91 Volcanoes Found Under Arctic Ice, Big Blow To Climate Alarmists

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


In addition to the 47 volcanoes already known about currently “sleeping” under the Arctic ice, scientists have found more.  They discovered 91 additional volcanoes in Antartica, now the largest volcanic region on earth.  This is a big blow to those who think melting polar ice is the sole fault of humans.

The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 100 volcanoes. The highest discovered volcano is as tall as the Eiger, a popular peak to traverse in the Swiss Alps, which stands at almost 4,000 meters (over 13,000 ft) in Switzerland.  Before this discovery,  the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world was that of east Africa’s volcanic ridge. Geologists say this huge region in Antartica is likely to dwarf that of Africa.

You won’t read about this in the mainstream media. Because volcanic eruptions may not reach the surface in Antartica, but they definitly melt the ice from beneath and drastically destabilize the entire region.  No amount of carbon tax or global warming initiative would stop a volcano from melting polar ice, but that likely won’t stop alarmists from blaming volcanic activity on global warming.

A quick glance at the map below put out by Plate Climatology shows that the melting glacial ice is indeed caused by volcanic activity under the Arctic ice and not global warming or human induced climate change, as most would like us to believe.


The activity of this range could have worrying consequences, [scientists] have warned. “If one of these volcanoes were to erupt it could further destabilize west Antarctica’s ice sheets,” said glacier expert Robert Bingham, one of the paper’s authors. “Anything that causes the melting of ice – which an eruption certainly would – is likely to speed up the flow of ice into the sea. “The big question is: how active are these volcanoes? That is something we need to determine as quickly as possible.” –The Guardian

The Edinburgh volcano survey reported in the Geological Society’s special publications series. They said the research involved studying the underside of the West Antarctica ice sheet.  The researchers were looking for hidden peaks of basalt rock similar to those produced by the region’s other volcanoes. Their tips actually lie above the ice and have been spotted by polar explorers over the past century. To find out how many of these “hidden peaks” lie below the ice, the study analyzed measurements made by previous surveys, which involved the use of ice-penetrating radar, carried either by planes or land vehicles, to survey strips of the West Antarctic ice.

The results were then compared with satellite and database records and geological information from other aerial surveys. “Essentially, we were looking for evidence of volcanic cones sticking up into the ice,” Bingham said. After doing all the research and comparing data, scientists came up with an additional 91 volcanoes, all of which are currently covered in ice which sometimes lies in layers that are more than 4km (almost 2 and a half miles) thick in the region.  All of which are in the region where Arctic ice is melting too. These active peaks are concentrated in a region known as the West Antarctic rift system, which stretches 3,500km (about 2175 miles)  from Antarctica’s Ross ice shelf to the Antarctic peninsula.

“We were amazed,” Bingham said. “We had not expected to find anything like that number. We have almost trebled the number of volcanoes known to exist in west Antarctica. We also suspect there are even more on the bed of the sea that lies under the Ross ice shelf, so that I think it is very likely this region will turn out to be the densest region of volcanoes in the world, greater even than east Africa, where mounts Nyiragongo, Kilimanjaro, Longonot and all the other active volcanoes are concentrated.”

Scientists claim that there could be huge implications for life on earth if one of these massive volcanoes decided to go off, melting enormous amounts of Arctic ice. The biggest implication is perhaps how bad this news is for governments around the globe raking in billions of dollars to combat climate change.  Without humans being the cause of the ice melt, who would the governments tax?  It’s hard to tax a volcano…

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Dawn Luger of The Daily Sheeple.

Dawn Luger is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Dawn’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Jonn

    Somehow, the climate alarmists will find a way to blame this on human activity. Just you wait and see. I imagine them spinning it something like this:

    “See, there are more human beings conducting tests in Antarctica now than ever before in history. They’ve been drilling into ancient ice lakes, using ice breakers to create paths, etc. They’ve also been releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, melting the ice, which decreases the pressure on the ground below. This is causing the volcanoes to expand! See? It’s all our fault! But we have a solution: If every person on earth were to make an extra tray of ice cubes and ship it to Antarctica, we can stop this calamity!”

    • David Grubby

      John your idea seems plausible my son.
      But consider this. The ships emit CO2. Then your fridge runs on lectric which is generated by fossil fuel burning. Then the ship must cross the equator before it gets far south. The ice is going to melt.
      Then what if the ship sank in a bad storm, hit an iceberg, fuel prices got so expensive only military ships and your old canoe can continue to sail?
      Please post only when you have PRACTICAL ideas, not the drivel I read above. Thank you.

      • tonye

        What if the Australians and Argentinians were to make 37 trays of ice each and ship it instead? They’re closer.

        I think Oz and Argentina need a new tax: “Ice Making Tax”.. and the contributors under the Paris Agreement must send billions of dollars to help them. Germany! There you go!

        • Jonn

          Maybe we can retrain African swallows from grabbing coconuts by the husk and use them to transport ice cube trays instead?

          I remain skeptical of the European swallows for this type of task, despite being possibly better suited to the cold than their African counterparts. They still wouldn’t have sufficient air-speed velocity.

          • tonye

            Yesh, you can’t trust the French, they were all cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril by the Keeper of the Bridge of Death.

            Telling the Keeper the airspeed of the French Swallow in metric units was so wrong!

          • Jonn

            Huh? I…I didn’t know that.


      • BigDonOne

        The problem is overpopulation.
        Parenthood needs to be licensed, *TAXED*, and regulated…..

        • Glenn Festog

          Only if it includes mandatory sterilization for undesirables, starting with career politicians and their immediate heirs; two generations of parasitic lowlifes is more than enough! Lol

      • Here, i have a post for you-

        You are a douchebag. Candyass liberal troll.

  • Rj

    Can’t believe how ignorant John is as to climate change. One more cause thrown into the ring and people think because of one natural finding that can cause ice melt, that man has no effect on climate. Must be trump thumper.
    How about man-
    Did you add up the diameter of all car pips, how big of volcano is that? What about home heating pipes on our roofs, anybody add them dimensions? How big a hole are these two factors added up. Now industry stacks,
    How much surface of earth is black top absorbing sunlight to store heat? This heat is absorbed by planet earth? Which any dummy knows things expand as they warm. Causing earthquakes, volcanoes to ramp up. If a volcano erupts under Antarctic ice cap, WE ARE PARTLY TO BLAME. CLIMATE DENIERS are vastly under-educated on climate changes multiple causes, effects, feedbacks,
    Most Arctic scientists say when the methane really spills out, we are finished soon after. And it’s pouring out as I type.
    We don’t have decades, we have years left to exctint ion. Got kids? Sad for you.

    • tonye


    • You haven’t read any of the IPCC’s propaganda, have you?

    • SP_88

      Seriously? The size of a pipe has absolutely nothing to do with what’s coming out of that pipe. Most cars on the road, and all newer cars are putting out “exhaust” that is as clean, if not cleaner, than the air it takes in, especially in areas where pollution levels are higher.
      The 2 inch pipe on a 1968 Chevy is putting out many, many times as much pollution as the 3 inch pipe on a 2008 Chevy truck.
      The ¾ inch pipe on a leaf blower puts out many, many times as much pollution as the 2½ inch pipe on a 2016 Ford F150. So the size of a pipe is completely irrelevant.
      Home heating pipes don’t put out very much pollution either. And they are only used for a few months every year anyway.
      A volcano will dump many thousands of tons of ash, soot, sulfur, and other gasses into the atmosphere in a matter of hours. That’s more than every car on the road does in a year.
      The amount of asphalt on the earth is extremely miniscule, perhaps a half of a percent or less. Most highways are concrete, which is white, and does not absorb heat. So they don’t count. And many paves roads aren’t really black either. Many roads near me are paved with a sandy colored asphalt. And what roads are actually black and absorb heat is a very small percentage. And from the amount of heat they absorb, you have to subtract the amount of heat the ground underneath it would have absorbed anyway. And that’s only happening during the day. And the amount of heat that is left, is certainly not enough to set off volcanos and earthquakes. That’s ridiculous.
      Everything you said is based on nonsense and false logic. If you can call it logic. It’s not even logical.
      It’s quack science like this that people hear, and suddenly the world is coming to an end.
      And of course the solution is always to give money to one of these scam artists. No thanks.
      There is zero evidence to support man made global warming. Zero.

      • Fed Up

        You can never get a Leftwing Nut to face reality and truth. No matter how many facts you give him. It’s a genetic failing — liberal thinking simply being a mild form of insanity!

        • SP_88

          Honestly, his entire post was so full of such ignorant drivel, the likes of which I haven’t seen in a long time, I don’t know why I even bothered to respond. And any reply to my response is quite likely to be just as full of ignorance and nonsense.
          But since there is no possibility of him being able to give an intelligent and logical rebuttal, I highly doubt that he will respond at all. And that’s par for the course with these people.
          Of course I shouldn’t expect anything more from someone who thinks the exhaust pipe of my car is a fucking volcano. Holy shit man, how stupid can people get?

    • Arrow

      You are to blame then. What are you doing to rectify your deeds? How about you engaging in a little research in order to quantify the damage done to the ecosystem due to the ceaseless bombing of innocents all over the globe by none other than the U$? That might reflect that you can think, rather than spewing nonsensical group-think tripe that you’ve been misled to believe. “We don’t have decades, we have years left to extinction?” So… less than a decade? How many would you say? (sarc) Please don’t respond. The ignorance of your post reflects that you are beyond redemption.

    • Bas

      Gore, is it you? Needing more?

    • Fed Up

      Cry me a river! Better for humanity to become extinct than live like our Loony Toon Liberals want us to have to live!

    • gazoo3
    • Eileen Kuch

      The most important entity that regulates climate and climate changes is the Sun, not human activity. When dinosaurs dominated the planet (including Antarctica, btw), the climate was much hotter than it is today. Antarctica was a lush paradise; but once these creatures went extinct due to a huge asteroid strike just off the Yucatan Peninsula, the earth cooled immensely, as loads of soot from the massive fires blocked out the Sun for generations and Antarctica eventually became what it is today, an icy wasteland. The Ice Age eventually covered all of the Northern Hemisphere.
      There’s no such thing as climate change deniers .. Climate change is a natural cycle that’s been ongoing for 4 billion years. Pollution isn’t climate change; so what you’ve been mistaking for climate change is pollution. Now, that’s what human activity has produced since the Industrial Age first began in the late 18th Century.

  • David Grubby

    Pollution as a whole is just not nice. CO2 is just 1 of many by products of technological progress. This post is giving the idea that it is OK to carry on regardless with our greedy and materialist ways. Have I news for you. It just ain’t so. We still need to address many an issue. Over focus on climate change is missing the point.

    • During a much cooler time, CO2 was 15 times what it is now. Maybe it is a refrigerant instead of a heater.

    • obfuscation100

      Yes but trees and all plant life love carbon dioxide. It helps them produce oxygen which is needed for animal life. You must have slept thru that 4th grade lesson.

      What gets my goat is the fact that mega corporations create most of the pollution and the little guy gets blamed for it. I was fine with glass bottles that got recycled locally and factories powered by water from the mill pond.

      • I doesn’t help them. It is the requisite carbon source for photosynthesis to proceed. They don’t make oxygen as a favor, they release it as a waste product, following its removal from the carbon dioxide.
        The largest polluters are governments, and particularly the militaries of the world, especially the American military.

        • Fed Up

          Oh, puleeze. Spare us your line of nonsense!

          • Spare us your gross ignorance of things that you can find in a minute online.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            – Electricity & heat (24.9%)
            – Industry (14.7%)
            – Transportation (14.3%)
            – Other fuel combustion (8.6%)
            – Fugitive emissions (4%)
            Agriculture (13.8%)
            Land use change (12.2%)
            Industrial processes (4.3%)
            Waste (3.2%)

            These sectors are then assigned to various end uses, giving the following results (nicely visualised here):

            Road transport (10.5%)
            Air transport (excluding additional warming impacts) (1.7% )
            Other transport (2.5%)
            Fuel and power for residential buildings (10.2%)
            Fuel and power for commercial buildings (6.3%)
            Unallocated fuel combustion (3.8%)
            Iron and steel production (4%)
            Aluminium and non-ferrous metals production (1.2%)
            Machinery production (1%)
            Pulp, paper and printing (1.1%)
            Food and tobacco industries (1.0%)
            Chemicals production (4.1%)
            Cement production (5.0%)
            Other industry (7.0%)
            Transmission and distribution losses (2.2%)
            Coal mining (1.3%)
            Oil and gas production (6.4%)
            Deforestation (11.3%)
            Reforestation (-0.4%)
            Harvest and land management (1.3%)
            Agricultural energy use (1.4%)
            Agricultural soils (5.2%)
            Livestock and manure (5.4%)
            Rice cultivation (1.5%)
            Other cultivation (1.7%)
            Landfill of waste (1.7%)
            Wastewater and other waste (1.5%)

    • Fed Up

      Of course the Third World Primitives pumping out a new mouth to feed every year, doubling their country’s population count every 15-20 years. . . that’s OK by our Leftwing Loonies. Because pointing out a politically unpopular TRUTH might be misconstrued as racism.

      • They birth a whole lot more mouths to feed than one a year.

      • 667..neighbor of the beast

        That’s rich… If any side has advocated for controlling population growth it is the environmental conscience Left….

        On the right we have those that oppose planned parenthood,want to shutter abortion clinics, oppose birth controls…and if you take a few steps over to the lunatic right you have those who believe vaccines and chemtrails are a depopulation plot of the NWO!!

  • TrevorD

    “It’s hard to tax a volcano…”
    The worlds`Tax collectors`are power ridden, desperate totally insane psychopaths. If they try and tax a volcano we can happily say that Humanity has finally won the battle. Bring it on, lol.

    • David Grubby

      There are plenty of geothermal vents in Iceland. That way they have year round outdoor swimming pools and no worries about winter heating bills. If that’s not ‘taxing the volcano’ then what is?

      • Volcanos would be most highly taxed at Yellowstone National Park, where one has to pay the US Park Service to enter.

  • Mankind has never has anything to do with the earth’s climate.
    Everything on the planet lies over a molten core, so everything lies over a volcano in the making. All it takes for the core to make a volcano is for an opening between tectonic plates to occur, as they routinely do along the ring of fire.
    Global warming ended with the 20th century. The planet is currently beginning to slip into global cooling. The Heartland Institute has published a second edition of their excellent review of the IPCC’s fraud. Here is the book’s concluding chapter:
    ABOUT THE BOOK: The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary.
    Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.

    Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.

    In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis – that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions — is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. It simply ignores the alternative and null hypothesis, amply supported by empirical research, that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.

    The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories “fed” into them. Most climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC’s estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 is too high. We estimate a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7 Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.

    In a similar fashion, all five of IPCC’s postulates, or assumptions, are readily refuted by real-world observations, and all five of IPCC’s claims relying on circumstantial evidence are refutable. For example, in contrast to IPCC’s alarmism, we find neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. In any case, such evidence cannot be invoked to “prove” a hypothesis, but only to disprove one. IPCC has failed to refute the null hypothesis that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.

    Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest. NIPCC’s conclusion, drawn from its extensive review of the scientific evidence, is that any human global climate impact is within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous.

    In the face of such facts, the most prudent climate policy is to prepare for and adapt to extreme climate events and changes regardless of their origin. Adaptive planning for future hazardous climate events and change should be tailored to provide responses to the known rates, magnitudes, and risks of natural change. Once in place, these same plans will provide an adequate response to any human-caused change that may or may not emerge.

    Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.” The distinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington wrote in 1941 (Waddington, C.H. 1941. The Scientific Attitude. London, UK: Penguin Books),

    It is … important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true (Waddington, 1941).

    This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert the fashionable belief, in the face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary, that human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warming.

    • SP_88

      Good post.

    • 667..neighbor of the beast

      Heartland institute…. astroturfing think tank for Philip Morris, Insurance companies,the Kochs, Exxon mobil, big pharma clients,fracking …

      Had to change the name of their 500 Scientist who disagree with Climate Change consensus…. too many scientists wanted their names off the list .

      Some of their other big winners were casting doubt on the links between cigarette smoking and cancer, second hand smoke , and whether the costs of tobacco use impacted health costs bottom lines…. Back when they were lap dancing for Philip Morris.

  • Fed Up

    So much for the Leftwing Loony b.s. about Global (The Sky is Falling) Warming. Look at AL GORE, the prophet of GW. The huge amount of energy he and his lifestyle WASTE. OK for us to make sacrifices but never for Gory Al!

  • Right to the Point

    Clear back in college, when they told us that Greenland was melting from underneath, I asked a fundamental question; “Could that be from volcanic activity? After all, the mid Atlantic ridge is not that far from Greenland?” Should have heard the poo poo breath I got back.

    • Fed Up

      The Earth’s interior is molten. Continental plates floating atop the magma. Convection currents move those vast plates — causing volcanos. But our Liberal Idiots swear this could never be — that greenhouse gases are warming the planet by melting the interior or whatever liberal nonsense is currently in vogue.

      • Greenhouse gases are warming the planet by melting the interior?
        Even Al Gore is smart enough not to fall for that silliness.

  • walcon

    Don’t tell the scientists. They will say they need to set off Volcanoes elsewhere on the planet to relieve the Earths pressure and prevent Antarctic eruptions, thus destroying countries and lives.

  • Fed Up

    Global Warming — Al Gore’s revenge against American Voters who refused to elect him prez!

  • Fed Up

    More greenhouse gases are emitted by BLOVIATING POLITICIANS than by all the vehicles in the world combined!

  • RoHa

    “You won’t read about this in the mainstream media.”

    And then you quote the Guardian. The story is in the Daily Mail as well. and the Express, the Independent, the NY Daily News and USA today.
    The ABC (the real one, in Australia), Sky News, and Fox all have the story.