Way Under the Sea, Violent Eruptions From Volcanoes

NY Times ^ | July 8, 2008 | HENRY FOUNTAIN

[neverdem]

In 1999, seismographs detected a swarm of earthquakes at a spot on the Gakkel ridge, a midocean ridge that traverses the Arctic. A few expeditions to the area, north of Siberia about 350 miles from the pole, produced indirect evidence of explosive eruptions deep on the seafloor.

Explosive volcanism at such depths would be very unusual, said Robert A. Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. “People had been afraid to even suggest it, because it seemed so ludicrous.”

Seafloor volcanoes do erupt violently, but in relatively shallow water. The Gakkel ridge spot is 13,000 feet down, and at such great depths it had been thought that explosive eruptions could not occur because there is not enough gas in magma to overcome the immense pressure.

So in 2007 Dr. Sohn led another expedition to the area, sending a homemade contraption down to the seafloor with high-definition video cameras and a sampling device. His team’s findings, reported in Nature, show conclusively that explosive eruptions occurred.

The evidence came in the form of fresh pyroclastic deposits, small bits of volcanic rock, spread over an area greater than four square miles. The researchers even found evidence of Limu o Pele, fragments of the wall of an exploding bubble of magma. A map of the area created using sonar showed what appeared to be cratered volcanoes that probably were the focus points of the explosions...

--snip--

Dr. Sohn said the work showed how much there is to be learned about what goes on along deep midocean ridges. For one thing, explosive volcanism like this involving the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide may not be so rare. “Our community is going to embrace this pretty quickly as a research topic,” he said.

[intenseracer]

Dont forget too, that the temp of the water directly affects the amount of CO2 it can hold in solution. its an inverse relationship, the colder the water the more it holds. The warmer the water, the more it releases, and it wont absorb as much. As that water moves south, and warms up, the Co2 entrained will begin to come out of solution and back into the atmosphere. Id love to see the volumes of Co2 in THAT particular water sample, I bet its almost fizzy like beer!

[SeaWolf]

Refueling accident at the UFO base?

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam Me to Planet Gore !

[Smokin' Joe]

Nope, its Global Warming the way Mother Nature intended it.

But it is actually global cooling... the heat is being transferred from within to the outside, where it will dissipate.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
I think there are a lot of embarrassed scientists who are looking for an objective way to change their minds about global warming.
<<

We can only hope they find a way to work up the courage to join the popular crowd that is hell-bent on proving AGW no matter what and follow where the facts have always pointed, no matter what the professional consequences.

Because liberals (even liberal scientists) lack principles, their decision-making processes don't have a “tipping point” as much as they they have a “flipping point”, where they suddenly feel compelled to support something they previously had worked against.

[UCANSEE2]

I know what you are saying, and you are exactly correct.

But, I also think it is like everything else.
earthquakes
global warming
sunspots

There is not just one factor. There are many. So many it is very hard to predict, almost impossible, one might say.

[BIGLOOK]

Do shallow (1500 meters) eruptions count too? Loihi has been active for at least twelve years. Of course Kilauea has been erupting for the last 25 years and pouring lava into the ocean and creating a nuisance with noxious vog. Wait......we have no precious ice cap here so it's like tossing a match into the sea.

[ClimateSanity]

Making the estimate that the ice is about 3 meters thick in the arctic. (Of course, it is much thicker some places and much thinner in others.) Then the energy of Mount St. Helens would melt about 100 square kilometers of ice in the Arctic. (Assuming the energy were transmitted straight to the ice, without heating the water.)

The bottom line
The Arctic goes through some serious changes in sea ice extent every year as the season change. The sea ice extent changes by about 10 million square kilometers every year. 100 square kilometers is about one hundred thousandth of that. It would take a thousand volcanos the size of Mount St. Helens every year to account for just 1% of the yearly Arctic ice loss.

The numbers for the above conclusion are worked out here

Best Regards,
ClimateSanity

[SunkenCiv]

thanks neverdem for both:

Arsenic risk high in Sumatra, Myanmar, Cambodia: study
(ground water contamination)
AFP | 07/11/08
Posted on 07/12/2008 12:14:22 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2044328/posts

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks FrogMom.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[neverdem]

Let me be the first to welcome you to FreeRepublic.com, and thank you for the link.

I didn’t post the article for any particular reason, i.e. melting of the Arctic Ocean’s Icesheet. I’m a science junky, and vulcanism and its effect on ocean pH, coral reefs and atmospheric carbon dioxide are other interesting phenomena off the top of my head.

I checked out your link and some of your website. Is 1.0E+6 a standard exponential notation for 10 to the 6th power now? It’s been quite a while since I got my B.S. Physicians usually don’t have deal with exponential notation.

[Fred Nerks]

thanks for the ping Civ.

LucyT, this topic may be of interest to you.