
Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet - Mz
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
======
tenkabuto
I get that the volcanoes could exacerbate climate change's effects, but how
much effect might these volcanoes have on climate change already?

The following suggests that volcano activity followed from their uncovering by
ice sheets, but might the causality of such be flipped?

> he pointed to one alarming trend: “The most volcanism that is going in the
> world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier
> covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland
> and Alaska.

> “Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top
> of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions’ volcanoes and they
> become more active.”

~~~
foobarbecue
The causality is bidirectional; it's a positive feedback. Does that answer
your question?

------
dlo
1) Turns out there are a bunch of volcanoes, 91, underneath the west Antarctic
ice sheet that we previously didn't know about. In fact:

(Excerpts are placed between square brackets.)

["We were amazed," Bingham said. "We had not expected to find anything like
that number. We have almost trebled the number of volcanoes known to exist in
west Antarctica. We also suspect there are even more on the bed of the sea
that lies under the Ross ice shelf, so that I think it is very likely this
region will turn out to be the densest region of volcanoes in the world,
greater even than east Africa, where mounts Nyiragongo, Kilimanjaro, Longonot
and all the other active volcanoes are concentrated."]

2) Furthermore, eruptions would cause the ice sheet to melt:

[“Anything that causes the melting of ice – which an eruption certainly would
– is likely to speed up the flow of ice into the sea.]

3) They could already be erupting and causing the ice to melt:

[“We just don’t know about how active these volcanoes have been in the past,”
Bingham said.]

4) Also, consider this quote:

[If one erupts, it could further destabilise some of the region’s ice sheets,
which have already been affected by global warming.]

I followed the link. The headline is:

[Although fracturing and surface melting on the Larsen C ice shelf might sound
like indicators of climate change, these processes are natural]

The article links to a source, another article in the same paper, that
actually contradicts the claim it is making. Another quote from the article:

[So, while ice fracturing and surface melting may sound like signs of climate
change in action in Antarctica, they are really part of the background against
which we must look for real change.]

------
Pxtl
So, Permian-Triassic exctintion, anyone?

~~~
SubiculumCode
Let us do more than hope not. The more I learn, the less stable I realize is
the earth.

~~~
mmjaa
In my opinion, we need simply to continue to build vessels to weather all we
can encounter, on this planet on others, i.e. yes please, sign me up for the
mother ship(s).

------
robbiep
Echoes of Red Mars, although it was volcanoes under the Greenland ice sheet
that did earth in then

~~~
wolfram74
Nope, Antartic ice shelf. Last chunk of Green Mars. The terrestrial panic it
caused let the martians have a successful blitzkrieg revolution.

~~~
Poc
What a nice trilogy, when I read it I had the feeling that there was really a
colony on Mars. I still have music which I listened at the time that trigger a
martian feeling !

------
yfuguvuvuvv
This story just keeps getting more alarming. When will someone do something to
save our species? Is that question too unsophisticated?

~~~
hyperdunc
No one person has that kind of power. Also, our species will be fine, but
civilization may not be.

~~~
m_mueller
> our species will be fine

People keep saying that, but I wouldn't be so sure. From an earlier comment of
mine (edited for clarity/formatting):

Most recent study of methane flux/storage in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf:
[1]

Arctic temperatures are estimated to rise 1.9x compared to global average: [2]

During Holocene Climate Optimum (the warmest period in human history) the
arctic is estimated to have been 4-6C warmer than baseline (yearly average):
[3]

That's not all that much. We're now already at 400ppm CO2, and recent
unmitigated projections to 2100 (538ppm) simulate an arctic yearly average of
~ plus 8C [4].

And that most probably doesn't take a positive methane feedback loop into
account. This is a significant gamble. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
boundary showed a global average warming of 5C, mostly from arctic methane _at
a time where there wasn 't even a large ice shelf_, so with significantly
lower capacity [5].

We can only guess what a global average temperature increase of 13C could do
to the ecosystem that's currently feeding 7B people.

[1]
[http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/2014...](http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451)

[2]
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/full](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/full)

[3]
[https://epic.awi.de/38441/1/Beierlein_2015_Holocene_page1.pd...](https://epic.awi.de/38441/1/Beierlein_2015_Holocene_page1.pdf)

[4] [http://climatenewsnetwork.net/arctic-is-set-to-
reach-13c-by-...](http://climatenewsnetwork.net/arctic-is-set-to-
reach-13c-by-2100/)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum)

~~~
tomw2005
I would argue that the species will be fine. If your definition of 'fine' is
the species surviving. If 99% of the human race were wiped out by Global
Warming we would still have 70 million humans on the planet (approx one UK).
That should be more than enough to repopulate given a long long time.

Obviously that would be a terrible disaster the likes of which our race has
never seen. 100 times the death toll of WW2 and would destroy pretty much all
our infrastructure etc as supply chains fail etc. This is something we should
strive to avoid at all costs but I do think the species would survive. We are
quite a hardy bunch actually.

~~~
hyperdunc
Yes, that's what I meant by "fine". A darker part of me even desires a quick
environmental cataclysm - but on balance I'd rather we colonised space pronto.

~~~
tomw2005
The backup planet strategy is one I approve of. Backup solar system would be
better.

~~~
windlessstorm
RAID 10 life

