JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Hot magma is melting Greenland ice – can windfarms save it?

Greenland, magma, hot rocks, melting ice, geothermal heat, 2016.

Here on the ball of magma called Earth, there’s a hot plume of rocks under Iceland that stretches right across under Greenland. Those hot rocks are melting the ice from below in a band 1,200 km long and 400 km wide.[1]

I don’t think solar panels are going to stop Greenland melting.

The main part of the plume has been progressing eastward over the last 120 million years, right under Greenland and now lies under Iceland.

Will the media take a million years to catch on?

Presumably, being world class journalists, from now on all ABC/BBC/CBC stories will not mention melting Greenland ice-sheets without also noting that geothermal heat may be causing it instead of your long hot showers.

But a similar study published in Nature Geoscience 3 years ago was the forerunner to this one with similar conclusions and the mainstream media don’t seem to have noticed yet.[2]  No mention of magma, tectonics and hot rocks here: ABC — Antarctica’s melting ice alone could lift sea levels one metre by 2100, March 31st, 2016. Or here: ABC — Global warming melts last stable edge of Greenland’s Zachariae ice stream, March 17th, 2014. Or on the BBC – Ice sheet losses double, 2014. Or here — ABC: Antarctic ice shelf collapse “very likely”. October 2015.

There’s a hot blob under West Antarctica too

Likewise, soon the public broadcasters will let listeners know that West Antarctica lies over the southern edge of the Pacific Rim, and “might” have some geothermal heat from below too because there is giant blob of superheated rock there too. [3]

Abstract

Iceland, Greenland, 2016, hot plume, map.

The plume slowly sliding under Greenland then Iceland.

REFERENCES

[1^]  A. G. Petrunin, I. Rogozhina,  A. P. M. Vaughan, I. T. Kukkonen, M. K. Kaban,    I. Koulakov & M. Thomas (2013) Heat flux variations beneath central Greenland’s ice due to anomalously thin lithosphere. Nature Geoscience 6, 746–750 (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1898

[2^]  Irina Rogozhina, Alexey G. Petrunin, Alan P. M. Vaughan, Bernhard Steinberger, Jesse V. Johnson, Mikhail K. Kaban, Reinhard Calov, Florian Rickers, Maik Thomas & Ivan Koulakov Melting at the base of the Greenland ice sheet explained by Iceland hotspot history(2016) Nature Geoscience, Letter, doi:10.1038/ngeo2689

[3^]  Lloyd et al (2015) A seismic transect across West Antarctica: Evidence for mantle thermal anomalies beneath the Bentley Subglacial Trench and the Marie Byrd Land Dome. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 2015; DOI: 10.1002/2015JB012455

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (114 votes cast)
Hot magma is melting Greenland ice - can windfarms save it?, 8.8 out of 10 based on 114 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jthdd2x

206 comments to Hot magma is melting Greenland ice – can windfarms save it?

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    I reckon that the ABC/BBC/CBC and the other charlatan media are urgently in need of a “hot blob” to burn away their hokey, partisan reporting of AGW events. Then back to The Scientific Method 101 re-education classes for them, – at their own expense!

    274

    • #
      el gordo

      Best bet, we come up with a paradigm shift to upset the whole stinking apple cart and humiliate them. Journalists are becoming an endangered species, numbers dwindling, so when the AGW theory implodes they should be shown the door.

      None of this can happen if we don’t come up with a plausible explanation of the warming late last century, the two decade hiatus and global cooling to come.

      105

      • #
        climateskeptic

        if we don’t come up with a plausible explanation of the warming late last century

        Isn’t that all due to [snip] manipulation of data by the world wide climate science Stasi?

        [Please avoid the word I snipped. It isn't necessary to the meaning of your comment since manipulation of data is a problem without the qualifier. Thanks.] AZ

        814

        • #
          James Bradley

          climateseptic,

          Please provide evidence for for your claim “…Isn’t that all due to [snip] manipulation of data by the world wide climate science Stasi?”

          Your post seems quite conspiritorial.

          66

          • #
            Manfred

            Umm, I smell a /sarc tag missing?

            The Fourth Estate betrays us daily. I had the ‘opportunity’ to listen to Jonathan Bamber (Bristol University – same Uni as his colleague Prof Lewandowski) prattle unchallenged on NZ National TV/Radio, condemning us to a predicted 40cm rise in sea level in the next 50 years. Unchallenged, he peddled the meme free of critique, counterpoint or anything other than blancmange like, quivering agreement.

            164

        • #
          AndyG55

          No John, not all of it. What do you teach in climate 101 ?

          There was a thing called a “Grand Solar Maximum” which even exists after the latest “adjustments” to solar data.

          95

          • #
            climateskeptic

            All educators base their teaching on the peer literature and the data therin. We leave the conspiracy theories to others

            418

            • #
              AndyG55

              WTH are you talking about, John?

              34

            • #
              Mark D.

              Whenever they say “all” or “none” you are probably being lied to.

              43

            • #
              sophocles

              climatesceptic: (from UQ).
              Perhaps you should have paid more attention to to this paper [1] in your teaching rather than this one, and to the implications present in this paper instead of this one [warning: pdf], hmmm? You don’t need to be a geological graduate to see them.

              All papers were “peer” reviewed. Heat flux around the ocean’s spreading ridges and from well established plumes is not constant. It varies, just as active volcanoes don’t erupt continuously, but periodically with the eruptions punctuating variable periods of dormancy. As you should know.

              We’re all aware the peer reviewed papers you use to `educate’ with couldn’t possibly have been cherry-picked.

              [1] You will note the phrase variable heat flux in the paper’s title.

              84

              • #
                Robk

                Thankyou Sophocles,
                A good round up. I expect our efforts are in vain.

                44

              • #
                Manfred

                Nice. It’s good to see the real literature percolating through the cold light of day. When one peddles this to the Fourth Estate one is only met with silence. I could be wrong, but it is almost as if they find it offensive, too difficult too distressing and too unsafe to contemplate.

                How will they, and the whole rancid Green edifice ever admit that collectively they were, to use their own hackneyed word, catastrophically wrong?

                44

              • #
                climateskeptic

                All papers were “peer” reviewed. Heat flux around the ocean’s spreading ridges and from well established plumes is not constant. It varies, just as active volcanoes don’t erupt continuously, but periodically with the eruptions punctuating variable periods of dormancy. As you should know.

                Great, so where is the evidence that this increase in flux has actually happened under Greenland in the last 50 yrs. Ive been asking and asking and so far all we have had is circular arguments and finger-waving, but no evidence.

                511

              • #
                sophocles

                Go look fr yourself. You’re too big and `clever’ to need me to hold your hand.
                oh, yes, be sure to look in the peer reviewed literature. You wn’t find anything useful pal reviewed stack.

                I’m not prepared to do your work for you. Do your own literature search.
                Now that is not a circular argument.

                75

              • #
                climateskeptic

                Perhaps you should have paid more attention to to this paper [1]

                This paper is about spacial variation in heat flux across Greenland and not variation with time. It does not support your point.

                rather than this one,

                This paper is about the “Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming” and does not even mention geothermal heat flux as a cause and this paper;

                implications present in this paper

                again contains not a shred of evidence that the “mantle thermal anomalies beneath” the West Antarctic have changed at all.

                So none of these papers offer any evidence in support.

                510

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              climateskeptic.

              “All educators base their teaching on the peer literature and the data therin. We leave the conspiracy theories to others”

              And to blogs such as this one, conspiracies all nicely quarantined (except for the US government, but that will probably be fixed soon).

              02

        • #
          el gordo

          The Grand Solar Max of late last century kept the waters warmer and produced a plateau in temps for a couple of decades, but there is nothing in the manual about the cooling to come.

          53

          • #
            AndyG55

            SC24 was lower than any of the latter part of last century, by still with a strongish F10.7 flux. That is now tapering off towards its base level.

            If SC25 is as quiet as some solar guys predict, it could quite easily lead to a general cooling for the next few decades at least.

            If that happens it will be very difficult for the AGW cult to continue to exist.

            65

            • #
              el gordo

              It sounds plausible but I’m convinced we need to think about the actual effects on earth, so that we can explain what is happening to people who have very little interest in our obsession.

              A cooling trend should come as a death blow to the Klimatariat and all those who support them, with no positive feedbacks to draw upon the facade will collapse eventually.

              74

              • #

                el gordo April 8, 2016 at 10:51 am

                “It sounds plausible but I’m convinced we need to think about the actual effects on earth, so that we can explain what is happening to people who have very little interest in our obsession.”

                The thinking is always a good idea! Explaining to people “who have very little interest in our obsession”, is but a fools errand!
                The scammers identify a lucrative existing problem, as in “the possible weather frightens me”, or “the knives thrown together in the kitchen drawer get dull”! For the second, many stalls at the State fair selling to gullible you, “this set of knives never gets dull”, complete with the required “for you my special friend, a very good price on large lots”!!
                A journeyman never places tools where they may get dull, but sharpens often! A Sturgeon never re-uses the scalpel blade in the next operation. For weather worries, the “special deals” are indeed boundless!

                “A cooling trend should come as a death blow to the Klimatariat and all those who support them, with no positive feedbacks to draw upon the facade will collapse eventually.”

                Dream on! It matters not what the weather may do, the opportunities for profit remain boundless!
                All the best! -will-

                82

              • #
                AndyG55

                “A Sturgeon never re-uses the scalpel blade ”

                Well I should hope not !! ;-) ie cute typo , Will. :-)

                52

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Dream on! It matters not what the weather may do, the opportunities for profit remain boundless!’

                There is profit to be had in global cooling too and I think you underestimate human intelligence.

                Millions have been brainwashed in the midst of a communications revolution, I’m thinking it can be turned around quickly with three minute nugget docos on every aspect of the debate and then flood the interwebs.

                This dream may need crowd funding.

                52

              • #
              • #

                el gordo April 8, 2016 at 3:26 pm
                A Fool’s Errand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhB-xgtCNoY

                G(i/o)ggle :-)

                12

        • #
          RB

          The temperature record has been adjusted. Recently, alarmists like Mann were critical of last years SST adjustments in the Karl “Pause Busting” paper that Congress want to investigate.

          Before that, we had the large difference in the amount of warming from 1880 to 2001 between what GISS reported in 2001 and in 2015 (which I downloaded from the NASA site and plotted and it is a 0.6 degree difference and mostly an increase to the trend after 1940). Compare that with how in the mid 70s that the alarmists claimed that the world had cooled by a degree (0.5°C) since the 40s and then you see a pattern of changes to the method of collating data, which is not suitable for averaging, to create a warming pattern that is more consistent with the CO2 meme rather than simple oscillations in the climate.

          21

      • #
        Unmentionable

        el gordo
        None of this can happen if we don’t come up with a plausible explanation of the warming late last century, the two decade hiatus and global cooling to come.

        Most important thing science shows is I need observations of what I don’t know far more. I find explanations and their proscribed interpretations of data highly over-rated. Mostly counterproductive if I want to understand something better than I presently do. If we don’t have a full or adequate explanation it’s actually OK to not know what it is. Even if we do have an ‘explanation’, it’ll still be centuries to millennia before it can be fully road-tested against real climate trends and deemed passably ‘settled’.

        The fact untested predictions and implications of a mere climate theory was declared ‘settled science’ by an alleged 97% consensus should put people off theoretical explanation, models and interpretive paradigms for life. Less BS-sauce on my bangers-’n-mash thanks, evidence will do. ;-)

        63

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘…it’ll still be centuries to millennia before it can be fully road-tested against real climate trends and deemed passably ‘settled’.

          Actually I’m testing my STR theory this southern hemisphere winter and if correct it will tell us a lot more about the mechanisms in play.

          02

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    This is an interesting article if you ignore the climate change nonsense. A hot plume like this one apparently made the Hawaiian Islands and the amazing features in Yellowstone National Park. I wonder how many more plumes there are that have not been discovered but not publicized.

    73

    • #
      Robk

      There are plenty, past and present. No secrets, just that they aren’t giving credence to much in the way of climate influence because the amount of energy quantum is relatively small. The fact that it is very intense seems to not count for much.

      62

    • #
      AndyG55

      “that have not been discovered but not publicized.”

      say what? sorry, puzzled by wording.

      22

    • #
      climateskeptic

      I wonder how many more plumes there are that have not been discovered but not publicized.

      Interesting, so this plume under Greenland started about 30y because the ice cap was actually accumulating ice until then? Or do these plumes under the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets only start to melt ice once the media publishes their location?

      What feature about these plumes has actually changes in the last 50 years, apart from their discover?

      619

      • #
        Robk

        “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

        114

        • #

          Will Janoschka Your comment is awaiting moderation.
          April 8, 2016 at 1:20 pm · Reply

          “[Will, this is not about the topic. We are not going to turn the top of a thread into personal responses to commenters on another site. -- Jo]”

          Joanne ’tis your site, you can do whatever!, thank you and more chocolate as finances permit. MY post was a direct response to only ROBK on this thread and his clear expression of “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”!! Complete with a clear and exact example from elsewhere! (not peer reviewed). The larger picture is the deliberate intentional scam that is exactly the topic of this thread!
          All the best! -will-

          Thank you Rob, plus example!!!

          40

      • #
        James Bradley

        climateseptic,

        “What feature about these plumes has actually changes in the last 50 years, apart from their discover?”

        It’s complicated – start with “changes”.

        116

      • #
        sophocles

        What feature about these plumes has actually changes in the last 50 years, apart from their discover?

        Their activity.

        105

        • #
          climateskeptic

          Their activity

          ……and the evidence for this is where?

          59

          • #
            Robk

            Localized melting of ice is a lead.

            84

          • #
            Mark D.

            ……and the evidence for this is where?

            ….and the evidence to the contrary is where?

            85

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Mark D.

              “….and the evidence to the contrary is where?”

              Arguments from Ignorance are not helpful.

              climateskeptic’s point is for the melting to be caused by geothermal activity, and explanation is required for why the geothermal activity “switched on” at some point to explain the recent warming. They are asking for evidence to support this explanation, that is reasonable for any claim.

              02

              • #
                RB

                Plenty of evidence that volcanoes just switch on. Its not a wild postulate.

                You two are determined to mislead. For the melting to be attributed to a trace gas in the atmosphere, the melting due to the geothermal source needs to be shown to be negligible. A sceptic just needs to point out that its doubtful.

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                I gave you several links that show that the Icelandic magma blob has increased in activity.

                Continuing to ignore … is IGNORANCE.

                And there has always been volcanic activity under the West Antarctic peninsula,

                Volcanic activity always fluctuates.. never stationary, to even pretend that it is again.. IGNORANCE.

                53

              • #
                Mark D.

                Sure Harry, and your comment illuminates the fact that we have not enough understanding about what is “normal” with regard to any melting we observe today.

                You warmists like to claim human causes with little to base it on. When confronted, you move the goalposts to somewhere that remote sensing cannot yet detect or only recently has any data. Such is your “deep ocean heat”; out of anyone’s sight or ability to detect, then you ask us to provide data you know would be hard or impossible to find.

                RB answered very well with this:

                Plenty of evidence that volcanoes just switch on. Its not a wild postulate.

                So as I asked: where is the evidence to the contrary?

                11

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Harry,

                For evidence that volcanoes do suddenly switch on, see this on the Parícutin volcano in Mexico, which suddenly emerged from a farmer’s cornfield in 1943, was active for a while and is now, as far as anyone can tell, dormant again.

                Exactly what did happen in that framer’s field? I can’t say one way or the other but it sure looks like evidence that volcanoes can and do switch on quite suddenly.

                21

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Mark D.

                “You warmists like to claim human causes with little to base it on.”

                Yeah sure, like rising CO2, rising global temperatures and rising sea level. Note the meaning of the word RISING.

                You still have not responded to climateskeptics question: where is the evidence that geothermal activity is increasing? And I will add to that: where is the evidence that the land ice melting is explained by an increase in geothermal activity?

                Evidence, evidence evidence. Until then it is all just fanciful speculation. Anything but CO2, what! :-)

                02

              • #

                HT, I realize reading comprehension is tricky, and congrats on your grasp of “rising”.

                Next you could work on your understanding of “correlation”. As in, correlation is not the same as causation.

                41

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Roy Hogue.

                “For evidence that volcanoes do suddenly switch on, see this on the Parícutin volcano in Mexico, which suddenly emerged from a farmer’s cornfield in 1943, was active for a while and is now, as far as anyone can tell, dormant again.”

                So you have switched from geothermal activity to (sort of) close to Greenland, to volcanos in Mexico?

                Isn’t Mark D complaining about moving the goal posts?

                02

              • #
                AndyG55

                You were given a quick list showing that the Iceland/Greenland magma body has been more active lately. There are plenty more available.

                Why do you continue to ignore the evidence, except through inate ignorance.

                21

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Harry,

                This is you, the little kid wanting to push the limits, who says, mom, I’m hungry, can I have some fish? So mom gives the kid a fish.

                No mom, I wanted corn. So mom gives the kid an ear of corn.

                No mom, I wanted bread. So mom gives the kid a loaf of bread.

                No mom, I wanted carrots. So mom, in frustration, gives the kid a carrot and a slap across the face along with it.

                And that’s pretty much how everyone reading your comments reacts to them. All you want here is to irritate the skeptics to see what the reaction is. I’m surprised Jo puts up with you. And if this were my blog I don’t believe I would.

                Let’s face it, you understand very well what everyone who answers you means but you have no intention of ever being satisfied with any answer you get.

                The little kid acting this way has some hope of growing up. Have you?

                21

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Roy Hogue.

                Showing the readers in this blog you have nothing but insults to contribute.

                And advocating violence as well, tsk tsk.

                “Let’s face it, you understand very well what everyone who answers you means but you have no intention of ever being satisfied with any answer you get.”

                When you actually PROVIDE an answer, people can analyse it.

                You are still dodging climateskeptic’s question.

                01

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Very will Harry, let’s try this again and rephrase it. Is not what happened in 1943 in the farmers cornfield the sudden switching on of geothermal activity — geo as in Earth and thermal as in hot? It switched off just a suddenly too.

                I never insulted you, I gave an example of how your behavior on this blog appears to me and no doubt to others. If the shoe fits, wear it. And since you picked it up and put it on, it must fit.

                Here’s a hint for you: You may occasionally contribute a useful question or comment but you’re a net negative influence and waste of time.

                Do have a nice day.

                10

          • #
            sophocles

            In the literature.

            No, I am not going to do a literature search for you, go look for yourself.

            94

            • #
              climateskeptic

              No, I am not going to do a literature search for you, go look for yourself.

              So you cant link to one single piece of evidence that supports increased heat flux. An admission of defeat. Even the intro to this thread states;

              The main part of the plume has been progressing eastward over the last 120 million years, right under Greenland and now lies under Iceland.

              With no evidence to the contrary, this would indicate that the tectonic heating under Greenland has been declining, not increasing over the last few 10s of millions of years.

              712

            • #
              climateskeptic

              For the third time; go look for yourself. I am NOT prepared to do your work for you.

              Sad for you. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you just cave in when asked for evidence in support.

              614

              • #
                James Bradley

                climateseptic,

                Same reply you always give when asked for evidence – say how’s the 97% of all scientists consensus working out for you?

                106

              • #
                AndyG55

                No John, Sad for you..

                Unless you do the work yourself you will REMAIN ignorant.

                But as that doesn’t seem to bother you one little bit, does it.

                96

        • #

          sophocles April 8, 2016 at 11:35 am

          “What feature about these plumes has actually changes in the last 50 years, apart from their discover?”

          Their activity.
          Neet! an unvoiced opinion from elsewhere/when! What at else can you claim with no evidence?

          14

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Sorry, make that …that have been discovered…

    83

  • #
    Robk

    Why does the obvious seem so hard for some to accept. I can’t help but think if the ice boffins had an open mind they would have come to this realization decades ago by looking for it. At the risk of sounding smug, it’s always been my primary suspicion. That along with subocean venting having more influence than it’s credited with.

    224

    • #
      AndyG55

      Since it has always been know that Greenland was mostly melting from underneath, it did seem rather unlikely that atmospheric warming had anything to do with it. ;-)

      245

    • #
      climateskeptic

      Why does the obvious seem so hard for some to accept. I can’t help but think if the ice boffins had an open mind they would have come to this realization decades ago by looking for it.

      So you are saying what? Finding these plume has made them start to melt ice? Surely not, they have been melting the same amount of ice for thousands of yours.

      616

      • #
        Robk

        That’s the question. Clearly the earth isn’t static.

        113

        • #
          climateskeptic

          That’s the question. Clearly the earth isn’t static.

          So where is the evidence that the heat flux has changed?

          717

          • #
            Robk

            The ice over known volcanically active area is warming the rest of Antarctica is not…surely you …never mind.

            145

            • #
              climateskeptic

              The ice over..

              So your evidence is a circular arguement, I’m underwhelmed.

              612

              • #
                Robk

                How is it a circular argument? It’s a well known fact the ice is over an active volcanic area.

                94

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I’m underwhelmed”

                And under-equipped.

                You obviously, YET AGAIN, had no idea what Robk was saying

                You truly are an embarrassment to SkS.

                106

              • #

                Can we not start with an itemized list of the unknown, (infinite) and try to whittle that list down as we can painfully learn this “is” (physical) as truly distinct from the now instyle conjecture of opinion/fantasy that is currently ‘fashionable’

                52

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            New volcanoes push up or erupt from time to time. In the last 50 years I’ve seen more than a dozen volcanoes erupt or become active after a long dormant period. And their only the big ones that make the news.

            Do some open minded thinking and you’ll come to the conclusion that the world is a active and dynamic place.

            113

          • #
            James Bradley

            climateseptic,

            “So where is the evidence that the heat flux has changed?”

            So you say the earth is static?

            126

          • #
            sophocles

            What heat flux, where? Please define your terms.

            55

          • #

            climateskeptic April 7, 2016 at 11:10 pm

            (“That’s the question. Clearly the earth isn’t static.”)

            “So where is the evidence that the heat flux has changed?”

            You refuse to define “heat flux”. Why the need for evidence of the undefined?

            75

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Not only will he not define that term but I bet he believes that there can be an exact balance of “heat In” and “heat Out”.

              This is something only people from the University of SkIs are capable of.

              KK

              74

            • #
              climateskeptic

              You refuse to define “heat flux”. Why the need for evidence of the undefined?

              I can only conclude you never read any of the papers Jo links to beyond the heading.
              It here in black and white if you just read it

              But a similar study published in Nature Geoscience 3 years ago

              http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2689.html

              56

      • #
        James Bradley

        climateseptic,

        “So you are saying what? Finding these plume has made them start to melt ice? Surely not, they have been melting the same amount of ice for thousands of yours.”

        Thousands of yours what?

        56

        • #
          climateskeptic

          So you are say the earth is static

          No, im not saying anything. The premise of this thread is that the heating affect has increased in the last few years and this explains the ice-cap melting. Where is your evidence for this claim?

          yours

          should read years
          Sorry for typo, bit hard on the mobile with predictive text.

          BTW there are students writing assignments after analysing info on this site. Hope thats OK with you

          69

          • #
            Robk

            You are putting words in people’s mouths. The IPCC stance is that the ice is melting due to anthropogenic CO2 increases in the atmosphere. I’m saying my primary suspicion is vulcanism under the ice sheets. There’s a prima facie case due to known geology viz. rifts and smoking volcanoes. The bulk of the public’s funding is chasing a co2 tenuous link via a massive complex industry hanging off the IPCC structure which has the function of only considering the anthropogenic co2 effect on climate. Now there’s a circular argument but it’s one intrinsically enshrined at the alter of your IPCC. I do hope your students understand even if you don’t.

            105

          • #
            James Bradley

            climateseptic,

            Are they learning ‘trolling’?

            126

          • #
            AndyG55

            “The premise of this thread is that the heating affect has increased in the last few years and this explains the ice-cap melting”

            Darn, you are just like John Cook.. all the hallmarks…..

            1. Making up stuff that was never said.

            2. Using the word “skeptic” when you are an rabid alarmist.

            Have you been at one of his brain-washing classes?

            136

    • #
      TedM

      Agreed; like the heat hiding in the deep ocean. Actually trying to escape.

      75

  • #
    Mick In The Hills

    C’mon Jo, you know that a research grant application is going nowhere if it just stated: “The earth’s core is molten, and in some places it breaks through the surface, and if there’s an ice cover there, the ice will melt. Can we have $500,000 please to write this up?”

    I mean, what scary headline can a sub attach to that for click-bait?

    114

    • #
      gnome

      That’s easy- “it’s worse than we thought! Ice melt will add to global warming woes. Scientists discover new threat to polar ice”!

      74

      • #
        AndyG55

        gnome,

        I’m pretty sure this “threat” is not new.

        Caused by humans… almost certainly . ;-)

        65

        • #
          Mark D.

          Of course it is Andy, it’s the weight of all those buildings and people living in New York City and London that’s squishing the magma around.

          73

          • #
            Vlad the Impaler

            Actually, there was an article (very likely published in the popular media, and not in a scientific journal), maybe about two years ago, or so, that claimed that once AGW had started an ice melt event, the reduction in the isostatic pressure caused more partial melting in the upper mantle, thereby exacerbating the creation of a plume, which would, in turn, cause more under-plate melting of ice.

            It may have been in relation to the warm subsurface temperatures in the Antarctic, but my whole memory is fuzzy on this. It almost seems that it was here on JoNova that I saw the post, but again, it was a while back, and I had to quit reading it lest I bust a gut with ROTFLMAO.

            I bet the super-sleuths here can find that article, or paper, or whatever it was … … …

            Vlad

            52

    • #
      Glen Michel

      So close to the truth that no one is noticing.Between subduction and isostatic responses it all a mystery to them.Next please.

      62

  • #
    AndyG55

    I mean SERIOUSLY, how many stakes through the heart, and how many nails in the coffin, do we need to kill off this CAGW zombie.

    Much as I don’t particularly like the idea, a SUBSTANTIAL drop to well below 1970′s temps from the coming La Nina might be the ONLY thing that can put an end to this NONSENSE. !!

    165

    • #
      beowulf

      As Mark Twain said: the main difference between a cat and a lie is that a cat only has nine lives.

      I’d go a lot further than a good La Nina though and suggest that it will take temperatures on the scale of 1770 rather than 1970 to achieve the death of the multi-headed global warming beast. Nothing short of a total shockwave of cold will shake people out of their collective fantasy.

      Too many of the regular commenters here seem to project their own purity of scientific thought onto the AGW fanatics and the general public. In that regard it has also been said that people who have not reached their conclusions because of facts and reason can never be persuaded to change by facts and reason.

      We need Ice Fairs on Sydney Harbour and the UNSW’s Centre of Excellence for Climate Studies (or whatever they’re calling themselves this week) buried under ten feet of snow to win the argument. Of course Flannery, Steffen and Co. will still point to anthropogenic causes.

      115

    • #
      climateskeptic

      I mean SERIOUSLY, how many stakes through the heart, and how many nails in the coffin, do we need

      Since they seem to be self inflicted with this article, you tell me?

      SUBSTANTIAL drop to well below 1970′s temps from the coming La Nina might be the ONLY thing that can put an end to this NONSENSE. !!

      So this is a prediction? You will have to become a warmist if it doesn’t happen.

      622

      • #
        AndyG55

        Is that you, John Cook?

        Your moniker is a lie.

        147

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        This is called Black and White thinking.

        35

      • #
        Peter C

        Not necessarily.

        A large sustained temperature drop would destroy the already weak correlation between post industrial CO2 levels and global temperature. That should put an end to CAGW.

        If the temperature does not drop, the “Pause ” may continue also undermining the CAGW nonsense.

        If global temperatures should continue to increase we may have beneficial warming and still argue about the causation.

        If warming becomes catastrophic then we can expect witch hunts and show trials against skeptics.

        76

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Another possibility is that if the pressure becomes too much for the warmists, they will start show trials anyway and become very shrill, so to as to scare the sheep into silence….that or kick off another armed conflict as a source of distraction….

          The public are brainwashed enough to believe almost anything…again, blame “smart” phones, where every dimwit wins a prize….

          54

      • #
        James Bradley

        climateseptic,

        “SUBSTANTIAL drop to well below 1970′s temps from the coming La Nina might be the ONLY thing that can put an end to this NONSENSE. !!

        So this is a prediction? You will have to become a warmist if it doesn’t happen.”

        Nahhh – warmists only predict warming that doesn’t happen…

        126

        • #
          climateskeptic

          Nahhh

          Lets see if your wishful thinking cooling ever happens and what your response will be when it doesn’t.

          510

        • #
          sophocles

          1: and floods
          2: and droughts (the new normal is drought … Dr J Salinger, 2012)
          3: and more intenser hurricanes
          4: and rapidly rising sea levels
          5: and millions (50) of climate refugees (by 2010)
          6: and more `wild fires’ whatever they are
          7: and post graduate psychology students pretending to be physicists
          8: and more desertification
          9 : and more ocean acidification (yet to be seen given the oceans are basic)
          10: and more precipitation (see 2 above)
          11: and more melting glaciers
          12: and an ice-free arctic
          13: and an ice-free antarctic
          14: and imminent extinction of polar bears
          15: and plummeting populations of penguins
          16: and …

          to be continued … ah, repeated

          142

          • #
            Ceetee

            That really is a ridiculous post Sophocles, for crying out loud get a grip. You sound like “Ripleys Believe it or Not”. I remember the article here a while back that spoke about magma hotspots under the Antarctic and no one from your side had any rational comment to make. In fact I wonder if tectonic activity has ever been factored into the equation (not a scientist so I wouldn’t know). It seems interesting to me that a lot of thermal change seems to have it’s origins in the east Pacific off the coast of South America, one of the most active tectonic areas in the world.

            25

            • #
              sophocles

              Get a grip? Why? That’s a list of warmist fantasies. From the moddles. As they have never been validated, they can’t be referred to as MODELS.
              They’re not.

              As for `rational comments,’ that depends on your POV.

              YOu ask if tectonic activity has been factored into the equation? In a word; no. The IPCC in it’s infinite wisdom has decreed that only aerial volcanism has an effect and that’s a small temporary one from the emitted aerosols. Go figure.

              No, it’s all mankind’s emissions of CO2, all 3.75% of the annual CO2 emissions (see AR-5) from all sources, raising the concentration of CO2 to 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s 4 CO2 molecules per 10,000 molecules of air (Air = Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. That’s an increase of one (1) molecule per 10000 since 1850. Other trace gases make up the remaining 6 atoms/molecules. Gee it’s so scary.

              105

              • #
                climateskeptic

                YOu ask if tectonic activity has been factored into the equation? In a word; no.

                Of course it has, you are sadly mistaken.

                56

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                sophocles.

                More red herrings than a fish school, more straw men a corn field. IPCC bashing as well.

                It gets back to my comments about “shooting the messenger”.

                This is how the intellectually dishonest tactic works. Some “claim” like Greenland ice loss can be attributed to geothermal active is pulled out of the air (or out of some other parts of one’s anatomy if you want to be vulgar). No justification or evidence is presented for the claim, it is just magic wand stuff. Then the IPCC can be criticized for not studying the fantasy.

                11

              • #
                Ceetee

                I sincerely apologise Sophocles. I don’t come here often enough to know who you are and your point of view. I skipped over your post too quickly to realise where you were coming from and assumed wrongly. Posting on the fly again. Big mea culpa from me, sincerely offered. My point about seafloor magma activity and its possible effects is I believe a valid one and never seems draw enough discussion. (except here of course!).

                40

        • #
          James Bradley

          climateseptic,

          “Lets see if your wishful thinking cooling ever happens and what your response will be when it doesn’t.”

          So warmists do only predict warming that doesn’t happen.

          115

        • #
          Peter C

          You win James

          25

      • #
        AndyG55

        “So this is a prediction?”

        Comprehension skills lacking, hey John!

        I was saying that is what might be required to behead the AGW zombie.

        175

  • #

    What we do have on the ABC today though is this gem. Your taxes hard at work as usual. Time to sell it, see if they can get open market funding for a socialist agenda.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/sexuality-gender-glossary-definitions/7287572

    83

  • #
    Russell

    Off topic
    Jo, could you please let your technicians know that we are no longer on daylight saving time?

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    You made a typographical error in your last comment. Perhaps you suffer from lexophobia?

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That was supposed to be in answer to Andy at 7.1.1

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      “lexophobia” ?

      can’t find it in the dictionary.

      30

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Lexo – From the greek meaning – words
        Phobia – From the greek meaning – fear

        Lexo-phobia – a fear of words.

        Words which sounds horrible, are awkward to pronounce, create unsavoury imagery, or just make you feel sick
        good examples are…

        as “Choc”, “biccy”, “puddy”, “sachet”, “pamphlet”, “figgy pudding”, “Schloer”, “slurry”, “membrane”…etc.

        50

        • #
          AndyG55

          ““figgy pudding”, ” I’ll avoid that one , thanks

          What’s wrong with the rest?

          50

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Some people have cross wiring in the brain. Autism is an example, but not an exclusive one. It’s probably more common that you’d guess. Sounds can be associated with taste or colour ect.

            So the thought of these words, or the pronunciation of these words form an association with another unpleasant feeling or emotion, or taste, or mental image.

            20

            • #
              Mari C

              I know a person with synaesthesia. Hers is mostly visual, related to the seeing of words, numbers. Numbers and letters have colors; colors have tastes and sounds. Some words are gloriously lit up in color and tart-sweet, others are brassy and metallic, others still are all dark and fiery and bitter. She says it makes reading a very interesting experience – maths too. Some tones she hears taste like vanilla ice cream, others taste like cherry pop, some have an associated color. But not all sounds evoke a taste, or color.

              And there is no correlation between the meaning of a word or the correctness of an equation.

              00

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            I forgot to add; the most notable of these effects is called synaesthesia. It’s common enough to have a name. Now for fun go check it out, it’s pretty cool :)

            20

            • #
              Ceetee

              Harsh Greg, harsh.

              10

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                I don’t see anything I said as being harsh. I was explaining to AndyG55 why to some some people these words “sounds horrible, are awkward to pronounce, create unsavoury imagery, or just make you feel sick”.

                I’m not implying anything to anyone, this is simply a “why”.

                00

          • #
            Peter C

            We all like Figgy Pudding
            So bring some out here
            Good tidings we bring to you and your kin
            We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

            20

        • #
          Unmentionable

          Oh my dawg! I’ve got that!

          40

  • #
    ianl8888

    There is not a hope in Hades of the MSM, and the ABC/Fauxfacts groups in particular, taking the slightest bit of notice of geological data, unless it’s an undersea quake-caused tsunami, when geologists can be blamed for not warning the world in time.

    Cassandra has observed that for over 20 years now, right in the thick of it.

    82

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Postophobia, fear of posting a reply correctly in a thread.

    60

  • #
    Dennis

    Discussion is very important, but it is more important to understand what the leftists are after;

    Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

    At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

    Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

    Meeting held in October 2015.

    122

  • #
    richard

    There are volcanoes under the Arctic-

    does this explain this -

    Last glacial period

    “The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen throughout, but like today probably was only covered by relatively shallow ice, subject to seasonal changes and riddled with icebergs calving from the surrounding ice sheets. According to the sediment composition retrieved from deep-sea cores there must even have been times of seasonally open waters”

    50

    • #
      ianl8888

      It’s interesting, to me at least, to speculate on how the planet retrieved itself from the deep freeze of glacial periods. Given the albedo of an essentially ice-covered planet has to be very high, mere surface melting would seem to be inadequate. Perhaps a geophysicist may add some sense to this.

      Tectonic activity, including vulcanism at depth, would seem to be an important factor in breaking up the shallower ice (even 1-2km thick ice cannot withstand tectonic activity). Fault zones of enormous magnitude are well mapped across the globe, as is the constant but rate-varied continental movements.

      82

    • #
      climateskeptic

      does this explain this -

      Last glacial period

      “The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen throughout

      No, its too deep to freeze.

      510

      • #
        James Bradley

        climateseptic,

        richard wrote:-

        “does this explain this -

        Last glacial period

        “The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen throughout”

        You replied:-

        “No, its too deep to freeze”

        climateseptic:

        Are you agreeing or disagreeing with “… not frozen throughout”?

        61

        • #
          sophocles

          James, he’s gone vertical on you.

          50

        • #
          climateskeptic

          Correct, It didnt freeze because the Arctic ocean is too deep

          25

          • #
            sophocles

            Where’s tour evidence?

            30

          • #
            sophocles

            Where’s your evidence?

            30

          • #
            James Bradley

            climateseptic,

            So richard is correct when he writes: “The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen throughout”

            And when you reply with: “No, its too deep to freeze”

            You actually mean it’s too cold to freeze

            Ahhhh, now I understand – It’s too cold to freeze…

            Therefore: It’s too hot to melt, It’s too wet to rain, It’s too dry to burn, etc etc etc

            52

      • #
        Mari C

        Therefore all the ice on the Arctic Ocean right now is not really there, because it is too deep to freeze, yes? It’s an anomaly, or perhaps a result of Greenland dropping bits of her ice off?

        Sheesh. I do my best to ignore you, sceptic one, and then you slip this in. And not a word of warning, either, just BANG stupid WHAM comment SMASH do you even THINK before you spew?

        sigh.

        20

  • #
    Unmentionable

    Here on the ball of magma called Earth …

    This again. really? If you are going to insist on Earth having a magmatic mantle, you’re ignoring the observational and empirical sub-disciplines of geochemistry, mineralogy, igneous petrology, seismology and geophysics and detailed published testing since about WWII.

    If you imagine plastic deformation of crystalline silicate solids is synonymous with earth being a viscous liquid it’s not, it’s actual solid rock. Crystals deform via breaking and recombining chemical bonds in their lattices, and that takes vast energy transfers, over time to break and reform bonds (bend the lattices) to ‘flow’ the mantle, at all, in a slow a-seismic ‘creep’ of the lattice, atom by atom in the lattice. Emphasis on slowness to deform rocks that way, think speed of fingernail growing, or much less, occasionally faster.

    A magmatic mantle liquid-phase would have no ionic bonding at all, thus no lattice resistant to flow, and would move with little resistance to energy difference. A liquid mantle implies there was (and still is) enough internal energy to break 100% of the atomic bonds in the mantle. It implies an extremely hot liquid.

    But if that were so, we’d not have slow fingernail speed continental movements, captured precisely by space geodetic systems, to sub mm per year levels of precision, we’d have a crust of earth that looked from space, like the inside of a working washing machine if you lifted the lid. Only the surface of earth would also be incandescent as the internal energy level would be so much higher than now, and the thermal conduction superseded by convective overturning of the whole crust in hours or minutes, and a mantle so hot it would be evaporating into space.

    A molten mantle is not the planet we’re on.

    Almost all of earth above the core-mantle boundary is solid-phase, and almost no magma is present except for a relatively thin (compared to the thickness of the mantle) partially-melted layer in the sub-crustal seismic transition zone (Moho) layer. Geology, like any science, is far from knowing it all, very far indeed, but more is known about the interior of Earth than a non-geologist could possibly imagine. Ignoring this is absurd. The whole reason the AGW greenhouse saga got rolling was because other scientists ignored geology and did not want to hear of the evidence geologists already possessed and had been discussing and teaching internal to the discipline for decades. Given geology is the science that studies Earth, and nothing else, don’t you think there’s a possibility we know a bit by now?

    Every time I see non-geo scientists and the public served this junk that earth is a molten ball, I get a feeling for how biologists must feel about what creationist say about their science and what they have learned about life.

    222

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Having some appreciation for geology I can understand your complaint. But I think Jo doesn’t take that, “…ball of magma…” description very seriously. We do know that molten stuff from way down deep in the planet makes its way upward toward the surface, sometimes without breaking through to become a volcano. So the metaphor, ball of magma, to describe the planet seems appropriate in context. The heat under Yellowstone National park would be an example, no volcano but plenty of evidence that not all that far down it’s very hot.

      173

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        My take was that Joanne was using a metaphor – same as a dog’s breakfast – so not a problem.
        However, I question the phrase
        The main part of the plume has been progressing eastward …

        It is usually considered that the hot spots are fixed in place and Earth’s crust moves relative (note that last word) to that point. Greenland is part of the North American Plate and is moving westward at a rate of ~15 mm/year.
        N. A. Plate and motions

        Therefore, in a few million years the ice will be far to the west and off the heat. We can all relax because the ice will stop melting. So just grab some popcorn and a beer and enjoy the ride.

        [Yellowstone has a similar trail that extends across Idaho and Oregon. Washington is involved too, but that's a 50 M year old story.]

        90

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          John,

          Thanks. You just jiggled my memory. The Hawaiian Island chain is a line of volcanoes formed by that same mechanism but most of them never grew tall enough to become an island. The only ones above the surface are Midway and the Hawaiian archipelago. With 1,325.6 Miles between Midway and Honolulu how would you ever guess they were related if not for our relatively recent ability to survey the ocean floor?

          70

          • #
            John F. Hultquist

            Regarding the Hawaiian northwestern extension, those old volcanoes that did reach the sky then moved away from the hot spot. The “floor” under them cooled/contracted and they subsided. Meanwhile, common erosion and the moving water did a lot of work. Over long periods of time they became flat-topped and sank. See…
            Guyot stage

            60

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Interesting stuff, John.

              I was fascinated by geology when I was going through the two required courses all those years ago, especially the physical geology. But my real interest was always in something else. Now at this point in my life I’m realizing that I should have been paying more attention all along because it’s still fascinating. The history of this planet for millions upon millions of years is sitting there just waiting for us to figure it out. I’ve not looked at the subject very seriously for a long time and I would hardly know where to start again. Like computer science, it begins to grow faster than any one person can master.

              10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Another place where there’s heat below the surface is Virginia City, Nevada. As the mines there went deeper the temperature rose sharply until it was too hot for the miners to work unless ice was brought in and put in special “rooms” dug into the side of the mine shaft where they could go to cool off periodically. Yet there’s no evidence of that heat on the surface that I know of. If you’re there you’d never know that just a few hundred feet beneath your feet you would be subject to more heat than you could tolerate.

                The heat in this case was from very hot water coming up from below. But that’s also evidence, similar to Yellowstone that magma is somewhere not too far down. Virginia City has a fascinating history of its own. For anyone interested, here’s a link to get started with. The article seems comprehensive but always believe Wiki with caution.

                30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And there are the red thumbs again. I think they definitely don’t like me.

        61

    • #
      ianl8888

      … other scientists ignored geology and did not want to hear of the evidence geologists already possessed and had been discussing and teaching internal to the discipline for decades

      It’s still so. If you say you are a geologist, an instant reaction is to assume that a mine will now be developed in your near vicinity. Some people want to know where the gold is, most want the product and the money, but not the process :)

      That’s a lighter-hearted, but experienced, take on the issue. A lot of the PC meeja even deny that geology is a scientific discipline; that enables them to dismiss any geoogical evidence they dislike.

      On a more technical note, there’s an interesting set of papers on plate movement that tracked periods of quicker rates of movement in relation to orbitary wobbles. In short, various geographical combinations of continental masses caused the planet to wobble in its’ orbit – it became somewhat “top heavy” occasionally. Jurassic Park never envisaged that :)

      50

      • #
        Unmentionable

        Yeah, it’s not an easy discipline to understand at all until you’ve been in the field a lot and seen a lot of outcrop and cores and structures, and mineral suites, and deciphered them in a dozen possible ways. But dumbed-down mental images (mostly from movies it seems) that are deeply misleading or just false, are all non-geos have … it takes a min of 3 years slog to begin to get a useful feel for geohistory, interior and crustal structure, mineralogy, geochem and geodynamics.

        What you say about mining and public plus other discipline’s perceptions is so true! Geology isn’t about mining, any more than Biology can be reduced to a science dedicated to the optimal farming of cows and fish! Yes, it can be used for that, but that’s not what it is.

        This is not understood at all by other disciplines of by the public, that serious people are studying geology for one reason, to better understand earth and they don’t generally care about working for a miner, unless they need some coin and career development.

        Consultants spend most of their non-working periods studying earth and using their professional work effort to fund their private research efforts as well. Such wicked venal earth-hating and despoiling people! … more like completely misunderstood, and ubiquitously painted black by an ignorant media and cheap movies – as is the understanding of Earth that the discipline developed … we have no clue at all about nuthin donchaknow! ;-)

        /gripe

        140

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Offtopic but I cannot wait until the weekend.
    Saw the front page of the Courier Mail this morning.
    Couldn’t wait to see what Their ABC would say about it.

    Same reef, same day, same expert, different media spin.
    http://imgur.com/obKJDzf
    Note the URL of the courier mail article suggests the main
    story content has a very different opinion by Attenborough
    compared to the doom-and-gloom spin.

    Thanks ABC!

    122

  • #

    Bit like that active volcanism and huge sub-glacial ash sheet beneath Pine Island region of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Yep. The famous melty bit! All checked out by British Antarctic Survey around 2008…and NOT the subject of polite conversation.

    141

  • #
    David Maddison

    Off topic: I can’t bare to listen to any more of this garbage. Was just momentarily listening to talkback on radio 2GB Sydney online and some caller was talking about “CO4″ and how it was the biggest component of the atmosphere and responsible for warming etc..

    81

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’ve probably made this point before but it seems appropriate again here.

    What news broadcaster wants to be saying, “Gee folks, everything is working normally,” which is what they are essentially saying if they report the cause of the melting as something we have no control over? Evidently none of them. I doubt they even look for such information. What they want is to have some sensational news such as, “Gee folks, your inappropriate lifestyle is causing a millions of years old ice sheet to melt. Now you doggone well better do something about it.” They need audience or reader share and the competition is fierce, at least in the U.S. Sensationalism is at its best.

    Nothing wrong isn’t newsworthy. And I’ve never heard that, nothing wrong, statement reported by anyone. Something is wrong is what they go for and I seriously doubt that anyone would pay attention if they didn’t. And I think that explains the news media, though maybe not completely.

    For the rest it’s the desire to be important and to make money, for some, lots of money — do we not all have some of that desire? And this can easily also explain what remains to be explained about the news media.

    Now obviously I’m simplifying this. Who knows what the individual thoughts and nuances of motivation are for any one individual or organization. But human nature isn’t very much different from one person to the next, we all have the same builtin needs, they’re hard wired in. What does differ is how these things manifest themselves. Some can become critical thinkers and some cannot. Some can stay honest and some cannot. Some can understand an issue better than others…

    So I think what we face is our own demons. As Pogo Possum said so elegantly back in the 1950s, “We have met the enemy and he is us.

    The Wiki article begins with a number of complaints about fixes it needs and it’s long. But if you aren’t familiar with Pogo it’s a good starting place. It was one of the two best satirical comic strips ever, the other being Li’l Abner, where a creature called the shmoo was introduced, a creature that tasted good and was more than willing to be eaten — a direct analog for government support as begun by Franklin Roosevelt. But that’s another story all of its own.

    When I was young I didn’t begin to understand the message in either of these. But I sure do now.

    71

  • #
    john

    Hot Magma, Wind Farms? Save?

    Watch Sun Edison burn…. I expect bankruptcy by late friday,

    http://dailybail.com/home/green-energy-chronicles-sunedison-enters-death-spiral.html

    61

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      You mean I was right to shun renewable energy securities like they were the plague?

      TonyFromOz, reading you was a real good idea. :-)

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      I wonder where all that taxpayer subsidy money went to ?

      $1.5 Billion subsidies and loan guarantees don’t just disappear.

      You can bet the CEO’s are still rolling in their multiple mansions.

      51

  • #
    Ruairi

    Iceland may look like a fridge,
    While below,the heat from the Ridge,
    Melts ice in Greenland,
    The distance being spanned,
    By a volcanic plume like a bridge.

    110

    • #
      Ceetee

      Ruairi, do you suffer from hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (look that one up AndyG55!). Many warmists don’t, its a form of camouflage for them.

      20

    • #
      Peter C

      Perfect summary in verse,

      Thanks Ruairi

      40

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Just a few random thoughts , i seem to recall ( perhaps from an article on wuwt a few years ago) that Greenland is ” bowl ” shaped , due to the weight of ice pushing down on its crust over the millenia , since the last ice age much of the ice has melted gradually allowing the crust under Greenland to ” rebound ” and a blob of magma to grow like a bruise under the skin , and is that why during this modern warm period when the ice melts on Greenland the water flows into the bowl rather than over the ” rim ” into the sea

    51

    • #
      ianl8888

      Well, us rock doctors (geos) call it a basin rather than a bowl, but the general shape is the same.

      Indeed, the large mass of the Greenland ice sheet is in the basin. This makes it rather difficult for the melt water to run uphill and thus raise the sea levels, but I’m sure the ABC will find a way.

      101

    • #
      AndyG55

      “blob of magma to grow like a bruise under the skin ”

      Let’s all hope it doesn’t grow into a boil and burst !!

      Volcanoes around that area tend to be rather active sometimes.

      Then we would really see some interesting strange stuff happen.

      ianl8888, as a geologist, any ideas what an explosive volcanic eruption under Greenland ice shelf might do ?

      41

      • #
        ianl8888

        A pyroclastic cloud thundering over an ice sheet ?

        Spectacular – I’d pay money to see that from a safe vantage point :)

        40

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    I haven’t noticed any papers saying geothermal ice melting is increasing.

    Perhaps someone can help me out here.

    310

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Maybe they need an underground nuke to stop the magma meltingthe ice, like in the B grade flick “the core”?

    Or they could turn the bird shredders into powered bird shredders ( i.e. fans ) and blow the heat away…..

    I need to phone Don Quixote, one moment please…..

    41

  • #
    LightningCamel

    The ice meets up with hot rock
    But there lies a problem, old cock.
    Rock is not carbon you see
    and from this idea we must flee.
    Take our fetish and hide in a sock.

    70

  • #
    Bulldust

    But, but, but… the SMH is telling us “Wind and solar are crushing fossil fuels”:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels-20160407-go0ura.html

    Have fun spotting all the deceptive graphs and dodgy statistics.

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      Don’t forget that electric cars are advancing rapidly and the end of service stations for fossil fuels are in sight.

      The extreme Labor Green minds.

      50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Crushing fossil fuels?

      They truly have swallowed the Klimate kook aid …..

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep at an inconsistent, unreliable, massively expensive 1-2% of Australia-wide power….

      crushing… NOT !!

      10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Remind me how Tassie is now going now that its tether/lifeline to the BROWN COAL of Victoria has been disrupted.

        Remind me how SA faired when they lost their link to the BROWN COAL of Victoria.

        10

  • #
    TdeF

    Part of the problem is that while people accept now that the earth is not flat, that is a recent and revolutionary idea. In hindsight it was very obvious from the shadows on the moon to the arc of the planets across the sky to the curve of the ocean and the lunar eclipses where you could see the shadow. Still it was an unpopular and even heretical idea. Galileo noted sunspots which meant the sun turned as well. For that he was imprisoned. Heretic. Devastated Dr. Murry Selby want his Climate expert job back too.

    Similarly the idea that our planet has a core of molten metal under immense pressure at 6,000C is pure fantasy. Volcanoes are very rare. In ancient times Mt Etna was the origin of Cyclops, the one red eyed giant in the mist throwing huge boulders at mortals. What other explanation was there? The gods lived in the clouds, as was shown in all the art. We know better now. We have been there.

    So now people think we have the perfect climate, temperature, seasons, rainfall and everywhere is exactly right. Nothing will change and any change is terrible. Whatever is, will be forever and any changes are the fault of humans how have offended Gaia?

    The same people are looking to find the wrath of the planet in any warming. This warming, the fires of hell were a new idea which did not exist in Western religions and not in Christianity. It was an import. Now the media are furiously hunting for very scary heating to show Gaia is angry, Flannery’s Angry Summer.

    So telling people that there might be another more scientific explanation for ice melting in the arctic circle is a waste of time. It is the vengeance of a planet angry that we are stealing and burning ancient rotted plant matter. We will all be punished by CO2 itself, an appropriate punishment. That seems to be the only theme in a non science world more reminiscent of auguries and druids than science.

    To be fair, it is hard to sell news in a world without disaster and writers and out of work kangaroo specialists, psychologists and chemists have to make a living. Like the pyramids in Egypt, the useless work becomes and end in itself. Who really cares if the windmills are useless? Building useless things has been a common activity through the ages. You can visit them in every country. Some people actually believe they will appease the Gods, but who really cares?

    100

  • #

    just read the start and not any comments.

    Google search this and choose the News tab.

    A remarkably small number of hits for a paper in a high profile journal. Possibly some impact due to the author’s institute’s efforts at promotion (ie if the lead was from Oxbridge there would be a different response), but still…

    22

    • #
      ianl8888

      See my post at 14.2

      The way to avoid geological data is to deny that it is part of science. I kid not.

      You are part of that denial – implying that a low number of hits indicates poor science. You don’t come across as very smart, Golly Gee; somewhat disappointing, actually.

      61

  • #
    Analitik

    Turbines on the ice sheet could be used to power refrigeration units placed at the base of the ice sheet to offset the magma heating. The heat exchangers would need to be located far out at sea to avoid warming the local currents, though, lest that trigger warming of the local climate.

    10

  • #
    pat

    jo, don’t expect MSM to incorporate new information unless it fits into the “official” CAGW narrative.
    more than six years after the event, Revkins’”reality” reporting still manages to skip Climategate:

    6 Apr: NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: Earth to Audience: How Andrew Revkin’s Blog Built a Digital Conversation About Climate Change
    Times Insider shares insights into how we work at The New York Times. In this piece, Andrew C. Revkin, The Times’s Dot Earth blogger, explains why his beat is less a noun — environment, climate, science — than it is a question…
    In 2010, posting a guest contribution from Lou Gold, an American expatriate living deep in the Brazilian Amazon, I explained that I’d become a “selfish blogger,” given that I was drawing input from such interesting characters.
    That was the year Dot Earth moved to the Opinion section (I had left the news staff to teach at Pace University). My style didn’t change much, given that my advocacy is for reality…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/insider/earth-to-audience-how-andrew-revkins-blog-built-a-digital-conversation-about-climate-change.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    a laugh:

    8 Apr: Guardian: Lauren Dake: Eco-friendly Portland baffled to discover an artisanal industry is polluting its air
    Instead of eating the kale she grew in her backyard garden in Portland, Oregon, this spring, Jessica Applegate will submit the leafy green plants for toxic metal testing.
    Recent revelations that heavy metals – specifically arsenic, cadmium and chromium – are hovering above the city in toxic hotspots have stunned the eco-conscious cty. Along with the news came an unlikely culprit: artisan glass manufacturers…
    “I’m educated. I’m politically active. I serve on the board of Oregon Wild [an environmental advocacy group]. I’m a good citizen,” Applegate said, while sitting on her front porch last week. “And yet, I felt baffled by my own ignorance of the true state of our airshed.”…READ ON
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/07/portland-oregon-environmental-glass-companies-pollution-cancer

    30

    • #
      Mari C

      By focusing on CO2 as the baddie, the greenies and their blob have neglected, nay forgotten, the true source of unhappiness in the biome – heavy metals, assorted chemical releases, over-hunting -fishing -harvesting, etc. I am amazed at the number of people who lecture me on ecology, yet have no clue what pollinates their vegetables, fruits, flowers. Or who refuse to eat “icky” farmed fish, preferring the wild-caught and ignoring the problems that come with ocean trawling. Or perhaps they think each fish is caught by rod and reel…

      My favorite lecturer drives an SUV, travels about solo most of the time, logs massive numbers of miles, and called me irresponsible because I don’t ride a bike now and then. I drive a Fiat 500, plan all my trips to maximize mileage and save pennies on gas, and walk when practical.

      It just floors me when these so-correct blobs get a whack upside the head from reality and Just Don’t Get It.

      See, just because you hate CO2 doesn’t mean you are environmentally friendly.

      01

  • #
    David Maddison

    Off topic:

    Five wind turbine fails.

    http://youtu.be/rxlHcSRdbjg

    20

  • #

    [...] Hot magma is melting Greenland ice – can windfarms save it? Here on the ball of magma called Earth, there’s a hot plume of rocks under Iceland that stretches right across under Greenland. Those hot rocks are melting the ice from below in a band 1,200 km long and 400 km wide. [...]

    10