Quote:


"Tectonic landforms reveal that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) lies atop a major volcanic rift system. However, identifying subglacial volcanism is challenging. Here we show geochemical evidence of a volcanic heat source upstream of the fast-melting Pine Island Ice Shelf, documented by seawater helium isotope ratios at the front of the Ice Shelf cavity. The localization of mantle helium to glacial meltwater reveals that volcanic heat induces melt beneath the grounded glacier and feeds the subglacial hydrological network crossing the grounding line. The observed transport of mantle helium out of the Ice Shelf cavity indicates that volcanic heat is supplied to the grounded glacier at a rate of ~ 2500 ± 1700 MW, which is ca. half as large as the active Grimsvötn volcano on Iceland. Our finding of a substantial volcanic heat source beneath a major WAIS glacier highlights the need to understand subglacial volcanism, its hydrologic interaction with the marine margins, and its potential role in the future stability of the WAIS?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3

Another theory busted.

lee wrote on Jun 27^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:




DId you read the discussion, even the authors disagree with you about busting the theory.


The magnitude and the variations in the rate of volcanic heat supplied to the Pine Island Glacier, either by internal magma migration8, or by an increase in volcanism as a consequence of ice sheet thinning61, may impact the future dynamics of the Pine Island Glacier, during the contemporary period of climate-driven glacial retreat.


IN other words, its not the sole cause, it will make the AGW driven melting worse.



Just a hint, one should always read the entire article rather than just the abstract.

So in other words. This is an additive not a causative effect.


Cheers.

lee wrote on Jun 28^th, 2018 at 4:25pm:



Well I think what they mean is that the scale of the effect is undetermined, but the fact that it will add to the effect of AGW is not.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jun 28^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:



And yet if the "as-yet undetermined" effect  is the whole of any effect the supposed AGW theory fails.

But It is immaterial what you think. It is what the scientists think.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jun 28^th, 2018 at 4:42pm:



Yes 0.5ºC in 40 years. Shocking isn't it?  Of course we have no reliable figures before the satellite era, but many point to Arctic Ice loss in the 1930's. And of course they did sail the North East Passage in the 1870's.

but that is not the paper presented.

lee wrote on Jun 28^th, 2018 at 5:03pm:



Not really. They are making that base don the data they are collecting. Thats science dude.

Well I suspect that graph you showed is not what you think it is. Much like that flat line graph thats always shown.

Or perhaps you like this one from HadCRUT4 for 2000 to present



HadCRUT- a combination of Hadley and Climate Research Unit (East Anglia) Temperature. CRU the home of British AGW.

Or perhaps their one from 1957 to present -



http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#Antarctic%20monthly%20surfac...

The bottom one shows the 60-70's period where they thought CO2 would cause global cooling.