gmrocket wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:35 pm
Your coming around, slowly.
At least you admit he did some fancy double talking
It's a fresh discovery, let's just wait and see.
do some real research....is that ok with you? Before dismissing it...or is that not the narrative?
No, it's not fancy double talk. He knows it's not the major contributor for the reasons I outlined, which are in the actual report (provided here again at the end of this post for clarity). When the "layperson" only reads the article, and doesn't do their due diligence, they have a completely incorrect impression of what is being said, they invent their own (false) pretense, and consequently, they reach a false conclusion. Amazingly, that false conclusion based on ignorance and misunderstanding aligns with their political stance. Weird huh?
This is how the scientists know the bulk contributor to the melting is the heat from the volcano (posted again for clarity):
From the actual journal published scientific report (this is how he knows it's not the bulk contributor, and why only using articles to make a point is a flawed methodology):
"Based on the observed 3He excesses, the mantle-derived heat at the front of the ice shelf cavity is 32 ± 12 J kg−1 of seawater. This excess heat is small compared to the heat content of CDW20 (ca. 12 kJ kg−1), demonstrating that volcanic heat does not contribute significantly to the glacial melt observed in the ocean at the front of the ice shelf.
The effect is undetermined
, but it can't possibly be the bulk based on the total heat contribution from the volcano being so minuscule. It isn't physically possible based on the amount of heat the volcano is providing, and the amount of heat the Circumpolar Deep Water contains, which is around 200-400 times as much as the volcanic heat is contributing. How could it be the majority contributor if the heat is only 0.005-0.0025 of the heat present?