attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:28 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:09 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:35 pm
Ya, it's a plausible theory.
Wild?? ..as in irrational?
it's ridiculous, comapring the mega forces of volcanos with a little weight of ice which only rests on a tiny bit of land in antartica, espacialy when most loss of icebrugs happens over the sea and not land.
The weight of ice in Antarctica is not little - over 2 miles thick. Sure the volcano has mega forces - but these are contained by rock AND the sheer weight of the ice - disturb the ice, the result would be a volcano kicking off a lot sooner and more frequently that would have been the case.
Not even got your facts right. It is maximum 2 km thick. which precisely 0.031% the radius of the earth, and with a significantly lower density of rock supporting it. It's like putting a foot deep chopping board on a boiling pan and expecting an icecube on the board to stop it boiling over.
The theory that you have gotten third hand from the Interweeb, is based on the assumption that there are more volcanic eruptions now than in the past. and that there were less in the early holocene.
THere is a massive problem with this due to partial evidence.
THis is typical "hockey stick thinking", in that modern evidence is always tending to give bgger results than could be possibly available to the fossil record.
Let me give you a more simple example. IN the 1950 the estimate of the Roman population was small, extrapolated from the available evidence which posited x number of villas in the periphery of the known ROman towns across Britian.
Can you think why after the 1960s, the estimate for the Roman population rocketed?
It is because we started to build motorways the length and bredth of the country. This coupled with a legal obligation to notify about any evidence of archeology meant that the apparent Roman population tripled.
With volcanoes we are talking about significant time persiod in which evidence al ALL minor quakes can be thourouhly wiped out and sequences of volcanoes over thousands of year can appear in the fossil record as single events.
THe difference today is the for the first time in history every single seismic event is meticulously recorded, whereas in the past much if this went unnoticed ar at least unreported.
Here's another way of looking at it.
The number of reported instances of volcanic activity in the last thousand years almost exacly matches the growth in earth's population.
Do not run away with the idea that people cause earthquales - I know you love to jump to conclusions.
No, it means that the REPORTING of volcanoes and earthquakes is increased because there are more people involved. It does NOT mean there was more volcanic activity. IN any event APPARENT volcanic activity has been on the increase long before GW was a thing.
There is real hard cash out there in the world of science to add the phrase "with reference to Global Warming" to research proposals and without it you do not get access to funding streams, this has caused a slew of dubious speculations concerning GW.