Newly Discovered Greenland Plume Drives Thermal Activities in the Arctic

From Tohuku University

A team of researchers understands more about the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. They discovered a flow of hot rocks, known as a mantle plume, rising from the core-mantle boundary beneath central Greenland that melts the ice from below.

The results of their two-part study were published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

“Knowledge about the Greenland plume will bolster our understanding of volcanic activities in these regions and the problematic issue of global sea-level rising caused by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet,” said Dr. Genti Toyokuni, co-author of the studies.

The North Atlantic region is awash with geothermal activity. Iceland and Jan Mayen contain active volcanoes with their own distinct mantle plumes, whilst Svalbard – a Norwegian archipelago in the Arctic Ocean – is a geothermal area. However, the origin of these activities and their interconnectedness has largely been unexplored.

The research team discovered that the Greenland plume rose from the core-mantle boundary to the mantle transition zone beneath Greenland. The plume also has two branches in the lower mantle that feed into other plumes in the region, supplying heat to active regions in Iceland and Jan Mayen and the geothermal area in Svalbard.

A schematic diagram showing the main tectonic features and mantle plumes beneath Greenland and the surrounding regions. Vp = P wave velocity; MAR = the Mid-Atlantic Ridge; MTZ = the mantle transition zone (410-660 km depths); CMB = the core-mantle boundary at 2889 km depth. ©Tohoku University

Their findings were based on measurements of the 3-D seismic velocity structure of the crust and whole mantle beneath these regions. To obtain the measurements, they used seismic topography. Numerous seismic wave arrival times were inverted to obtain 3-D images of the underground structure. The method works similarly to a CT scan of the human body.

Toyokuni was able to utilize seismographs he installed on the Greenland ice sheet as part of the Greenland Ice Sheet Monitoring Network. Set up in 2009, the project sees the collaboration of researchers from 11 countries. The US-Japan joint team is primarily responsible for the construction and maintenance of the three seismic stations on the ice sheet.

Read the full press release here

Below are links to the full papers.

Title: P wave tomography beneath Greenland and surrounding regions: 1. Crust and upper mantle
Authors: Genti Toyokuni, Takaya Matsuno, Dapeng Zhao
Journal: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
DOI: 10.1029/2020JB019837

Title: P wave tomography beneath Greenland and surrounding regions: 2. Lower mantle
Authors: Genti Toyokuni, Takaya Matsuno, Dapeng Zhao
Journal: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
DOI: 10.1029/2020JB019839

4.6 18 votes
Article Rating
99 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rickk
December 29, 2020 6:06 am

From the “Things that make you say huh…?” file.

Perhaps there is something to Zoe’s hypothesis

https://phzoe.com/author/phzoe/

Last edited 28 days ago by rickk
MarkW
Reply to  rickk
December 29, 2020 10:35 am

The fact that geothermal energy exists is not a surprise to anyone.
Proving that geothermal energy exists is not proof that geothermal energy alone heats the atmosphere.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 29, 2020 12:03 pm

But its not really “convection” as she naively said on a previously thread/

comment image

Notice that the “Big Blob” of 2015 appear around the are of the north Pacific where the main ocean currents surface, yet that current only goes near the Ring of Fire as it passes New Zealand.

How that that ocean current get heated .. it surfaces as warmer water.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 2:36 pm

It surfaces as water that is slightly warmer than the rest of the water in that area. Water in that area is pretty cold.

As to your chart, first off it’s over simplified by a huge amount. Secondly, it doesn’t show that the water rising in the Pacific is warmer, it just shows that surface flows are warmer than deep water flows.

Reply to  MarkW
December 29, 2020 5:15 pm

Has such a claim been made?
It appears that geothermal energy may account for melting of ice at the bottom of glaciers. I think that is all that is being suggested.
You know what warms the atmosphere?
Solar flux and ocean waters.
Does anyone have any idea how much geothermal energy contributes?

Reply to  Sam Grove
December 29, 2020 5:39 pm

Sam, and what warms the ocean waters to temperatures we observe? The sun alone can’t do it.

Geothermal contributes MOST of the energy at the surface. The sun adds to that.

http://phzoe.com/2020/12/29/geothermal-denial/

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 6:49 pm

“Geothermal contributes MOST of the energy at the surface”

Utter RUBBISH !!

Deep ocean water is only 2-4ºC

There is no sign of geothermal warming at depth.

The same sort of NONSENSE that Trenberth used, saying his missing heat was in the deep oceans….

…. when it measurably ISN’T

Last edited 28 days ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 7:22 pm

Fred,

https://youtu.be/TrLbo_LeAlQ

https://youtu.be/UVeDMu70ezI

Please explain why the top gets hotter first !

Now remember, the ocean is not one depth like these examples. It has a range of depths. Geothermal energy at the shallow end is low, geothermal energy at the deep end is high.

Then water temperature gravity density sorting flips this whole thing, creating the thermocline we observe.

Hot goes to the top, cold goes to the bottom. But it originated at the bottom. The sun then sprinkles the top with more energy – giving you the illusion the sun did it all. It didn’t.

I will write more about this soon. It appears people need their hands held because they lack imagination.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 8:24 pm

“It appears people need their hands held because they lack imagination.”

Appear Zoe needs to take less substances to induce her imagination

Didn’t you see the bottom right of the kettle warming first.

And you are of course looking at the OUTSIDE of the container.

Try not to be willfully blind and ignorant..

Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 8:36 pm

The bottom as a whole is lagging the whole time.

Yeah, it’s outside the container. It’s really tough to get a water thermal profile inside the water itself especially with a camera. Have you tried it? No? Why would it be different?

The coils are at the bottom. Why would the whole bottom be lagging?

And the 2nd video?

I think I’ve made a compelling case.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 9:34 pm

“The bottom as a whole is lagging the whole time.”

WRONG

There will be thin layer of much water water which you cannot measure from the outside of the container

It is heated by conduction from the base of the container.or heating element, then convects rapidly to the top.

There is no “hot layer at the bottom of the ocean.

———-

You don’t SERIOUSLY think the heating element heats the top of the water first, do you

That would be just too dopey for words.. almost Loy-level.
WOW !!!!!!

Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 9:57 pm

Fred,
So now you agree that water heated bottom up will be seen heated top down. Why are you arguing my point?

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 30, 2020 1:06 am

There is NO heated layer measured at the bottom of the deep ocean.

Why is that so hard for your simple mind to grasp.???

Your idiotic theory is therefore buried in the circular file where it belongs..

Reply to  fred250
December 30, 2020 1:22 am

The sun never penetrates below 200 meters of water in the best locations. At this depth, solar contributes 0 W/m^2. Why is it not 0 kelvin there?

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 30, 2020 1:29 am

YAWN

your continued ignorance is remarkable to say the least

Seems you have never heard of ocean currents, upwelling, down welling, etc etc

… and yes, down below the penetration of sunlight, the ocean temperature drops rapidly to about 3-4ºC

Now why would that be 😉

Do at least do some basic research before sprouting inanities.

You are making a fool of yourself.

commieBob
December 29, 2020 6:54 am

It is common to discount the geothermal contribution to Earth’s heat budget. The problem with lumping everything on a global scale is that it misses important local effects such as ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica.

That’s similar to convection which is a really big deal at the equator and less so elsewhere. When you look at the usual illustrations of Earth’s energy budget, convection isn’t allocated much heat. Thermals plus latent heat are allocated about 100 W/m^2. In spite of that, convection drives almost all the heat transport on the planet. link

I suspect that geothermal energy drives important processes that are being ignored.

Walter Horsting
Reply to  commieBob
December 29, 2020 7:05 am

Like the 93 volcanoes under Antarctic’s Ice Sheet and the 3 Million Undersea volcanoes.

Klem
Reply to  Walter Horsting
December 29, 2020 7:09 am

Whoops, they have nothing to do with global warming, nope ..I can’t hear you la la la..

Loydo
Reply to  commieBob
December 30, 2020 1:01 am

I suspect that geothermal energy drives important processes that are being ignored.

Ignored? Nope, your suspicion is actually just vain hope. From Fred’s graphs the anomalous contribution of this geothermal energy under Greenland is a few milliwatts per sq metre, like an LED 2km beneath the ice. So not in the least bit important, in fact barely measureable.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 30, 2020 1:31 am

Of course vents at 60ºC don’t melt anything, do they empty sock !

And there are many lakes UNDER the ice sheet..

…. oh dear what temperature are they ?

You do know the Greenland Ice sheet area is only a small amount down from its highest area in the LIA, and still way above the area for most of the last 8000+ years, don’t you ?

And we KNOW its nothing to do with atmospheric CO2

You have very convincingly proven that is not possible.

Last edited 28 days ago by fred250
commieBob
Reply to  Loydo
December 30, 2020 7:10 am

There you go, lumping things together over a large area and ignoring strong local effects. Thanks for illustrating the point for me.

December 29, 2020 7:31 am

This seems somewhat pointless so called research based on computer models when direct measurement techniques of the DeVries radar science study by Edinburgh University found 90 more volcanoes under the Marie Byrd region of Western Antarctica to go with the 40 already known ay this time. How could the JPL “scientist” think volcanoes under the ice were unusual, given the fact of Iceland and the science of Huybers around the volcanoes under the ice age glacial period ice sheets. That’s not an expert.

How on Earth can atmospheric temperature even be considered anything to do with Antarctic ice melt when it has been unchanged within statistical limits for 50 years per the Scott Amundsen Met station – and those around the edges.

JUst FYI my research on submarine volcanic activity suggest in the order of 2,800km^3 pa enter the oceans and that suggests over 100Gtonnes of CO2, both are significant in terms of scale, neither are considered in IPCC AR5. They assume the ocean floor is passive, with its estimated 1Million volcanoes, 75,000 over 1km high. so they can claim all the unexpected heat and CO2 in the ocean come from the surface. Not really. Minor omission. Fairy tale scientists who just make it up and say what they think rather than what the science they could read says.

Reply to  Brian R Catt
December 29, 2020 8:27 am

Sorry. I got misled through a JPL “study” that was about them “discovering a plume under Marie Byrd land through a model when De Vries had already reported all the Volcanoes…

The last para is still relevant.

Just Jenn
December 29, 2020 8:08 am

So the Earth is more complex than “originally” thought eh? WOW (in my best Ben Stein voice).

Reply to  Just Jenn
December 29, 2020 8:38 am

If you only consider the atmosphere, you are only considering a transfer function between the oceans and space, the lapse rate in the atmosphere that the ocean evaporation controls any change in, not vice versa. Just checking who this Stein person is….

ATheoK
Reply to  Brian R Catt
December 30, 2020 9:44 pm

A comedian actor known for his phlegmatic face, deep voice, strong inflexible opinions and dogmatic proclamations.
He’s managed to tick off practically everyone.

George V
December 29, 2020 8:34 am

New study to be published: “CO2 causes molten rock to rise under ice sheets in polar regions causing melting.”

Bill Rocks
December 29, 2020 8:35 am

Thank you for the newsworthy post.

But, there is a minor typographical error in par. 7: “To obtain the measurements, they used seismic topography.” The correct term is seismic tomography as in the titles of the publications. Must be a spell checker oops.

December 29, 2020 9:04 am

Just an ongoing thought in case there is someone who KNOWS STUFF out there.

Is it possible that Greenland is a very large caldera?

It’s so unusual a structure that enables a deep bowl of ice to be formed and keep it’s surface cold through altitude and the connection to the Arctic to be the ONLY only permanent ice sheet as far South as 60 degrees North, Oslo/Helsinki/Anchorage ‘tudes. Is there study of the underlying structure as we now have for Antarctica archipelago.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004700/a004773/Antarctic_BedMachine_1080p30_2.mp4

Ron Long
Reply to  Brian R Catt
December 29, 2020 10:34 am

Brian R Catt, I am a geologist who knows enough to be dangerous as regards reality. I studied the Skaergard Layered Mafic Intrusion, located in Greenland, during Graduate Igneous Petrography (for the effect progressive crystal fractionation) and know this is a deep crustal event. Curious about your question of large caldera I consulted several recent articles, most of which utilize tomography and associated geophysical aspects to model the interior of Greenland beneath the ice. None of the articles I found suggest a large, circular-to-semi-circular zone of younger rocks dropped down against the older wallrocks. Instead, many peripheral events, like rifting, mafic volcanism, and tectonic folding/faulting seem to complicate the margin of the Greenland massif. It appears that there is only room for local calderas under the ice, at best. Remember the dangerous reality cautionery comment.

Loydo
Reply to  Ron Long
December 29, 2020 11:36 am

The graphic above doesn’t make it that clear but it looks like there is no surface activity under Greenland like there is under Iceland for example, but my question for you Ron: care to take a guess at how long has that plume has been there?

Ron Long
Reply to  Loydo
December 29, 2020 1:29 pm

No.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
December 29, 2020 2:07 pm

Why don’t you take a guess at it?

Ron Long
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 30, 2020 2:03 am

OK, 13.

Kpar
Reply to  Ron Long
December 30, 2020 4:12 pm

No. 42

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 29, 2020 2:38 pm

Greenland’s glaciers are a heck of a lot thicker than those on Iceland.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 29, 2020 2:47 pm

WRONG AGAIN, loy

Surface activity under the Greenland ice sheet is well documented

comment image

comment image

To hint that you think magma plumes are unchanging, really is the most ignorant of baseless innuendos….. even for you.

The very fact that there are regular Icelandic volcanoes should wake you up to the fact that there is a LOT of changeable geological activity..

If your mind was even capable of awakening from its brain-hosed stupid.

…. edited to fix typos

Last edited 28 days ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 29, 2020 2:52 pm

Thin lithosphere under the center of Greenland

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0251-0

Hot vents on the east coast in many areas.

Of course, hot vents, with temperatures up to 60ºC, can’t melt ice, can they Loy-dumb !

No evidence of geothermal activity.. right !!

What is the basis for your abject ignorance, loy ??

And why are you so determined to maintain that ignorance?

Smart Rock
Reply to  Loydo
December 29, 2020 5:30 pm

These plumes tend to be very long-lived. It’s a reasonable guess that the Greenland-Iceland plume has been there since Greenland was joined to Scotland at the beginning of the Cenozoic, about 60 million years ago. It probably contributed most of the magma for the North Atlantic Volcanic Province, which persists today as the Iceland “hot spot”.

Loydo
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 29, 2020 8:39 pm

Thats right, it’s probably been there for longer than Greenland has. Plus, these features barely change over multi-million year time-frames. Yes, there are some areas under Greenland that warm it from below by as much as 100mW/m according to Fred’s graph, (wait, what, how many milliwatts?) but even that isn’t changing so any short term affect they have on theArtic’s “thermal activities” let along global climate is negligible.

No not negligible, zero.

More WUWT, doubt-mongering bs scraped from the bottom of the “anything but CO2” barrel.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 29, 2020 9:37 pm

More IDIOTIC DUMBNESS from Loy as he strives desperately to DENY anything but CO2

Warm vents to 60C… no geothermal energy at all , right, moron !!

Come on loy..

Try at least once to present some basic evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2

Or remain a stale rotting empty sock .

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?.

Last edited 28 days ago by fred250
Loydo
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 10:22 pm

“Proven”? As in mathematically proven? This is why responding to your insults with supporting evidence is pointless.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 30, 2020 1:43 am

Poor loy .. running away again.

Evasion of producing evidence.. HILARIOUS.

…. and ultimately PATHETIC.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 30, 2020 2:27 am

Funny how many HoT Springs there are all around Greenland

Must be caused by CO2 hey loy 😉

Hot springs in Greenland are a common natural phenomenon, but the island of Uunartoq is home to the only place where the springs are warm enough to bathe in.

On the uninhabited island between Alluitsup Paa and Nanortalik in South Greenland there are three naturally heated springs which run together to a small stone-dammed pool.

Surrounded by mountain peaks and drifting icebergs, you can lie in the warm water and enjoy the almost surrealistically beautiful natural surroundings. It is a great experience for both body and the soul!

On Disko Island there are thousands of hot springs, whilst on the other side of the country in East Greenland the springs only number just over the hundred mark.

On the other hand, several of them are considerably warmer than on Disko Island. The hottest are between 50-60 degrees Celsius (122-140 degrees Fahrenheit).

I wonder where all that energy comes from ?

Loy says it can’t be geothermal.. but Loy is incredibly DUMB.

Who knows how many more of these natural water heaters there are underneath the Ice sheet.!

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 30, 2020 2:22 am

WRONG AS ALWAYS loy !

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/heat-from-the-earth-s-interior-is-melting-greenland-s-glaciers-study-59554

While geothermal springs with water temperatures above 0 °C are found all over Greenland, the hottest springs, with water temperatures of 55-62 °C are located in East Greenland. Recently, two large hydrothermal vent complexes—more than 28,000 sq km—have been discovered on the Northeast Greenland shelf.

And yes, quite a lot of heat transfer

Further analysis revealed that a significant amount of heat is emanating from Earth’s interior, which has been slowly warming the fjord’s water. According to their estimate, 100 megawatts per square metre of energy was transferred from the Earth’s interior to the fjord. There has been a gradual warming of the deep basin bottom water (below the depth of 240 m) at a rate of 0.017 °C each year from 2005 to 2015.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 30, 2020 2:32 am

https://www.newsweek.com/puzzling-heat-deep-inside-earth-melting-greenlands-glaciers-786943

“The region in which the Young Sound fjord is located is filled with hot springs, where water can reach 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Similar to Iceland, according to the researchers, a significant amount of geothermal activity is bubbling beneath the Earth’s surface in Greenland.

Oh dearie me.. More FACTS for Loy to DENY.

Loydo
Reply to  fred250
December 30, 2020 3:27 am

Wow you need to get out of your mum’s basement. Your obsession with me is getting a little creepy. On the one hand you call me all sorts of silly names and disparage my comments but then on the other hand they seem so important to you that you respond two or three times to everything I write. Weird.

Wipe your mouth, wash your hands and go for a walk, get some fresh air. Find a hobby. My silly old posts, well, I really don’t think you should be wasting all these countless hours of your precious life on them. Such a waste. Or do you enjoy it? I dunno maybe creeps like you get off on it.

comment image

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 30, 2020 4:03 am

ROFLMAO !!!

Loy dumb totally flummoxed by the FACTS

Resorts to 5 year old tantrum post.

Poor PATHETIC Loy. !!

Kpar
Reply to  Ron Long
December 30, 2020 4:09 pm

I was under the impression that the interior of Greenland was depressed due to the weight of the ice sheet upon the underlying rock strata. I am aware that this has happened in other locales at other times (I live near the Great Lakes). The observation that there are mantle plumes under the Greenland massif surprises me, although I suppose it should not, considering its proximity to Iceland and the Mid-Atlantic ridge.

The recent discovery of the Hiawatha crater under the ice, also in Greenland, tells me we should be taking a much closer look at this mysterious place.

Last edited 27 days ago by Kpar
MarkW
Reply to  Brian R Catt
December 29, 2020 2:40 pm

The center of Greenland is depressed because of the thick glaciers, not volcanism.

Gordon A. Dressler
December 29, 2020 9:43 am

From the above article:
“Knowledge about the Greenland plume will bolster our understanding of . . . the problematic issue of global sea-level rising caused by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet,” said Dr. Genti Toyokuni, co-author of the studies.”

Well, I’ve been assured for decades now by Al Gore and like-minded CAGW alarmists that CO2 greenhouse warming was the direct cause of melting of the Greenland ice sheet and that, in turn, was a predominate driver of global sea-level rise.

Now, all the Tohuku University researchers have to do to secure additional funding is to propose researching how greenhouse gases, especially those from human activities, cause pumping of that mantle plume under Greenland.

Michael E McHenry
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 29, 2020 6:06 pm

There are aerial photo’s of Greenland’s coast taken in 1938 that show the same melting. Danish gov did the survey

December 29, 2020 9:54 am

I knew it.
From my own measurements.
The heat on the arctic does not come from ‘gobal warming’

Rory Forbes
December 29, 2020 9:57 am

Now they’re expecting me to believe that anthropogenic CO2 IS NOT the control knob for everything. Are they now suggesting that things might be somewhat more complex?

J Mac
December 29, 2020 11:02 am

This is an interesting seismic tomography study! Thanks!

fred250
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 29, 2020 11:28 am

Hans, this is a continuation of that study. Part 2

Part 1 was more concerned with the near-surface plumes.

This Part 2, looks deeper into how the structures work lower in the mantle.

Last edited 28 days ago by fred250
Nelson
December 29, 2020 1:03 pm

If the Earth’s magnetic field keeps weakening and galactic cosmic rays count keeps increasing, we may see some interesting changes in volcanic activity. I think Zoe has a point about geothermal heat. My caving experience tells me that the earth surface gets considerable warmth from below.

fred250
Reply to  Nelson
December 29, 2020 2:28 pm

“I think Zoe has a point about geothermal heat.”

I agree there may be some form of geothermal heating of the oceans, but it is only likely to occur to a measurable extent around places known to be technologically active.

Certainly not measurable on a whole of ocean basis.

The bulk ocean temperatures are generally 2 – 3ºC in the depths…

… but I guess a 1ºC change could eventually be reflected at the surface due to deep ocean currents

These have very long cyclic times, so who can really be sure where and when the energy for the Big Blob that was concurrent with the 2015 El Nino came from.

Again, I’ll post that graph of the normalised, 2-year lagged. ocean seismic activity against UAH global temperature

comment image

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 5:31 pm

lol.. no-one picked that error up ?

“technologically active” Who typed that !!

Should be…. tectonically active

David A
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 11:24 pm

Fred, what is the 1 – 37 period referring to?

fred250
Reply to  David A
December 30, 2020 1:02 am

Years with UAH 1979 as 0.

MarkW
Reply to  Nelson
December 29, 2020 2:43 pm

One of Zoe’s biggest scientific errors is her inability to understand the difference between heat, and heat flow.
Yes, there is a lot of heat inside the earth, however the amount of geothermal energy is some 4 or 5 magnitudes less than the amount of heat that is arriving from the sun.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 29, 2020 3:36 pm

“However the amount of geothermal energy is some 4 or 5 magnitudes less than the amount of heat that is arriving from the sun.”

In total/average, that is probably correct.

But in thin lithosphere and volcanic region like parts of the Arctic and Antarctic, the difference would be far less, with solar energy greatly reduced and geothermal energy greatly increased.

Reply to  MarkW
December 29, 2020 5:09 pm

The problem with Mark is that he doesn’t understand the difference between energy, heat, and heat flow

Heat flow is synonymous with heat. Heat is already a flow. Heat flow is redundant, sort of like ATM Machine.

Yes, there is a lot of energy inside the earth, however the amount of geothermal heat flow is some 4 or 5 magnitudes less than the amount of radiant energy that is arriving from the sun. However this is irrelevant because surface temperature is determined by ENERGY, not heat flow, and specifically by solar energy and geothermal energy deep underneath, and only SLIGHTLY offset by the metric known as “geothermal heat flux”.

Look at all the different profiles with the same heat flux:
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/

According to Mark, it doesn’t matter which profile we actually have.

You buy it? I hope not.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 7:11 pm

That’s the problem with working with “averages” when you don’t really have a proper grasp what you are doing.

The peak solar energy at midday at the equator is actually a bit over 1000kW/m²

comment image

comment image

So you are out by a factor of 2 on solar energy, not to mention the effect of that solar energy.

Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 7:30 pm
fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 8:26 pm

“I discuss your diagram here:”

Yes, and actual measurements show you are out by a factor of 2.

Thanks for showing EVERYBODY your mind-numbed error.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 9:55 pm

Only a complete mathematical illiterate takes what they think is an average then raises it to the 4th power.

And still thinks they are talking about reality !!

Hilarious. 🙂

Please keep the laughing material coming ! 🙂

Steve Taylor
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 8:12 pm

1000 KILOwatts/m^2. I think that’s Watts….

fred250
Reply to  Steve Taylor
December 29, 2020 8:28 pm

Yep, 1000W/m² or 1kW/m²

NOT 500 as Zoe WRONGLY uses.

Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 8:51 pm

Fred,
Peak insolation at equator is not the average globe-wide peak.

Last edited 28 days ago by Zoe Phin
fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 9:40 pm

No its the peak at the equator.. that what causes warming

You are out by a factor of 2.

FIX IT and try again.

Stop your anti-physics, anti-measurement nonsense

Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 9:50 pm

Fred, you also believe a hot drop in a cold bucket warms the bucket to the drop?

The equator is a small area. The globe is big.

Any horizontal heat flow from equator to poles … would cool the equator!

Please stop Fred, you’re not equipped to address serious arguments. Just lean back and enjoy the read at my blog. Thank you.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 10:34 pm

Please stop saying that the heater at the bottom heats the top of the water first.

You make yourself look like a mindless twit.

As I said, only a mathematical idiot thinks they can take an average and raise it to the 4th power and get a REAL answer.

You are proving yourself to be just that.

Last edited 28 days ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 10:44 pm

“Please stop saying that the heater at the bottom heats the top of the water first.”

I didn’t say that. I said it gets hotter at the top first. The heating happens at the coil first.

You sure protest a lot for someone that can’t intellectually touch the 2nd video.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 10:35 pm

“you’re not equipped to address serious arguments”

FAR more equipped mathematically than you are showing yourself to be !

Your basic incompetence and lack of mathematical and physical understanding is astounding !!

Last edited 28 days ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 10:42 pm

What you need to do, naive little girl, is to integrate over the sunlight day and latitude with 1000W/m² as the peak of both, using the T⁴ equation.

Now off you trot and CORRECT YOUR ERRORS.

ResourceGuy
December 29, 2020 1:14 pm

A magma plume under a spreading center is an interesting combination. And a bathtub full of ice next door is also interesting. It makes you wonder what a major outbreak and nested caldera complex like Yellowstone or McDermitt or Jarbidge could do in such a neighborhood.

Michael E McHenry
December 29, 2020 4:09 pm
December 29, 2020 4:39 pm

Thank you for those bringing my hypothesis into this discussion.

I’ve condescened the essence of my hypothesis here:

http://phzoe.com/2020/12/29/geothermal-denial/

Love, -Zoe

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 7:12 pm

YAWN !!

You need to learn the basics of physics before you start applying maths to your erroneous conjectures.

Or you could just make stuff up !

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 7:17 pm

“without GHGs or even the Sun, it would be at least 0°C.”

Which fully explains the ice ages, with Ice forming at great depths on land. Right 😉

Your arguments are easily proven wrong by simple example..

They DO NOT match reality..

Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 7:28 pm

Fred,
0C is a GLOBE-wide average. Geothermal varies by latitude, as you’d expect in a rotating sphere with hot magma inside.

Ice ages completely lacked the sun?

You’re not making any sense.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 8:29 pm

ROFLMAO

Now you are just making CRAP up !!

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 8:37 pm

“You’re not making any sense.”

Basic comprehension issues, Poor Zoe.

The surface, according to you is 0ºC (or you say 4-5ºC below)

How does ice form?.

Oh that’s right…..

Geothermal only works when and where ice doesn’t form.. is that right ?

No geothermal when there is permafrost. Right ?

Only elsewhere….. by pure happenstance, where there is plenty of SOLAR energy.

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 30, 2020 1:54 am

Temperature gradient by latitude

comment image

Oh look.. No Solar energy.. No gradient

So much for all that bottom of ocean heat 😉

Reply to  fred250
December 30, 2020 3:37 am

Fred, there is both a variation of insolation by latitude and geothermal by latitude. You need them both. Solar alone won’t do.

So let’s see…
comment image

Let’s say we have 20C surface T in a tropical area. This is equivalent to 419 W/m^2.

Now we look at …
comment image

And we see that at 100m depth, the insolation is 3 percent of that of the surface. This would mean 12.6 W/m^2, or -151 degrees C.

But the observed Temperature at 100m depth drops to maybe 19 or 18C

You have an explanation for that?

tty
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 30, 2020 12:37 pm

You have an explanation for that?

Water is a liquid. Heat moves though it both by conduction and convection.

By the way the deep ocean (which is where geothermic heat flow actually happens) is always very cold, close to 0 C. Any thoughts about that?

fred250
Reply to  tty
December 31, 2020 11:52 am

Heat moves from warmer to not as warm

Learn some basic physics, dolt. !!

I would love to see what phantasy physics you come up with for energy moving from the colder deep oceans to the warmer surface.

😉

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 7:26 pm

“without GHGs or even the Sun, it would be at least 0°C.”

I’m sure the people of Siberia would be very grateful to know that the ground temperature in winter NEVER gets below 0ºC because of geothermal warming. 😉

And that permafrost cannot possibly exist.

Reply to  fred250
December 29, 2020 7:40 pm

Fred,
0C is a GLOBE-wide average. Geothermal varies by latitude, as you’d expect in a rotating sphere with hot magma inside.

Also, 0C is geophysicists’ long-standing convention. My research shows it to be more like 4 to 5 C.

You can have an idea of how much geothermal Siberia gets using the latitude table found here:

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

Good luck

fred250
Reply to  Zoe Phin
December 29, 2020 8:32 pm

Your research doesn’t agree with REALITY.. It is WRONG

Why does the Nevada desert drop to 0ºF overnight in winter?

Geothermal flux only works where you want it to work.. right 😉

Everywhere except where it doesn’t.

Your hypothesis is load of anti-science tosh !!

Funny that permafrost only exists where there is lack of SOLAR ENERGY. !! 😉

Nelson
Reply to  fred250
December 30, 2020 6:01 am

Fred you are missing the point. No one says that solar doesn’t matter. However, it is clear from the literature that the geothermic temperature gradient has the surface temperature at about zero Celsius.

snt43-3_temp-wells_sevier-blackrock.gif
tty
Reply to  fred250
December 30, 2020 12:32 pm

He is right in a way you know. Geothermic heat flow can raise the ground tempeature to about 0 C. But only when the ground is isolated from the cold sky by a kilometer or two of ice.

boffin77
December 29, 2020 4:59 pm

OK, we all know that warming is caused by CO2, right? The science is settled. But I’m having trouble understanding how the CO2 caused this plume of magma. What am I missing?

Jean Parisot
December 29, 2020 5:45 pm

Science is supposed to be settled, dammit

tty
Reply to  Jean Parisot
December 30, 2020 12:23 pm

Sigh. No, there is NO mantle plume under Greenland. There is one under Iceland. However there is some residual heat under Greenland since the Iceland plume passed under Greenland about 40-70 million years ago. And there is nothing new about that, it has been known for a long time:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235982076_Iceland_hotspot_track

(1994)

“Me too” science.

The connection at depth to the Jan Myen and Svalbard hotspots is new.

ATheoK
December 30, 2020 9:22 pm

From their own graphic, none of their falsely named “Greenland Plume” comes to the surface in Greenland.

Sorry, magma chambers, plumes or flows 2,000 kilometers deep do not melt surface ice.

%d bloggers like this: