Study Links Rapid Ice Sheet Melting With Distant Volcanic Eruptions (upi.com)

schwit1 quotes UPI: New research suggests volcanic eruptions can trigger periods of rapid ice sheet melting... "Over a time span of 1,000 years, we found that volcanic eruptions generally correspond with enhanced ice sheet melting within a year or so," Francesco Muschitiello, a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a news release. The volcanoes of note weren't situated next-door, but thousands of miles from the ice sheet, a reminder of the unexpected global impacts of volcanic activity.

The new research -- detailed this week in the journal Nature Communications -- suggests ash ejected into the atmosphere by erupting volcanoes can be deposited thousands of miles away. When it's deposited on ice sheets, the dark particles cause the ice to absorb more thermal energy and accelerate melting... Some scientists have even suggested melting encouraged by volcanic eruptions could trigger even more eruptions, a positive feedback loop. As glaciers and ice sheets melt, pressure is relieved from the planet's crust, allowing magma to rise to the surface.

Comments

The problem with climate science

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with climate science is that the climate is exceptionally complex, and to believe you can accurately model it is absurd. There was an article in the journal Pete and Bogs that said that peteland was spreading. Pete absorbs large amounts of carbon and the article said that if it weren't for increased carbon output we'd be entering the next ice age. Do climate models take into account the growth in the areas of peteland? I expect not. Here we see another example of the complexity of the climate, where volcanic erruptions are having an impact on ice sheets thousands of miles away. There are likely countless other factors influencing the climate that these models are not accounting for.

As we know, in complex systems minor changes have major effects. It's there's one input you're not accounting for then the result can be completely invalid. Indeed, the climate models have been shown to be highly inaccurate, as their predictions have not matched with reality.

I'm not anti-climate change, and my major complaint is that it is impossible to get correct information from anywhere. The problem is made worse by the fact 100% of people who work in the field of climate science want climate change to be a reality, so first they come up with the conclusion, and then try to find evidence to back it up. That's not how science works.

The whole field has become so politicized that all we here is "the science is decided!" where "the science" is a series of models that are gross simplifications of the actual climate, that are often manipulated to give the desired result. While this remains the case, the field of climate science will never progress.

Re:The problem with climate science

[Anonymous Coward]

What's absurd is that people have to use Anonymous Coward on a tech/science site for fear of being labelled a DENIÈR. Any deviation from the church of Al Gore is punished with name calling and humiliation.

Re:The problem with climate science

[0123456]

"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. "

There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other.

But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.

So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'

The odd part is that their demand to reduce fossil fuel usage is exactly the same thing they demanded back when they were telling politicians they had to save us from the new Ice Age that was about to happen.

Odd, that, isn't it? It's almost as though eliminating fossil fuels is the goal, and 'Muh Science!' is just the means to justify it. But surely that can't be true?

Comparing a fully testable system to one that is i

[SuperKendall]

It is utterly insane to compare modeling a rocket, which is complex and all variables can be directly measured and tested in practice, with the climate where it is impossible to test anything - only to come up with models to try and explain what is happening.

Since as stated, the models have all been drastically wrong, the huge problem you face is WHAT is wrong about the models? You cannot change one aspect of the Earths climate twenty years ago to test. You can't even measure a specific subset of the Earth to get a more focused view because changes even very far removed can have impacts on any one region of the world, as moisture and upper air currents travel vast distances, and seasonal differences utterly swamp overall change.

I'll start believing climate science is a real science, when they start acting like scientists. Until then I'm a lot more prone to consider a physicists opinion on the matter, because at least they understand fundamental forces in a way climate scientists do not seem to.

Re:Lets pretend science is wrong

[0123456]

None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?

gomat

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T aNd Berkeley In any way related metadiscussions share, this news to deliver what,

Re:Entirely wrong, yet being proven never stops yo

[0123456]

Meanwhile, not one of the computer models matches reality.

This is a simple fact.