Magma may be melting ice in Greenland

[jasons2k]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22246005/

Interesting piece of the puzzle, that's for sure.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Sounds likely. Hell the last 3-5 years the land glaciers away from the ocean has been growing. 90 percent of the major ice sheet with the Antarctic have been growing.

[HURAKAN]

Are there any lava fields in Greenland? Well, in the parts that are not covered by ice?

Is this "hot spot" new? If not, why there is no record of an eruption?

After all the question, it's a possible explanation.

[terstorm1012]

Greenland is not on a plate boundary, however, it may be on top of a failed rift/triple junction.

Hotspots don't just pop up. It's probably been there for as long as the failed rift has existed.

While it's a good hypothesis, one hotspot wouldn't explain the melting all over Coastal Greenland. Temperature and climate shifts would. Like Jasons said, it's an interesting piece of the puzzle to be added to all of the puzzle.

Sounds likely. Hell the last 3-5 years the land glaciers away from the ocean has been growing. 90 percent of the major ice sheet with the Antarctic have been growing.

matt, do you have a link?

[HURAKAN]

I think they got confused when someone in Greenland told them that there was a "hot spot" in town?

I'm kind of skeptic with this hypothesis.

By the way, are there any earthquakes in Greenland that can be related to the movement of magma?

[terstorm1012]

I'm not skeptical of the hot spot existing. There are hotspots all over planet Earth, some more infamous then others. There's one under Germany in fact, bet you didn't know that!
I'm skeptical of any claim that the only reason ice is melting is due to a hotspot under a corner of Greenland. Sorry matt

(I'm also skeptical of claims that the changes now fall out of the realm of natural variability, given what I know about paleoclimate and the climate shifts early on in the 20th Century. That's not to say I'm a total anthropogenic skeptic, I'm not, but when I see claims I expect them backed up with real science, thanks. That goes for both AGW believers and AGW skeptics. Far too few people on this board and other boards do that, and the whole debate becomes emotional and illogical.)

As for the magma and earthquakes, go to the USGS's site and put in lat/long for Greenland and earthquakes. It would appear that most of Greenland is aseismic except along the coasts and is largely the result of post glacial rebound, and the largest earthquake in the record was the one of July 11, 1987
http://www.bssaonline.org/cgi/content/a ... /87/4/1058
Incidentially, it was off of Northeast Greenland, which is where the hotspot is located according to the research.

[JonathanBelles]

Iceland, dont quote me on this, but I believe it is volcanic, and I know for a fact it has problems with earthquakes. I would not be surprised if there was a hotspot in the arctics. Hot spots can just pop up over time. The Earth just needs extra heat to melt and push magma up to the surface.

I agree with the statements that one hot spot will not melt all of coastal Greenland, hot spots are very local.

[terstorm1012]

Iceland, dont quote me on this, but I believe it is volcanic, and I know for a fact it has problems with earthquakes. I would not be surprised if there was a hotspot in the arctics. Hot spots can just pop up over time. The Earth just needs extra heat to melt and push magma up to the surface.

I agree with the statements that one hot spot will not melt all of coastal Greenland, hot spots are very local.

Iceland sits on top of where the Atlantic seafloor is spreading apart, essentially, it's on the plate boundary which is both good and bad for Iceland (good, because they generate most if not all of their energy through geothermal) and bad because of volcanoes and earthquakes and stuff.

[curtadams]

The hotspot is in just one small area of Greenland. It has very little to do with overall ice melting there.

[Ptarmigan]

Interesting. Greenland should be called Iceland, while Iceland should be called Greenland.

[MGC]

Will the Vikings be able to grow crops there again like they did 1000 years ago? Greenland was way warmer then than today. Why?.......MGC

[terstorm1012]

Actually, ice core analysis indicates southern Greenland's climate where the Vikings settled was similar to, but probably slightly warmer, to todays climate. Not way way warmer. It was still mostly covered with an ice cap, but the only difference is that, having never been inhabited, it had trees. The Vikings removed almost all of the existing tree cover ,grew most of the same things they grew in Norway (for some reason they would not eat fish, we know this because fish bones were never found in the 'garbage dumps' of the Viking settlements and this is a big reason they all starved to death) and due to the latitude and the Little Ice Age they are only now beginning to come back. However when they removed the trees, they ruined their land, and as the climate got colder they couldn't grow anything, so they ate their animals. Then they ate seals, but refused to eat fish. Then they all starved and the colony died. It's highly unlikely they merged with the Inuit in any large numbers.

They did the same in Iceland, and only now are the trees beginning to come back in Iceland too.

Ice core analysis also indicates that the ice cap on Greenland has been there since at least the Eemian (130,000+ years ago) which is why I doubt it'll melt completely during the current warm period (whatever combination of people and natural variability is causing such)


(most of the above info comes from several chapters of a book titled "Collaspe" by Jared Diamond. I haven't a clue what his beliefs on global warming are.)