Ice Weight Removed During Icemelt

[numbersrule]

Is it possible that as the polar ice melts, the reduced weight may impact on tectonic activity?

Might this mean that the recent repeated 3km long fissures emitting lava in Iceland are a precursor for prolonged and increased volcanic activity?

This might be what the scientists mean when they talk of a tipping point for climate change, particularly as volcanic carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

 

[fisicx]

Unlikely. The polar ice cap floats on the sea so doesn’t really affect the North Atlantic Ridge.

 

[numbersrule]

When I said polar ice melting I was referring to the polar region, which in the north extends to the Arctic Circle.

There are several million square kilometres of land within the Arctic Circle distributed amongst several countries.

So it's not as unlikely as you might think.

The human species has lived in a finely balanced equilibrium for thousands of years enabling us to develop like we have. However, the last 200 years have changed all that.

When things change slowly over human lifetimes, it masks the urgency of our situation. People are carrying on regardless and oblivious to oblivion.

 

[NickGrogan]

How much has the ice reduced?

Not melted and refrozen, not melted in one place and fallen as snow in another, but actually melted?

What is this as a percentage of the total ice?

 

[fisicx]

Tectonic activity begins below the crust as magma rises and pushes the plates apart. On the other side of the plate subduction takes places (and is why we have volcanoes).

The weight of water (solid or liquid) doesn’t affect plate tectonics.

 

[Jeff FV]

Two quick thoughts on an ironically frosty morning:

1. The total mass will not change (but may be redistributed) as the melted ice becomes liquid water it still has the same mass
2. Is there any evidence of the reverse (build up of mass on area) having an effect? Major conurbations did not always exist, the mass on the land below, say, London must now be significant, when it would have been zero 2000 years ago.

I am no geologist, but my guess would be whilst changing landmass my have localised impact, i suspect it would not be enough to impact techtonic plates.

But an interesting question to ponder

 

[NickGrogan]

3km long fissures emitting lava in Iceland

There is very little ice in Iceland

 

[numbersrule]

There is very little ice in Iceland

Yes, because Iceland has been losing on average 4 billion tonnes of ice every year for the last 130 years.

Future generations of Icelanders will puzzle over why Iceland was ever called Iceland because soon there won't be any ice left.

Particularly when there is voluminous lava emanating from 3km long fissures, which is another separate aspect of the tipping point scenario referred to earlier.

 

[numbersrule]

Two quick thoughts on an ironically frosty morning:

1. The total mass will not change (but may be redistributed) as the melted ice becomes liquid water it still has the same mass
2. Is there any evidence of the reverse (build up of mass on area) having an effect? Major conurbations did not always exist, the mass on the land below, say, London must now be significant, when it would have been zero 2000 years ago.

I am no geologist, but my guess would be whilst changing landmass my have localised impact, i suspect it would not be enough to impact techtonic plates.

But an interesting question to ponder

Yes, Jeff FV, it is the redistribution of weight from land to oceans that needs to be considered.

Consider the difference between the polar regions 'fully' covered in ice of 200 years ago compared with polar regions that might have no ice in the not too distant future. I say fully, but obviously that is in terms of the very recent geological past, and in geological terms 200 years is almost instantaneous.

We may be living through the beginnings of cataclysmic change.

 

[fisicx]

We may be living through the beginnings of cataclysmic change.

That may be so. But not from tectonic activity.

 

[NickGrogan]

Yes, because Iceland has been losing on average 4 billion tonnes of ice every year for the last 130 years.

Iceland hasn't been covered in ice since the last ice age - when the UK was covered as well.

Its not called Iceland because its was covered in ice.

 

[numbersrule]

Iceland hasn't been covered in ice since the last ice age - when the UK was covered as well.

Its not called Iceland because its was covered in ice.

Hi Nick

I do not dispute the above statements. But this is missing the point I am trying to make.

I fully appreciate there may be a disconnect between the ice thickness and extent of the last main glaciation 20,000 years ago, and the current 'climate change' changes of 'today' ie last 200 years.

But that does not alter the observation that present day changes may be approaching a tipping point.

There have been seven effusive eruptions in the last year, which is beginning to seem unusual. Time will tell, and activity may settle down again. However, if effusive activity continues, or increases this may be a symptom of the changes we are all observing in our finely balanced planet.

 

[NickGrogan]

Assuming that activity is increasing in Iceland, does it matter?

 

[numbersrule]

Sorry for delay. I was distracted by work for a while. But the LA Fires have redirected my attention.

Yes, Nick, it does matter that tectonic activity is increasing in Iceland because it might be a symptom of planetary distress. Mother Earth is creaking at the seams, whilst LA Burns.

 

[fisicx]

Mother Earth is creaking at the seams, whilst LA Burns.

Please do your research. Tectonic activity is always variable. It’s been so since records began. The earth is not creaking at the seams.

 

[NickGrogan]

Sorry for delay. I was distracted by work for a while. But the LA Fires have redirected my attention.

Yes, Nick, it does matter that tectonic activity is increasing in Iceland because it might be a symptom of planetary distress. Mother Earth is creaking at the seams, whilst LA Burns.

The LA fires are all arson or accidents caused by lack of maintenance, so not sure what that has to do with anything. Draining reservoirs when you know that the fire season is coming is also probably not a great plan.

Tectonic activity isn't increasing, there is no "planetary distress".

Perhaps you should send time on some different websites, the ones you're on now are not doing you any good, based on what you're writing.

 

[numbersrule]

More volcanic rumblings in Iceland in last few days.

 

[fisicx]

Have you ever heard of the Mid Atlantic Ridge? And how Iceland is plonked right on top of it? Do you even know how volcanoes work?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Iceland_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_Fig16.gif

 

[NickGrogan]

Have you ever heard of the Mid Atlantic Ridge? And how Iceland is plonked right on top of it? Do you even know how volcanoes work?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Iceland_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_Fig16.gif

Don't go trying to confuse people with facts.

It's all global warming/Trump

 

[numbersrule]

I am well aware of the Mid Atlantic Ridge. I have worked in a Geoscience job role for over 39 years.

Over the last 10,000 years there have typically been one volcanic eruption in Iceland every 4 or 5 years.
( excluding subsea off-shore instances )

Since December 2023 there have now been 11 fissure eruptions in the Grindavik area.

 

[fisicx]

Statistically insignificant.