Earth’s Ice Caps Exist Due to a Lucky Coincidence – And They Might Not Last

I came across a rather interesting article today.

https://scitechdaily.com/earths-ice-caps-exist-due-to-a-lucky-coincidence-and-they-might-not-last/

And if anybody wants to read the research paper itself, here is the link:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adm9798

 

I don't know if I'd say we're lucky, but it makes sense. Carbon dioxide levels are used to make inferences about the climate in the past. You would need to know rates carbon production and its subsequent sinking if you want to study the extent to which it drives climate change.

 

Antarctic ice has grown.
New Study: 2000 Km Of Antarctic Ice-Covered Coastline Has Grown Slightly Over Past 85 Years!
By P Gosselin on 2. March 2025

Forgotten aerial photos from 1937 have given researchers at the University of Copenhagen the most detailed picture of the ice evolution in East Antarctica to date.

The results of a comprehensive analysis: The ice has remained stable and even grown slightly over almost a century.

Hat-tip: Klimanachrichten

Photo: Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromsø

The area covers approximately 2000 kilometers of coastline and contains as much ice as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet.

Using hundreds of old aerial photographs dating back to 1937, combined with modern computer technology, the researchers from the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at the University of Copenhagen have tracked the evolution of glaciers in East Antarctica and have been able to determine whether the glaciers have retreated or advanced and whether they have thickened or thinned.

The study reveals that the ice has not only remained stable but grown slightly over the last 85 years, partly due to increasing snowfall.

“We constantly hear about climate change and new melt records, so it’s refreshing to observe an area of glaciers that has remained stable for almost a century,” says PhD student Mads Dømgaard, the study’s lead author.

Solid historical photographic record

Out of 2200 images photographed from seaplanes in 1937, 130 were selected for the analysis. The researchers combined the historical photos with modern satellite data to create 3D reconstructions of the glaciers. Moreover, the Norwegian aerial images were supplemented with 165 aerial images of the same glaciers from Australian surveys conducted between 1950 and 1974. This allowed the researchers to examine the evolution of the glaciers over different periods and calculate historical ice flow speeds for selected glaciers.

Compared to modern data, the ice flow speeds are unchanged, the researchers found. While some glaciers have thinned over shorter intermediate periods of 10-20 years, they have remained stable or grown slightly in the long term, indicating a system in balance.

 

Yet no one considers
geothermal influences
both recorded in the Antarctic
and Arctic areas.

 

Yep! They do. Just because YOU have not seen the papers and discussions does not mean they do not exist

 

Oh! Gosselin! Our favourite denier! Has he managed to get even a basic science degree yet?

 

Well, first of all you very much do have to consider one, the other can be dismissed. As the Arctic is an ocean, vulcanism there will have the same affect as vulcanism in the Pacific Ocean. In other words, minimal.

Under the sea there, the most noteworthy location is the Gakkel Ridge, a location of sea floor spreading between the North American and Eurasian plates. And while volcanically active as all such ridges, it is almost entirely passive. The only known "eruption" of note was likely the supervolcano eruption at the Gakkel Ridge Caldera around 1.1 mya. It is unique in that it is the only known underwater supervolcano, but with an estimated VEI of 8, it compares roughly with the Yellowstone eruption 600 kya.

But even lesser, as the only evidence it even happened is entirely under a kilometer under the ocean. It likely did create a tsunami, but with the multiple ice ages since then the size and impact is impossible to tell. The multiple ice ages in the last million years have completely erased any evidence that might have been left.

But how much affect it actually has under the Antarctic, that can only be guessed at right now. There is simply not enough hard evidence. However, this does go a long ways towards possibly explaining some of the things that have puzzled scientists for decades. Like why some parts of the ice sheet are moving significantly faster than others. Most seem to move at a rate of around a meter or so a year. But others are damned near "supersonic" in comparison, traveling in excess of 1 kilometer a year. And much of the studies into this are considering the reason for this to be possibly driven by vulcanism and other thermal events occurring under the ice sheet.

Glaciovulcanism is a very new science, around 25 years old and relatively few active in it at this time.

 

Any science to post about 'the ice'?

You seemed a little stumped to come up with a relevant and informed reply last time I posted a heterogeneous number of papers on ice sheets, ice shelves and sea ice - together with the various measurement techniques and data.

 

Dishonesty is unbecoming.
More information: Mads Dømgaard et al, Early aerial expedition photos reveal 85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica, Nature Communications (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-48886-x

Journal information: Nature Communications

 

Yes.
More information: Mads Dømgaard et al, Early aerial expedition photos reveal 85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica, Nature Communications (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-48886-x

Journal information: Nature Communications

 

Lols! Didn’t read it did you?.

 

Every word, actually.

 

r

I'll read it through tomorrow. If @Bowerbird hasn't already.

 

Lols cherry picked to a fare thee well as usual. Firstly it was based on photos from as far back as the 1930s second it focussed only on certain regions and not all of those showed stability

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48886-x

 

I was going to post this. Studying anything under miles of ice isn't going to be easy, but we're aware of subglacial lakes in Antarctica which remain liquid because of the pressure from the ice. Even then, the temperature of the water is warmer than expected. So scientists think there's a potential source of geothermal energy "warming" the lake.

 

And yet it passed muster at Nature.

 

There are a great many things at play here, and the research is being done primarily by geologists and it is a very new field.

However, as is common for geologists of the varying specific areas of science, I do like that they do not simply take whatever they have discovered, and simply chalk up everything else as "It's caused by humans". Increasingly over the past decade or so I have seen that replace any actual hard research into things that are not yet explained.

More earthquakes, humans. Less earthquakes, humans. More volcanoes, humans. Increased surface rise, humans. Increased surface depression, humans. It seems like every other time I look at some kind of study by non-geologists into geological topics, the first cause is always humans.

I'm sure that if the Yellowstone Caldera was to erupt next week, a great many would automatically blame it on humans.

 

And exactly how much evidence in this study was discarded because it did not agree with the end results?

You see, that is a key part of what "cherry picking" actually is. The researchers need to purposefully discard significant amounts of data because they do not fit what they want to see, and only concentrate on the data that does agree with their expected findings.

So how about instead of simply screaming "cherry picked" as you always do, provide some actual evidence that was done?

 

The "it's our fault" crowd don't have the education necessary to understand the ongoings in our world. It's just in fashion to say humans are responsible.

 

The research is fine and I suggest you read it and NOT the misinterpretation you posted

 

Lols! Lols! Lols! So parochial!

 

I already told you I read it, and the NTZ summary is entirely consistent with the paper. That's why NTZ always links the research from which they post. I'm afraid you're just in denial.
BTW, are you going to contribute to paying off Michael Mann's $500,000 legal bill?

 

Thank you for this helpful article but I do believe that the growth of the Antarctic Ice Sheets must be something close to the simple formula of:

Amount of H2O cracking and sliding off the land based Greenland Ice Sheets PLUS the Amount of H20 melting off the world's mountainous glaciers plus the amount of H2O cracking and sliding off the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is below sea level at its base = THE AMOUNT OF H20 BEING ADDED TO ANTARCTICA [WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE W.A.I.S]????

I could be wrong... I am no climatologist..... but other than for an increase in ocean levels or atmospheric H2O ..... H2O that is melting off the LAND BASED Greenland Ice Sheet and the land based Glaciers must go somewhere?!

So far we are not really replenishing the world's depleted underground water aquifers that have been pumped in nations like Libya and Algeria and Israel to turn deserts green.

 

I'm not sure what is your point.

 

I wouldn't say its 'lucky' that we're trying to advance human civilization while so much of the planet is uninhabitable due to being frozen ...but its possible human civilization is a direct result of human adaptation to cold environment, so could be lucky indeed.

Either way, I support any and all efforts to thaw the planet.

...and not just because I wanna know whats hiding under the ice in Antarctica... but also because of that!