that climate has no effect on volcanism. We…just…don’t…know.
Would employing Occam’s Razor and a sense of proportion be too out of line?
Works great for tooth fairies and the monster under my bed.
Some years ago I spoke to someone in New Zealand who said CO2 driven AGW was causing earthquakes, in particular earthquake storms and an increase in strength and frequency.
Years old hearsay of a prophecy that turned out to be wrong? How interesting.
If they want to blab about volcanoes and glaciers in Iceland they maybe should examine the eruptive history of Askja caldera as it is in a precipitation-shadow area of central Iceland, so less snow falls and can accumulate into a glacier upon it.
In 1875 the volcano exploded and ejected 2.5 cubic km of material, in a few short hours. Today the water in the caldera (Öskjuvatn lake) and even the ground is too warm for ice to form in winter and remain on it through the year. Hence no glacier has been able to form in almost 150 years due to the geothermal flux in the area causing the rate of snow accumulation to be too low to outpace the rate of induced geothermal melting.
Víti – warm lake in a crater
“… In fact, the caldera contains several volcanoes, including Víti, a maar (explosive volcanic crater) formed at the end of the eruption in 1875. Water has accumulated in the crater. Its temperature is variable, depending on how much meltwater is discharged into it in springtime – it is around 30°C on average. The depth of the water is greatest at the centre, more than 8 metres. Víti is a popular bathing site, but if you intend taking a dip, please be aware that the sloping path is very slippery in wet weather and the mud at the bottom is quite hot, especially on the eastern bank. …”
So it has the typical elevated geotherm of an Icelandic caldera sans the obscuring ice covering it from us. All these active calderas have routine regular magma emplacements occurring higher into an already thin and heated crust. So that could have nothing to do with secular melting and also high emplacement enhanced pre-melting, prior to it finally erupting under the glacier, due to one intrusion too many accruing and burping the resulting exsolved gas contents, in the usual extrusive and exhalative mechanisms of subaerial eruptions.
Oh noes!! … it must be due to AGW!
Sure, why not, makes sense, forget Occam’s Razor.
So it’s an almost pre-industrial example of enhanced geothermal heating, since 1875’s eruption of the Askja area, with no ad-hoc contrived ‘need’ for some AGW glacial pre-melt ‘explanation’, within in a protracted ‘hiatus’ and no need for the resulting CO2-inspired AGW production of what comes out the south-end of a north-facing bull.
Published within the prestigious journal of fish and chips wraps I suppose.
Climate change is good for the whales!
Warmer oceans mean more plankton — and all sea life will benefit from that.
Yes, we have truly entered the Age Of Pisces. The benefits of more fish in our diet will far outweigh any troubles that changing weather brings to our agriculture because those troubles will limit our ability to produce red meat! I predict that in ten years time red meat will have disappeared from our stores and children will not even know what it is. And the world will be a better place for that!
And eels are a much under utilized food source. They favored compacted group living thus making then ideal for fish farming. And did you know that the oceans have their own form of insect life??? They are called lobsters! Insect are a nutritious food source favored in many countries around the world and when the sea is at our doorsteps so will be the lobsters!
I could go on and on but I feel that I have made my point and I will diligently re-read what I have written and find out what it is.
Eugene WR Gallun
And all these naughty fish have gills that respire O2, and exhale CO2, so the more fish we get, the sooner the oceans will boil, and then the oceanic insects will not even need to be cooked!
I never thought of it this way but I think you are right
Also Icelands Bardarbunga eruption is one we should be worried about NOTglobal warming it is spewing out 30000-40000 tons of SO2 gas every day and the experts say the eruption could last for 12 months or more or it could go into a full eruption . Bardarbunga web cam.http://weerstationlangerak.nl/bardarbunga/webcams.html
…… And oceans make climate, right? 🙂 http://www.oceanclimate.de/
A strange darkness has come upon the the world today,
Those who are most blind see the best now.
Those whose hearts lack love, warmth, pity’s stirrings,
The world dares not move without their counsel today.
Those who yet possess an abiding faith in man,
To whom still now high truths or age-old customs
Or arts or austere practices all seem natural,
Their hearts are victuals for vultures and jackals today.
Translation: William Raddice (modified)
good grief mate, pack it in I was cheerful until I got here!!
Brandon Gates says:
Someone needs to remind him that correlation is not causation.
As I’ve been saying for years and years. But it’s apparently a new concept to some folks.
I’ve truly tried to employ, but It won’t is effective in any way.
We are also told of general catastrophes and a succession of deluges, of the alternation of periods of repose and disorder, of the refrigeration of the globe, and of the sudden annihilation of whole races of animals and plants, and other hypotheses, in which we see the ancient spirit of speculation revived, and a desire manifested to cut, rather than patiently to untie, the Gordian knot. CHARLES LYELL
Mate I dont think I have ever seen on here a post whose writer so desperately needs a beer
“What next, anthropogenic sunshine?”
Actually on the Weather Network and Weather Channel there’s nothing like 4 warm days in a row to start the presenters banging on about AGW.
A stretch of sunny hot weather invariably brings out the doom mongers especially if temperatures have been above ‘normal’. I think by above normal they actually mean above average.
I think this Time’s front page has more to do with climate change then most would like to admit.
I dont see why this is coming in for such ridicule. To me, an avid lurker on WUWT, it makes more sense to go along with this report. One cant have it both ways, wasnt it on here we were talking,not many days/weeks ago, that the amount of melting at the edge of the Greenland ice sheet was influenced by the fact that the weight of the ice sheet had depressed the land mass to the extent that the coastal waters deepen towards the coast rather than away from it.
This also concurrs with the fact that whale bones can still be found in scottish valleys well above sea level due to the faster rising of Scotland (faster than post glacial SLR) after the removal of the Ice sheet.
Why then if the Ice sheet in Iceland is reducing in size and weight – after all this isnt that surprising – would it not be reasonable to expect the crust to start moving and easing upwards as the weight reduces. Its logical and makes sense that this would give more opportunities for magma to rise upwards. So whats the beef here it is a side show to global warming but not unreasonable in such a dynamic volcanic region on the edge of Arctic conditions. The WAIS is the only other volcanic region capped by massive ice sheets that depress the earths crust (that I am aware of anyway) – but that is still under the extended antarctic ice sheet and not subject at present to significant loss of depth other than from thermal activity underneath ( I know that is a little open to dispute but not the scale)
I am sceptical to CAGW but I would also be sceptical to the criticism of this report from Icelandic scientists, I think it makes very good sense
Bingo. But tying global warming to increased vulcanism is a loose correlation because as the ice sheet has been removed, plate tectonics allow deflection upwards of the crust and reduce mass pressure on volcanically prone regions, which is akin to removing the cork from a bottle of soda. The loss of the ice sheet 11,500 ya also explains why parts of the NH continue to GAIN height relative to sea level, and why previously submerged/depressed land masses continue pushing the oceans elsewhere, thereby causing lands farther south to LOSE height relative to sea level.
You’re talking a loose correlation at best, and long time frames are involved. CAGW alarmists pretend that if we keep pumping out CO2 from fossil fuels, volcanic Armageddon will be one of the results. That’s just silly.
After the last big ice age, land was depressed by the huge weight of the glaciers. In some places it has now risen again. But nothing harms humans like a big explosive volcano like Mt.Vesuvius. It wasn’t lava, it was the toxic pyroclastic flows of ash and pumice. Mt.Etna and Stromboli are always erupting and so are some in the ring of fire and Japan. Just check volcano eruptions on the internet. Goes on all the time, with earthquakes.