Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Earth's Heat Adds To Climate Change To Melt Greenland Ice

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359

    Earth's Heat Adds To Climate Change To Melt Greenland Ice

    This kind of makes me wonder how much(if any) of the greenland melting is due to co2.

    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ea...d_Ice_999.html

    Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice. They have found at least one "hotspot" in the northeast corner of Greenland -- just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered.
    The researchers don't yet know how warm the hotspot is. But if it is warm enough to melt the ice above it even a little, it could be lubricating the base of the ice sheet and enabling the ice to slide more rapidly out to sea.

    "The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change," said Ralph von Frese, leader of the project and a professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. "However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts, too.

    "Crustal heat flow is still one of the unknowns -- and it's a fairly significant one, according to our preliminary results."

    Timothy Leftwich, von Frese's former student and now a postdoctoral engineer at the Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets at the University of Kansas, presented the study's early results on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

    von Frese's team combined gravity measurements of the area taken by a Naval Research Laboratory aircraft with airborne radar measurements taken by research partners at the University of Kansas. The combined map revealed changes in mass beneath the Earth's crust, and the topography of the crust where it meets the ice sheet.

    Below the crust is the mantle, the partially molten rocky layer that surrounds the Earth's core. The crust varies in thickness, but is usually tens of miles thick. Even so, the mantle is so hot that temperatures just a few miles deep in the crust reach hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit, von Frese explained.

    "Where the crust is thicker, things are cooler, and where it's thinner, things are warmer. And under a big place like Greenland or Antarctica , natural variations in the crust will make some parts of the ice sheet warmer than others," he said.

    The ice thickness, the temperature at the base of the ice, and ground topography all contribute to the forming of an ice stream -- a river of ice that flows within a larger ice sheet. In recent years, Greenland ice streams have been carrying ice out to sea faster, and ice cover on the island has been diminishing.

    Once the ice reaches the sea, it melts, and global sea levels rise.

    "The complete melting of these continental ice sheets would put much of Florida, as well as New Orleans, New York City and other important coastal population centers, under water," von Frese said.

    The ice sheet in northeast Greenland is especially worrisome to scientists. It had no known ice streams until 1991, when satellites spied one for the first time. Dubbed the Northeastern Greenland Ice Stream, it carries ice nearly 400 miles, from the deepest interior of the island out to the Greenland Sea.

    "Ice streams have to have some reason for being there. And it's pretty surprising to suddenly see one in the middle of an ice sheet," von Frese said.

    The newly discovered hotspot is just below the ice stream, and could have caused it to form, the researchers concluded. But what caused the hotspot to form?

    "It could be that there's a volcano down there," he said. "But we think it's probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice."

    Collaborator Kees van der Veen began working on the project when he was a visiting associate professor of geological sciences and research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State. He is now at the University of Kansas.

    "Recent observations indicate that the Greenland Ice Sheet is much more active than we ever believed," van der Veen said. "There have been rapid changes in outlet glaciers, for example. Such behavior is critically linked to conditions at the ice bed. Geothermal heat is an important factor, but until now, our models have not included spatial variations in heat, such as this hotspot.

    "Our map is the first attempt at quantifying spatial variations in geo-heat under Greenland -- and it explains why the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream is where it is," van der Veen added.

    To measure actual temperatures beneath the ice, scientists must drill boreholes down to the base of the ice sheet-- a mile or more below the ice surface. The effort and expense make such measurements few and far between, especially in remote areas of northeast Greenland.

    For now, the researchers are combining theories of how heat flows through the mantle and crust with the gravity and radar data, to understand how the hotspot is influencing the ice.

    Once they finish searching the rest of Greenland for other hotspots, they hope to turn their attention to Antarctica.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    the hotspots must be mankinds fault..........

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    This kind of makes me wonder how much(if any) of the greenland melting is due to co2.

    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ea...d_Ice_999.html
    Karn, are u really that easy to convince one way or another?

    Which reminds me, U won a lottery.. but first u need to send me 50,000$ to cover for the super duper UPS package.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooks View Post
    Karn, are u really that easy to convince one way or another?

    Which reminds me, U won a lottery.. but first u need to send me 50,000$ to cover for the super duper UPS package.
    There is so much information on each side of the line, and with each being backed by credible sources, how can you not be convinced one way or the other? I really have not made my own determination yet, but I also hold no credentials by which to judge this, so we must take our information from those who do. I am not completely convinced that global warming is being caused by the emission of greenhouse gases.

    Regardless of if they are or not. It would be stupid and irresponsible to not take steps to reduce such emissions and have a cleaner Earth. There should be no reason why anyone would be against such things. Global warming shouldn't be the only motivation to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, what is wrong with a cleaner planet? Cost should NEVER be a factor in cleaning up our planet a.k.a our home. Can anyone present a reasonable argument as to why we should not act to reduce pollution, regardless of whether or not it is causing global warming?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooks View Post
    Karn, are u really that easy to convince one way or another?

    Which reminds me, U won a lottery.. but first u need to send me 50,000$ to cover for the super duper UPS package.
    And I guess you have it all figured out?

    There are scientists I respect alot that say the entire methodology climat scientists use is flawed. There are very respected chemists and chemical physicists that say the ice core co2 measurements are crap.

    There are mathematicians and physicists that say the climate models are flawed because they basicly only model the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and the ocean but can not take into account fundamental things like plant life, cloud formation, dust ect. All that is treated as free parameters that can be fitted to historic data.

    Offcourse there are also scientists I respect that tell me the science is solid and that the objections are bs. I have never myself looked into the ways to measurement co2 or how the climate models are constructed so Im on the fence about the whole AGW thing. Taking a stance without knowing the science is pointless.

    But I do know that the "consensus" argument is total bullshit. It seems true that most climate scientists agree that AGW is happening, the harshest critique however comes from scientist outside of the climate field, mostly chemists and physicists.

    This article that I posted shows that claims that greenland is melting because of co2 might not be the whole picture and is a example of a factor that the climate scientists have not considered!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    There is so much information on each side of the line, and with each being backed by credible sources, how can you not be convinced one way or the other? I really have not made my own determination yet, but I also hold no credentials by which to judge this, so we must take our information from those who do. I am not completely convinced that global warming is being caused by the emission of greenhouse gases.

    Regardless of if they are or not. It would be stupid and irresponsible to not take steps to reduce such emissions and have a cleaner Earth. There should be no reason why anyone would be against such things. Global warming shouldn't be the only motivation to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, what is wrong with a cleaner planet? Cost should NEVER be a factor in cleaning up our planet a.k.a our home. Can anyone present a reasonable argument as to why we should not act to reduce pollution, regardless of whether or not it is causing global warming?
    Well said bro, the only argument I need to cut polution is that 500 000 people die each year because of coal and those deaths are utterly unnessecary because we have all the technology we need to replace filthy coal.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Front toward enemy
    Posts
    6,265
    When I first started reading that article my first thought was "volcano" which the article goes on to say could be the problem, if that's the case there really isn't much that can be done about this.

    As for the whole Global Warming thing, well Global Warming is a natural occurance that has happened many times on this world, whether we are here or not. However I do believe we are probably not helping matters and only exasperate the problem and that the whole planet really needs to work together to minimise CO2 emmisions. The recent BALI meeting was interesting, however many countries feel that the new consensus would be hard on economy, where as some countries like New Zealand and Finland want to be "Climate Neutral" which comes across as very selfish to me. Im glad to see though that the U.S. begrudgingly has agreed to help in some way.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •