Antarctic Peninsula Greening Likely Subglacial Heat, Not ‘Climate Change’
A recently released research study concluded that several small, scattered areas in the northern portion of the Antarctic Peninsula have lost all their glacial ice from 1986 through 2021
This ice loss exposed subglacial rock and soil layers, providing an environment where green vegetation has begun to grow (Figure 1 below) (see here and here).
Based on this data, the study’s authors concluded that this melting and greening process is further evidence of ‘climate change’ negatively impacting many aspects of the planet.
However, the study’s authors failed to incorporate significant amounts of relevant atmospheric and geological information into their analysis.
By including this data, it becomes clear that heat emitted from a molten lava accumulation beneath West Antarctica, rather than climate change, likely caused the “green” areas (Figure 1 below).
The following evidence supports this assertion.
Atmospheric Information
Figure 1 shows Antarctica’s fifty-year average surface temperature, compiled from data gathered between 1957 and 2027 by Dr. Eric Stieg (see here).
Researchers measure the surface temperature approximately 20 feet above the Earth’s land, glacial ice, and ocean water—in this case, 20 feet above the top of the glacial ice sheet.
The validity of Figure 1 sparked debate for many years because it did not align with a key tenet of climate change theory that global atmospheric temperature is uniform across the Earth’s atmosphere.
However, Figure 1 reveals two distinct surface temperature zones across Antarctica.
The study also reported that the atmospheric temperature of the Antarctic Peninsula rose by 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit from 1950 to 2024, which equals 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit per year.
In comparison, Earth’s atmospheric temperature has risen by 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit per year since 1880. Therefore, the claim that “vegetation is spreading at an alarming rate in a place where temperatures are soaring” lacks validity.
The formation of these two distinct surface temperature zones resulted from the 3,000-mile-long, 500-mile-wide, and 18-mile-deep West Antarctic Rift Fault System.
To address how heat from the subglacial rock layer rises upward through the overlying ice without melting it completely, consider the process of gradual melting.
As the heat begins to melt the glacial ice, it generates vertical fractures and micro-fractures. These fractures allow the heat to rise upward and release into the lower 20 feet of the atmosphere.
Geological Information – South Shetland Islands
The South Shetland Islands Volcanic Complex is a 450-mile-long and 50-mile-wide chain of volcanically active islands that parallels the Antarctic Peninsula (Figure 2).
The chain contains nine semi-active volcanoes, one frequently erupting volcano, and an extremely active ocean-floor volcano situated atop a massive molten lava chamber that is rising toward the surface.
When the upward movement of the lava chamber accelerates, it shakes the solid rock layers above, generating earthquakes.
Between August and November of 2020, the fault that formed the South Shetland Islands and a northwest-oriented fault connected to the South Shetland Fault experienced 85,000 earthquakes (Figure 4).
These earthquakes resulted from the sudden uprising of a massive accumulation of molten lava from deep within the Earth. The point where these earthquakes converge is an ocean-floor volcano called ORCA.
The three-mile-wide Deception Island caldera-type volcano and its five smaller volcanoes have erupted nine times in the modern era: 1800, 1827, 1899, 1912, 1969, 1970, 1972, and 1987 (see Figure 3).
This volcano is located at the southern end of the South Shetland Islands. Although it is not currently erupting, it continues to emit substantial amounts of heat into the ocean bay. This two-mile-wide circular bay formed when a supervolcanic eruption blew the volcano’s top off.
Larsen Volcanic Plateau
The Larsen Volcanic Plateau (see here) is located south of the Deception Island Volcano. This plateau spans an area of 50 miles long and 10 miles wide and is home to 16 small active volcanoes, one shown in Figure 4.
None of the 16 small volcanoes have glacial ice covering them. They have been volcanically active over the past 125 years, as evidenced by sightings of fresh black volcanic ash on top of white glacial ice by early explorers.
Reports from a Chilean university noted black volcanic ash surrounding some of the volcanoes during a flyover, along with observations of a volcanic eruption on the ocean floor off the coast of the Larsen Plateau and an unusual melting pattern of sea ice present on all sides of the plateau (see here).
Not Enough Data to Support the Study’s Conclusions
To establish the validity of a scientific study’s conclusions, researchers must gather sufficient data and information that instills confidence in the reasonableness of those conclusions. This requirement is not met in the Antarctic Climate Change “Greening” study.
Here are the numbers:
The study states that the area of “Greening” increased by five square miles from 1986 to 2021. The Antarctic continent covers 5,500,000 square miles, and the increase in the ‘green’ area represents just 0.00001 percent of its glacial ice sheet.
This minor change does not provide enough evidence to confidently assert that the so-called climate change-induced greening will significantly impact the melting of Antarctica’s glacial ice sheet.
The authors also claim that the atmospheric temperature of the northern part of West Antarctica increased by 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 74 years, which they describe as extremely anomalous.
However, this increase averages only 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per year. From 1880 to 2021, the Earth’s atmospheric temperature rose by 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit per year.
Summary
A just-released study concluded that the rapid increase in atmospheric temperatures is from heat emitted by human activities. This increase supposedly facilitates the rapid melting of Antarctica’s entire ice sheet, including the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula, soon.
The study cites the development of several scattered, small areas of green vegetation in barren rock or soil layers, both absent of overlying glacial ice, as evidence supporting this claim.
Numerous media articles state that this melting and vegetation growth provides definitive proof that immediate action is necessary to save the planet’s biological and physical environments, which enable human survival.
However, the study’s conclusion does not rely on enough data or information to prove its validity.
There is no doubt that the conclusion of the study is likely incorrect, and some would argue it may be misleading.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Earth-Sky
About the author: James Edward Kamis is a retired geologist with 47 years of experience, a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Northern Illinois University (1973), and a Master of Science degree in Geology from Idaho State University (1976). Nearly five decades of research have convinced him that geological forces significantly influence, or in some cases completely control climate and climate-related events as explained in detail at the Plate Climatology Theory website. Kamis’ new book, Geological Impacts on Climate, is available now.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Great factual and referenced article. I will wait to see how many fools will actually comment.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Current climate information not directly related to temperature. (https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/anomimage.pl?wrc30dPpct.png)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
What I hope you SEE is how heterogeneous the data is and the stupidity of averaging it which makes everything homogeneous.
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
This is old news. The idea that volcanoes have been responsible for W Antarctica warming has been known for many years.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
Good to read that you are still reading PSI. However, you wrote: “The idea that volcanoes have been responsible for W Antarctica warming has been known for many years.” If this “has been known for many years”, it is no longer an “idea”, it is a FACT. Big difference between an IDEA and an observed FACT.
Have a good day
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
What’s with the impertinence?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
The topic is violent volcanic eruptions. Some, but not many, have questioned: What is the source of the energy which causes these violent eruptions? However, when I propose that the source is a natural FISSION BOMB I cannot remember anyone agreeing with my proposal. What do you consider is the source of this massive and sudden amount of energy?
Have a good day
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
I’m confident terrestrial volcanoes are not caused by fusion bombs. Volcanoes are natural phenomena, but I suppose it might be possible to create one with a bit enough bomb selectively placed.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
If you read carefully you will find I referred to natural fission bombs. Were you trying to trick me? The fact remains that volcanic eruptions that form large area-wise and deep craters have been observed. It takes a lot of energy to do this. Maybe the shock of one fission bomb sets off surrounding controlled fission reactions that are producing molten lava previously . Hence, a fast chain reaction of multiple fission bombs and not a single bomb like nuclear engineers artificially create. “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” (Einstein)
Have a good day
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
I believe I got your notion correctly. I don’t give it any credence. “Natural fission bombs” is quite imaginative, as in “imaginary.”
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
A bomb is an uncontrolled chain section. In order to get this uncontrolled reaction you must have the right elements (U-235 and Plutonium) as pure metals with high purity. The processes in the Earth are not refining but mixing so there are no natural atomic bombs. When fission occurs it releases energy that creates heat. This heat cannot be released into space and lost because of the crust’s surface being hotter due to the sun’s radiation. The heat continues to build until it finds a weak area in the crust where it can break through becoming a volcano.
All the Hawaiian islands were created from the same high concentration of radioactive elements in the mantle. It is the movement of the crust over this hot spot that produced multiple islands.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David and Herb,
After WWII the USA defense department continued to make fission bombs to test how to increase their destructive power. Because it was obvious that radio-active products were produced by the explosions, they found an isolated, uninhabited, small Pacific island on which to conduct these tests. First these tests were conducted above ground but soon, the obvious was recognized, that this placed the radio-active products into the atmosphere, so underground testing was begun.
This comment is to draw your attention to the observable FACT that no bomb was ever made that created a crater near the area and depth of the crater of Crater Lake (Oregon).
As you question, if there are any natural fission bombs, you should not ignore the craters left by this and other natural volcanic eruptions.
Have a good day
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
I suppose we all have silly ideas. I’m sure I do. Your idea of natural fission bombs is one of yours IMO.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
I do consider my ideas to be “silly” even if I know they cannot be proven to be right. For they can only be proven to be wrong by some reproducible experimental result (or simple common observations like birds have to inculcate the eggs for the birds to reproduce them selves. My do not consider my ideas silly because I know the time and effor most other productive scientists have invested and I have invested.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
You wrote: “I believe I got your notion correctly. I don’t give it any credence. “Natural fission bombs” is quite imaginative, as in “imaginary.”” Now we (you and I) are making progress.
I believe when Einstein proposed his problem he was imagining (questioning) what the solution to his proposed problem might be.
So he began his analysis not knowing what the solution might be.
He never imagined that the solution might be E+mC^2. But he knew there had to be a solution to his SIMPLE contrived problem.
There has to be a solution to the cause of violent VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS. I do not have Einstein’s mathematical intelligence but I can, being a chemist, qualitatively reason (imagine).
If my imagining is wrong, what can you imagine?
Have a good day
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
I try to avoid postulating solutions to non-problems. I also try to avoid opining on matters I don’t have any real expertise in.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
If you have no opinion as to the cause of volcanic eruptions why did you make a statement which seems to dismiss this article as being “old news”?
The only reason I have addressed some comments to you is I believe you are intelligent and have practical knowledge because you seem to have some practical experience. Therefore, I believed we could pool our experiences and knowledge to find a “possible” cause of volcanic eruptions. Which “possible” is the only thing a REAL SCIENTIST like Einstein, Feynman, Newton, Galileo etc. can do.
Fermi, I believe, is the scientist, who experimented and taught us about controlled nuclear fission reactions which knowledge was used to construct nuclear fission bombs which worked the first time, the second time, and the third time they were tested.
I am only proposing that natural fission bombs might exist. For lack of anything else that has been proposed to cause NATUAL VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS.
Have a good day
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
I propose that natural fission bombs don’t exist and cannot exist. Fissionable material in nature is of insufficient purity to reach critical mass.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
“Fissionable material in nature is of insufficient purity to reach critical mass.”
You KNOW this. How?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
U-235 is found at .7% niuranium ore and must be purified to 95% to create bomb grade uranium. Plutonium does not exist in nature and is produced by splitting U-238.
There were multiple underground nuclear test in New Mexico and yet they produced no volcanoes or craters.
The lave coming from volcanoes is not radioactive because the fission occurs deeper in the Earth and it is the heat that is being ejected.
Meteorites create craters. Do you consider that evidence that they are atomic bombs?
You just continue to compound your stupid remarks.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
I am probably wrong about a literal nuclear fission bomb. For I accept the validity of the following Wikipedia description (explanation). “The eruption was preceded by a two-month series of earthquakes and steam-venting episodes caused by an injection of magma at shallow depth below the volcano that created a large bulge and a fracture system on the mountain’s north slope. An earthquake at 8:32:11 am PDT (UTC−7) on May 18, 1980,[3] caused the entire weakened north face to slide away, a sector collapse which was the largest subaerial landslide in recorded history.[4] This allowed the partly molten rock, rich in high-pressure gas and steam, to suddenly explode northward toward Spirit Lake in a hot mix of lava and pulverized older rock, overtaking the landslide. An eruption column rose 80,000 feet (24 km; 15 mi) into the atmosphere and deposited ash in 11 U.S. states[5] and various Canadian provinces.[6] At the same time, snow, ice, and several entire glaciers on the volcano melted, forming a series of large lahars (volcanic mudslides) that reached as far as the Columbia River, nearly 50 miles (80 km) to the southwest. Less severe outbursts continued into the next day, only to be followed by other large, but not as destructive, eruptions later that year. The thermal energy released during the eruption was equal to 26 megatons of TNT.[7]”
But there ia mention of the energy source. But thank you for providing that when you wrote: The lave coming from volcanoes is not radioactive because the fission occurs deeper in the Earth and it is the heat that is being ejected.”
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David and PSI Readers,
Authors of articles and comments are sometimes critical about the SCIENCE sponsored by the USA and tax payers like myself. So this comment is to alert readers about one of these projects which is used for the practical purpose of FIGHTING WILD FIRES (which seem common in many nations today). The link (https://raws.dri.edu) to the measured meteorological data reports what hourly has been measured since local midnight. A large low pressure is over Salem OR where I live and can personally observe the weather and TWILIGHT which did not change in btightnesss after the sun rose while it was continuously raining each hour after midnight. Now because I, a chemist, have studied (read about) and studied the weather wherever I have lived in the USA.
A question for readers: how is it that twilight shines through the continuous cloud from which rain is continuously falling? This is something one needs to do if one claims to be intelligent.
Have a good day
Reply
David Hamilton Russell
| #
Don’t conflate ignorance (or in my case: indifference) with lack of intelligence.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
My simple ‘cave man’ observation is there are hot springs and geysers all over the world. Geothermal heat coming from the ground. There are great photos of this in Yellowstone Park during the winter.
I’m pretty sure the Guide Book at Yellowstone Park doesn’t attribute this to atmospheric CO2…
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
Again this morning there is TWILIGHT shining through an overcast sky; but no precipitation this time. So I ask again: how is it that twilight shines through the overcast? Trying to answer this is something one needs to do if one claims to be intelligent.
Have a good day
Reply