Overlooked Impact of Geothermal Heat on Thwaites Glacier
Heat flow in the geologic sense refers to the movement of thermal energy from the interior of the Earth to its surface
This heat originates from two primary sources: the residual heat from the planet’s formation and the heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes within the Earth’s mantle and crust.
When Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, it was a hot, molten sphere.
Over time, the planet began to cool and solidify, but a significant amount of this primordial heat is still retained within the Earth’s interior.
This residual heat continues to flow outward from the core towards the surface, contributing to the overall geothermal gradient.
Within the Earth’s mantle and crust, certain isotopes undergo radioactive decay, a process that releases thermal energy. Key isotopes contributing to this process include uranium-238, thorium-232, and potassium-40.
As these isotopes decay, they release heat, which is a significant source of the Earth’s internal thermal energy. This radioactive decay is ongoing, providing a continuous supply of heat that helps drive various geological processes such as mantle convection, plate tectonics, and volcanic activity.
On average, the heat flow from the Earth’s interior is around 70 milliwatts per square meter (mW/m²) across the continents and about 105 mW/m² across the ocean basins. However, these average values mask significant variations influenced by geological features and tectonic activity.
In areas with high tectonic activity, such as mid-ocean ridges and volcanic regions, heat flow can be considerably higher. For example, mid-ocean ridges, where tectonic plates are diverging, allow hot mantle material to rise closer to the Earth’s surface, resulting in heat flow values that can exceed 200 mW/m².
Similarly, volcanic regions exhibit elevated heat flow due to the presence of magma near the surface.
Conversely, older and more stable regions, such as continental cratons, tend to have lower heat flow values. Cratons are ancient and stable parts of the continental lithosphere that have cooled significantly over geological time.
In these regions, heat flow values can be as low as 30-40 mW/m² due to the thick, insulating lithospheric mantle that limits the upward movement of heat.
Geological structures such as sedimentary basins, mountain ranges, and fault zones also contribute to the variability in heat flow. Sedimentary basins, which often contain thick sequences of insulating sediments, can have lower heat flow compared to surrounding areas.
In contrast, mountain ranges, formed by tectonic compression and uplift, can have higher heat flow due to the presence of radioactive minerals and the relatively thin lithosphere.
This variability in heat flow is crucial for understanding the thermal structure of the Earth’s crust and mantle, as well as for applications such as geothermal energy exploration, tectonic studies, and the assessment of thermal regimes in different geological settings.
With the recent discovery of many more volcanoes under Western Antarctica surely studies examining the melting of the so-called ‘Doomsday’ Glacier would consider heat flow.
Image: Researchgate
Image: Mashable
One recent study published in Nature Communications presents findings that challenge the common narrative that ‘GHG’s are responsible for melting in Western Antarctica, particularly under the Thwaites Glacier.
The study reports heat flux values exceeding 110 mW/m² beneath the glacier, which is significantly higher than the global averages for continents. This high heat flux is likely contributing to the melting of the Thwaites Glacier, an aspect often overlooked in discussions focusing solely on atmospheric warming.
The figure below from the Nature Communications study illustrates the spatial variability in geothermal heat flux under the Thwaites Glacier, showing values well over 110 mW/m² in some regions.
This high geothermal heat flux is a critical factor in the observed melting patterns and dynamics of the glacier. However, this aspect is often ignored or downplayed in broader climate narratives.
Image: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3/figures/3
However, another article published in Nature focuses on subglacial waters beneath Thwaites and their contributions to ice melt, yet it does not mention the impact of geothermal heat flux.
Instead, it attributes the melting primarily to oceanic and atmospheric conditions. This discrepancy highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors in glacial melt dynamics, including geothermal heat flux, to understand and predict the behavior of ice sheets accurately.
The mainstream climate narrative, often driven by the “climate industrial complex,” tends to focus almost exclusively on ‘GHG’ emissions as the primary driver of global warming. This perspective is frequently echoed in alarmist headlines that sensationalize the impact of ‘GHG’s while ignoring other significant factors like geothermal heat.
The findings from the Nature Communications study on the Thwaites Glacier provide a compelling case for the importance of considering geothermal heat flux in discussions about glacial melt.
Ignoring such significant contributions can lead to incomplete or misleading conclusions about the causes and future trends of glacial melting.
Will the heat flux beneath Thwaites Glacier be affected by changes in atmospheric CO2 levels?
It is crucial to maintain a balanced perspective that includes all relevant factors, including much more relevant ones like geothermal heat. By doing so, we can make better-informed policy decisions.
The tendency of the climate industrial complex to focus narrowly on ‘GHG’s at the expense of other factors undermines the complexity of climate science.
It is leading to public skepticism and mistrust in climate research. For a more comprehensive understanding of the climate system, it is essential to integrate data on geothermal heat flux and other natural processes alongside ‘human-induced changes’.
See more here substack.com
Header image: How Stuff Works
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.Â
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matthew,
“”This heat originates from two primary sources: the residual heat from the planet’s formation and the heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes within the Earth’s mantle and crust.”
Have you consudered ancient and present volcanic eruptions? In Oregon we have have the Crater Lake National Park. Using the assumed knowledge of modern science one must at least consider the possibility of a natural nuclear fission bomb. Which violent eruptions we still observe to be occurring..
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matthew.
About the formation of stars I just read “Scattered about in many parts of the Milky Way, and particularly in refgions of heavy obscuration, are large numbers of s,mall dark globules of dense interstellar matter thought to be in the process of condensing to form stars.” (Astronomy 4th Ed.,1980, E. G. Ebbighausen, pp 129)
I have long read “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” (Holy Bible, The New King James Version))
So I propose that the globules were primarily condensed .water. Surely, this speculation should generated a comment or two.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, Howdy, and other frequent commuters,
How can you ignore this comment??
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
It’s easy. It’s stupid.
You are the only person, claiming to be a scientist, who cites Genesis as a source.
As long as I’m at it, the amount of U235 in uranium ore is .7%. In order to create an atomic explosion from a chain reaction the concentration must be over 90%
Reply
Jerry Kause
| #
Hi Herb,
I just read ‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets. could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centers of other like systems, these, formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: …” (The Principia by Issac Newton as translated by Andrew Motte)
Was Newton a scientist? Should Newton, other scientists, and I ignore this Creator God’s counsel just because it’s written in the Holy Bible?
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Should Newton, other scientists, and I ignore this Creator God’s counsel just because it’s written in the Holy Bible?”
No you should not Jerry, but many do not see the value. You will be mocked. Their loss.
Reply