Global warming?

[carbonhed]

No, the Thwaites glacier in West Antarctica looks like it's being destabilised by geothermal heat. Interesting and quite probable
According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter.

As a commenter remarked - [I]Note that human caused CO2 forcing is much more, about 1,500 milliwatts per square meter.
I read an article about the heating of the continent beneath the 2mi. thick glaciers above. It said that the melting of the ice above has exerted less pressure on the continent and has caused the land to begin to rise. The rising of the land has caused fissions and releasing the heat below.

I'm glad we can agree that you were wrong to dismiss geothermal heating as a possible precursor to increased rates of ice sheet loss.

The bit about 1500 mwatts per sq m is classic alarmist misdirection 101. When you've got nothing... make noise and wave arms. The geothermal heat isn't significant because it's causing mass loss it's important because it's lubricating the interface between eleventy billion gigatonnes of ice and the bedrock, in the form of an iclined plane, under the influence of gravity.

I'll dismiss the yarn about anal fissures releasing the heat below in about the same length of time it took to fabricate. You could make the same story if the ice was increasing and depressing the Earth's crust. Unless you've got peer reviewed papers to the contrary?

The Washington Post article? In a hundred years time, may, could, possibly, might, but we don't know because we didn't measure it... more research needed.... send money... KA CHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Why thankyou! Most generous. Employment guaranteed.

[SPman]

Changes in availability of water? - Serious shit!:http://drsircus.com/world-news/world...eid=783acdf144

California, with 40m people is in the grip of a drought, that looks like depleting their entire water stocks, groundwater and reservoirs. Lulled into a false sense of security by good rainfalls, 1977-99, it now looks like returning to it's traditional arid ways, AGW may be making things worse than they would have been -

Megadroughts are sustained periods of sparse precipitation and significant loss of soil moisture that span generations, about 10 times as long as a normal three-year drought.
North America’s last megadroughts happened in medieval times, during the 12th and 13th centuries. They were caused by natural changes in weather that give megadroughts a 10 percent chance of forming at any time.
But climate change driven by human activity dramatically increases those chances. “With climate change, the likelihood of a megadrought goes up considerably,”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ornia-drought/

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/28631-a-megadrought-will-grip-us-in-the-coming-decades-nasa-researchers-say

Even though warming produces more rain, it tends to fall in areas that don't really need it. Situations like this will become more common, and more dangerous - with bugger all water available, how long before large segments of that 40 mil pop. start to get antsy..... 60-90% of many of the USA's fruit, nuts and veges are also grown in Ca. - no change in prices yet, but, if everything comes to a grinding halt........?

[yokel]

California, with 40m people is in the grip of a drought, that looks like depleting their entire water stocks, groundwater and reservoirs. Lulled into a false sense of security by good rainfalls, 1977-99, it now looks like returning to it's traditional arid ways, AGW may be making things worse than they would have been -

Megadroughts are sustained periods of sparse precipitation and significant loss of soil moisture that span generations, about 10 times as long as a normal three-year drought.
North America’s last megadroughts happened in medieval times, during the 12th and 13th centuries. They were caused by natural changes in weather that give megadroughts a 10 percent chance of forming at any time.
But climate change driven by human activity dramatically increases those chances. “With climate change, the likelihood of a megadrought goes up considerably,”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ornia-drought/

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/28631-a-megadrought-will-grip-us-in-the-coming-decades-nasa-researchers-say

Even though warming produces more rain, it tends to fall in areas that don't really need it. Situations like this will become more common, and more dangerous - with bugger all water available, how long before large segments of that 40 mil pop. start to get antsy..... 60-90% of many of the USA's fruit, nuts and veges are also grown in Ca. - no change in prices yet, but, if everything comes to a grinding halt........?

Give it up, you've been fooled.

[Voltaire]

Give it up, you've been fooled.

Yet another youtubeomentary

He needs an English accent to be remotely believable.

[mashman]

The Amazon Rainforest is Losing its Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide, Alarming 30-Year Study Reveals...

[Voltaire]

I don't have a utube clip but were they not chopping the size of Belguim ( or other small country) each year to turn into farmland..... but hey its a natural cycle , chop trees down, grow beef, eat maccers

[carbonhed]

The Amazon Rainforest is Losing its Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide, Alarming 30-Year Study Reveals...

Could, might, possibly, maybe, we don't know, more research needed, send money............. KACHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ etc etc etc. Oh yeah... and alarming!

[mashman]

Could, might, possibly, maybe, we don't know, more research needed, send money............. KACHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ etc etc etc. Oh yeah... and alarming!

Wow, not a hit on any of those words... could be because they were presenting the results of their research? Yup it costs lots of money.

[carbonhed]

Wow, not a hit on any of those words... could be because they were presenting the results of their research? Yup it costs lots of money.

Could be because you only read the words in large print? Did you read the abstract or track the paper down in Nature magazine? Perhaps look for a less sensationalised journalistic interpretation of the paper?

Way too much effort involved.

[mashman]

Could be because you only read the words in large print? Did you read the abstract or track the paper down in Nature magazine? Perhaps look for a less sensationalised journalistic interpretation of the paper?

Way too much effort involved.

I read the article... yes I never read through any further than the page linked, but I have this weird feeling that the findings could be true... something along the lines of, and I know this'll be seen as a conspiracy or sommink, along the lines of: a little tree will absorb less carbon dioxide than a big tree. @sentationalism.

Not at all, merely accepting of what was written given basic tree/ground function.

[carbonhed]

I read the article... yes I never read through any further than the page linked, but I have this weird feeling that the findings could be true... something along the lines of, and I know this'll be seen as a conspiracy or sommink, along the lines of: a little tree will absorb less carbon dioxide than a big tree. @sentationalism.

Not at all, merely accepting of what was written given basic tree/ground function.

You have to delete the input of the churnalist. Because churnalists are the scum of the Earth and the entire story is spun by them. So ditch "alarming" and delete the "CO2 output of Latin America" which is irrelevant. Get down towards what the paper actually says.. and it's interesting. Though why it should be surprising that the rate of increase slows towards a new plateau is beyond my paygrade.

[mashman]

You have to delete the input of the churnalist. Because churnalists are the scum of the Earth and the entire story is spun by them. So ditch "alarming" and delete the "CO2 output of Latin America" which is irrelevant. Get down towards what the paper actually says.. and it's interesting. Though why it should be surprising that the rate of increase slows towards a new plateau is beyond my paygrade.

Do you have a link to what you read?

[Jantar]

A volcano under The Antarctic causing the ice to melt? Where did he pluck that gem from.

...........

Maybe from http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1992.html

Or perhaps from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0120160720.htm

Or even from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...12821X14005780

However if the science is too difficult and you want a layman's version then just go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=volcano+antarctic

[SPman]

Yes I've read all the articles - very interesting. You don't think of residual volcanic activity occuring under the ice sheets, but, off course, why not. Tectonic activity is as frequent in Antarctica as it is elsewhere.

The initial eruption must have been spectacular at the time......

This is, however, sfa to do with AGW.

[carbonhed]

This is, however, sfa to do with AGW.

The potential collapse of Antarctic glaciers was trumpeted loud and long as proof of AGW... right up until it wasn't. I'm glad we can agree another of your stupid scare stories just face planted. Keep them coming.