Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Anthony has a hilarious post on how Climate Change now causes volcanoes to erupt. What next, Anthropogenic sunshine?
Cartoons by Josh
View Printer Friendly Version
It causes athletes foot aswell. Before global warming, I never got athletes foot.
Can I have a Nobel prize please?
Usual suspects to complain about smear of their tribe in 4...3...2...1
Teenage pregnancies have risen with global warming, because it is so hot, that people run around with no clothes on, and when they get hot and tired, they lie down. And that's a fact 'cos a teacher said so.
Ice age comes along, depositing mile thick slab of ice atop subducting continental margin.
Weight of ice load deforms Earth's crust forcing strata under ice cap below sea level and/or down into mantle
Climate change melts ice, precipitating isostatic rebound of unloaded crust
Rebound stresses unloaded rocks, facilitating surface penetration by magma in any reservoirs already present.
What's so funny Josh ?
@Russel, much. Two of the merrier.The paper studied Iceland, which as you may know straddles the mid Atlantic ridge and is very active. volcanoes even erupt under the ice despite it, causing jokulhlaups.. The land can move vertically 9cm/day in some places under the Vatnajokull glacier. It is impossible to disentangle tectonics from isostaric rebound, especially in Iceland at present.Funnier, Time magazine expressly extended this result to the world. Hawaiians like Obama must be frightened to death about what will happen when all the Hawaiian glaciers melt. Ditto the entire ring of fire. Josh's cartoon has it right. Mind blowingly bad paper, worse reporting. Quite a warmunist own goal.
Josh, you have made a fundamental error in your cartoon, the eruption is inverted.
Russell a few nghts ago I took 2 ice cubes from the freezer, and woke to news of an earth tremor near Winchester, about 20 miles away.
I now sleep under the kitchen table, with a cylinder of compressed air, 2 slabs of Kendal Mint cake, and a Mars Bar, fearful of a similar fate to Pompeii.
Climate change melts ice, precipitating isostatic rebound of unloaded crustRebound stresses unloaded rocks, facilitating surface penetration by magma in any reservoirs already present.What's so funny Josh?
Rebound stresses unloaded rocks, facilitating surface penetration by magma in any reservoirs already present.
What's so funny Josh?
Because "climate change" causes ice ice to form, creating glaciers and depressing the crust. How could you be so wrong?
The Sun has got his hat on
If the problem is a magazine writer's take on what some structural geologists wrote, why is the figure in a lab coat labeled ' Climate Scientist ' ?
Shakespeare used to include a fool in his plays to relieve the tension with inane remarks, giving other characters the chance to explain what was really going on in the world.
Another observation; Iceland is over a hot spot at the junction of 2 tectonic plates. The evidence indicates that the WHOLE of Iceland was formed by volcanic eruptions, over millions of years with highly varied concentrations of CO2. How did CO2 cause these?Year ~900. Krafla volcano erupts.Year ~920. Katla volcano eruption.Year 999 or 1000. Svínahraun lava field is created in a volcano eruption.Year ~1000. Katla volcano eruption.Year 1104. Hekla volcano erupts it’s first documented eruption in Iceland.Year 1151. Krýsuvík volcano erupts. Year 1158. Eruption in Hekla volcano.Year 1160 – 1180. Eruption on the Reykjanes Ridge. Two eruptions on the Reykjanes Ridge. Year 1179. Katla volcano eruption.
@RussellBecause the goofy folks that pretended to model Iceland geophysics are wannabe climate scientists.
Rud, whoever can you have in mind-- certainly not the wannbe tectonist lead author, at U. of Arizona or her icelandic vulcanologist colleague --
Graeme, please try reading the quatrenary geophysics literature before copying meaninless lists- I'd start with
A modelling insight into the Icelandic Last Glacial Maximum ice sheet
Alun Hubbarda, , , David Sugdena, Andrew Dugmorea, Hreggvidur Norddahlb, Halldór G. Péturssonc
A three-dimensional thermomechanical model is used to investigate the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) Icelandic ice sheet and the climate responsible for it . A series of sensitivity experiments reveal that Iceland is susceptible to the onset large-scale glaciation with only a 3 °C cooling perturbation relative to recent (1961–1990) climate. A 5 °C cooling perturbation is enough to force an ice sheet to beyond the present day coastline in virtually all sectors.
A suite of 15 experiments driven by a GRIP time-series for 15,000 years from a climatic optimum at 36 ka to 21 ka BP scaled with 5.0–15.0 °C maximum cooling perturbation are initiated in order to identify a best-fit LGM ice sheet configuration compatible with the available empirical evidence.
The optimum LGM model isolated requires an annual cooling of 10.0–12.5 °C relative to the recent climatology with over 50% precipitation suppression across the north and yields an extensive offshore ice sheet with an area of View the MathML source. Over-extension of ice extent across the northern shelf is addressed by the introduction of strong aridity across this region but otherwise the ice-sheet is well pinned to the continental shelf-break in remaining sectors which tends to decouple it from further climatic forcing.
The optimum LGM ice-sheet has a substantial proportion of its base grounded below sea-level and is dominated by basal sliding which activates extensive zones of fast flow. This results in a highly dynamic, low aspect ice sheet with a mean ice thickness of 940 m and a plateau elevation of ~2 km, breached by numerous nunataks and ice-free zones providing potential, but spatially limited and frigid, ecological refugia through the vicissitudes of the LGM.
What was the number before Time magazine added this correction at the bottom ?"An earlier version of this story misstated the annual rate of land rebound in the coming decade. It is 1.57 in."
Active volcanic systems in Iceland:
Reykjanes, Krísuvík, Keilir, Helgafell, Brennisteinsfjöll, Hengill, Hródmundartindur, Grímsnes, Geysir, Prestahnjúkur, Langjökull, Hofsjökull, Kerlingafjöll, Tungnafellsjökull, Vestmannaeyjar, Surtsey, Eyjafjallajökull, Katla, Tindfjöll, Hekla-Vatnafjöll, Torfajökull, Bláhnúkur, Raudufossafjöll, Bárdarbunga-Veidivötn, Grímsvötn, Gjálp, Kverkfjöll, Askja, Herdubreid, Fremrinámur, Krafla, Bláfjall, Theistareykir, Öræfajökull, Esjufjöll, Snæfell, Ljósufjöll, Helgrindur and Snæfellsjökull.
A couple of questions:
1) What is the probability that one or more of these active systems will erupt in the next few years?2) If Iceland's glaciers hadn't been retreating for the last 100 years what would the probability be?3) When one of these systems does erupt what are the chances some clown will claim with absolute certainty that it is 100% due to climate change?
TerryS Ocean acidification is driving conger eels to insanity, and they are tunneling through volcanic bed rock to escape. These tunnels are then enlarged by escaping sea fairy flatulence, which eats through rock, faster than any living rock eater. The resultant volcanic eruption, will involve a volcano, so unpronouncable, that no newsreader will manage it, for decades afterwards. Those that try, like the general public, will, mistakenly, be rushed to hospital, with symptoms of choking on toxic ash and fumes. Appearances can be similar.
Meanwhile aircraft will be grounded, if they are thought to have been near Iceland, or indeed any other shop selling frozen food, over concerns that shopping trolleys, won't fit in the overhead lockers, and will clutter up the runways if abandoned.
I didn't think the story was so funny... until Russell began to fume.
@BruteYou win. Impossible to top ' Russell fuming' ! Good gosh, that is funny. Highest regards.
A "climate scientist" is anyone who uses the words"climate change" in his published papers in order to stay on-side and get more funding.
If a subject has the word "science" in its title, that is a pretty good indication that it is not actually science.
Iceland's volcanoes have been erupting with greater intensity than now well before global warming was even dreamed of - e.g. Laki (1783), Askja (1875).
Still, I'm off to Scotland or Norway to see the volcanoes there - must be several given the amount those places are rebounding from ice melt.
Please can we stick to calling their scam Global warming ?
Do you have any idea what that abstract that you copied and pasted is actually saying RELEVENT to GLOBAL WARMING.
That an addition 1 part CO² : 10.000 makes the planet sooooo warm that that the glaciers are melting (which they aren't) sooooo fast that the rebound is causing massive volcanic activity which we haven't seen in the 100 years?
In fact, the last 100 years may be the quietist volcanic period since the end of the last glacial.
I think Russell was trying to blind us with science, assuming that no-one at this site would take a few moments to read the abstract that he quoted. I can't see how in any way his post addresses the topic. TerryS is completely right: Iceland wouldn't even exist, if not for volcanic events.
In folk memory, the Laki eruption of 1783 is the worst Icelandic volcanic eruption. It caused an immense lava flow, the considerable remnants of which carpet a large section of the country, but the worse impact was the emission of gases which devastated Icelandic agriculture and then that of Western Europe. Some say it contributed to the French Revolution of 1789.
The BBC's website has this to say:
"Laki's output of sulphur dioxide dwarfs the 1990 eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines, which is famous for halting global warming for several years. While that eruption produced 17 mega tonnes of sulphur dioxide, Laki was pumping the same amount out every three days at its peak, says ['Stephen Self, visiting professor of volcanology at the Open University']. He estimates Laki's power was over 100 times greater than the current eruption."
You have to love that throwaway line, "which is famous for halting global warming" (so global warming stopped in 1990, but not in 1998?). The "current eruption", of course, was that of Eyjafjallajokull, which prompted scientists to predict dire consequences, which, ermmm, didn't actually happen.
"What next, Anthropogenic sunshine?"
Good question, sir, good question. The sun gone quiet, hasn't it. And it's us ain't it.See it's like this, we didn't 'ave a problem with the sun before all this solar energy 'appened; before all these Chinese solar panels turned up - did we - eh? Did we? No, the fing is, it's all those solar panels, ain't it? Sucking all the energy out of the sun -- don't they? ¯I blame that bleedin' Cameron and all those posh sods putting up solar farms -- sucking the umph right out of the sun! Shouldn't be allowed -- should be a law or summing!¯I don't get it; it weren't like this when that nice Mr. Blair was in power...
I'm sure Russell is right on this. It's very likely that recent recession of Icelandic glaciers is caused by AGW, and that would be expected to have isostatic impacts which, in a volcanically active region like Iceland, would be likely to impact on volcanoes. Bill McGuire and others have been talking about this too.
@Owen Morgan: "I think Russell was trying to blind us with science". I think he'd have more chance with a pointed stick, if that's the best he can come up with.
The commenters seem bent on outdoing the Time hack who started this,; far better they should mutually a thought experiment involving a pressure cooker with a lid held down by a ten ton block of melting ice.-- the rate of melting fast or slow has little impact on the eventual outcome.
The disparity of geological time and the electoral cycle seems to favor idiocy as the ground state of politicized geophysical discourse - the epithet ' Catastrophic ' is as rare in the scientific literature onclimate change as it is compulsory in climate blogs such as this. As a point of departure for actually thinking about what AGW can do on a scale of generations, economically literate readers may wish to consider instead the analogy between radiative forcing and inflation , as it may help curb those seeking to exploit environmental concern as an excuse for regulation and social engineering.
If the political neutrality of scientific institutions is to be restored, respect for it must be taught by exaple.
@Russell. Feb 1, 2015 at 8.46 PM: You seem to have gone from fuming to a complete eruption. Did you actually read what you have posted before you pressed the submit button. Or were you relying on your spelling/grammar checker - in which case you need a new one, because the current one is f**ked
Thanks, Salopian, here is the filtered prose :
The commenters seem bent on outdoing the Time hack that started this. Better they should consider instead a thought experiment involving a pressure cooker with a lid held down by a ten ton block of melting ice-- the rate of melting, fast or slow has little impact on the eventual outcome.
The disparity of geological time and the electoral cycle seems to favor idiocy as the ground state of politicized geophysical discourse - the epithet ' Catastrophic ' is as rare in the scientific literature on climate change as it is compulsory in climate blogs such as this.
As a point of departure for actually thinking about what AGW can do on a scale of generations, economically literate readers may wish to consider instead the analogy between radiative forcing and inflation, as it may help curb those seeking to exploit environmental concern as an excuse for regulation and social engineering.
While the political neutrality of scientific intitutions must first exist in order to be respected, respect for it must be taught by example if it is to be restored— whatever our opinions as to the relevance or irrelevance of science to policy, none of us are entitled to our own evidence.
"the political neutrality of scientific intitutions "
Now you see why I am reluctant to use SpellCheck.
@Russell: "Thanks, Salopian, here is the filtered prose".
WTF, filtering, is by definition, a reduction in content, it does not matter whether this applies to liquids, solids, gases, light, sounds or words - it has to be a reduction, so how the heck can your 'filtered prose' be longer than your original comment - sorry sunshine, you've completely lost the plot.
Russell (Feb 1, 2015 at 8:46 PM): if global warming/climate change is not going to be “catastrophic” why need we be worried about it? Why should we be spending so much trying to “stop” climate change? (Which, if you analyse that with a reasonable rational mind, is a momentous display of human vanity! What next? Adjust the Sun?)
Radical Rodent: there you go using that epithet again-- should the exchequer let inflation run away before it even analyzes its plausible consequences ?
I’m sorry, Russell, but you are the first to have used that word on this thread, declaring it to be erroneous. I merely wanted to know why, if there is no significant risk with climate change – i.e., it is not likely to be “catastrophic”, and nations are NOT going to be drowned and deserts are NOT going to spread and forests are NOT going to burn and volcanoes are NOT going to blow us all up – should we be taking such extreme actions to try and prevent it (£Billion$ so far, rapidly approaching the £Trillion$)?
The alternative, of course, could be that you want it to be “catastrophic” (that’ll learn ’em, eh?), and try to hide that by NOT using the word (even though you have… oh, well).
"Ice age comes along, depositing mile thick slab of ice atop subducting continental margin.Weight of ice load deforms Earth's crust forcing strata under ice cap below sea level and/or down into mantleClimate change melts ice, precipitating isostatic rebound of unloaded crustRebound stresses unloaded rocks, facilitating surface penetration by magma in any reservoirs already present.What's so funny Josh ?"
What is so funny is Russell' total ignorance of geotectonics.
Iceland is not within thousands of kilometers of a subducting continental margin. It sits astride, and indeed is part of the exact opposite type of geoteconic feature called a spreading centre. In this case one located along the Mid Atlantic separation zone where Mid Ocean Ridge Basaltic Volcanism results in upwelling basaltic magma to erupt through fissure volcanoes , which in some cases are located below ice sheets. Some of these magmas are viscous enough to build up low angel stratovolcanoes such as Hecla as a result of differentiation in large magma chambers giving rise to more siliceous melt fractions which can result in more explosive volcanism with occasionally catastrophic but rather short term climatic consequences ( a few centuries of bitter cooling as happened at the 9.3 and 10.3 ky cooling events) - which may have been caused by Icelandic volcanism.
Radicalrodent's objection :" <I> Russell, but you are the first to have used that word on this thread,"
is somewhat puzzling as the word in question ' Catastrophic ' is the first word title of the post .
What part of synecdoche doesn't Geospeculator understand ?
The ice block on a pressure cooker analogy applies equally to continental margins , subduction zones , and rifts -- including the above water Icelandic volcanoes .
Before going into harmonic tremor Geospeculator shoud read what the Icelanders have to say about the matter in<I> Phil. Trans. R . Soc:
Climate effects on volcanism: influence on magmatic systems of loading and unloading from ice mass variations, with examples from Iceland
Freysteinn Sigmundsson, Virginie Pinel, Björn Lund, Fabien Albino, Carolina Pagli, Halldór Geirsson, Erik SturkellPublished 19 April 2010
Pressure influences both magma production and the failure of magma chambers. Changes in pressure interact with the local tectonic settings and can affect magmatic activity. Present-day reduction in ice load on subglacial volcanoes due to global warming is modifying pressure conditions in magmatic systems.
The large pulse in volcanic production at the end of the last glaciation in Iceland suggests a link between unloading and volcanism, and models of that process can help to evaluate future scenarios.
A viscoelastic model of glacio-isostatic adjustment that considers melt generation demonstrates how surface unloading may lead to a pulse in magmatic activity. Iceland’s ice caps have been thinning since 1890 and glacial rebound at rates exceeding 20 mm yr−1 is ongoing. Modelling predicts a significant amount of ‘additional’ magma generation under Iceland due to ice retreat. The unloading also influences stress conditions in shallow magma chambers, modifying their failure conditions in a manner that depends critically on ice retreat, the shape and depth of magma chambers as well as the compressibility of the magma.
An annual cycle of land elevation in Iceland, due to seasonal variation of ice mass, indicates an annual modulation of failure conditions in subglacial magma chambers.
read the reast at : DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0042
Russell... The conclusions of the paper you cite relate to the pulse of volcanism which occurred at the end of the last glacial maximum and bear no relationship to any possible anthropogenic cause. Moreover the authors clearly indicate that their thesis is hypothetical and speculative.
What the authors have written speaks for itself :
"An annual cycle of land elevation in Iceland, due to seasonal variation of ice mass, indicates an annual modulation of failure conditions in subglacial magma chambers."
Whatever the era, place or cause of the climate change sub specie aeternitatis, variation of ice mass modulates the load containing subglacial magma chambers , and fooling around with atmospheric radiative forcing risks knock-on effects on glaciology as well as albedo feedback.
Russell: good point; I had forgotten about the title. It still doesn’t change the argument – the warmists seem convinced that it will all end in tears, with nations drowning, burning, starving – and, now, being blown up! – or any combination of these (strangely, freezing did not appear to be an option – though seems to be the most prevalent, at present). If that is not a catastrophic conclusion, what is?
As for the paper you are discussing with Glebekinvara, my personal feelings are that, if the authors are saying that their work is hypothetical and speculative, then it probably is. Could it be that they have mooted this idea for further perusal? After all, that is the basis of a lot of science: make a guess; formulate a test; apply the test. If the results fit the guess, it was a good guess, and worthy of further study; if not, start again. Another point is that it relates only to a notoriously volcanic region; quite how this can be expanded to the rest of the world, particularly those volcanoes in tropical or sub-tropical regions, is not clear. I am sure most volcanologists will admit to not having enough information to draw any solid conclusions.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.