Under sea volcano and lava extrusion would melt ALL the ice above it?

Question

This has occurred under the Arctic ice mass since 1999. It is documented by the NOAA. Why do the enviros and Al Gore ignore this info? Of course it will melt. It also will be reforming as the lava beneath it cools down. Warming ocean water will cause CO2 to be released in massive quantities. Like warming soda pop. Al Gore eligible for the dunz of the Year award now also?

Answer 1

While I agree with your assessment of Al Gore, i fail to see what any one could do about a Volcano.

Answer 2

I read about this study, it is very interesting that we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about the ocean floor.

"The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said. "

Heat over long distances.. sounds like they measured heat.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

Answer 3

If geothermal heat released by a volcano FIVE KILOMETERS under the ocean can melt the entire Arctic Ice Sheet, then the princess really could feel the pea beneath all of those mattresses.

FYI, the disinformation is brought to us by Rush Limbaugh[1] (why are people getting their science from him anyway?).

Edit. dsl67, Woods Hole is investigating the Gakkel Ridge, but Rush WAS one of the first  to suggest that heat from the Gakkel Ridge is melting the Arctic Ice Caps. The guys responsible for this finding over at at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have said, "We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice."

The depth of the Gakkel Ridge, being a ridge, varies. It is found 3-5 km below the ocean's surface.

Answer 4

There are volcano's on the south pole that are active

here look

.. .. ..

http://shl.stanford.edu:3455/southpole/5...

.. . ..

And the north pole is no different

.. .. ..

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story....

Answer 5

Adam C, I think perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.  The IBD editorial says "Is it possible that it these eruptions, part of an "ongoing process," have played a part in whatever melting there has been of the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets?  Scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory have put together a chart showing Arctic ice relatively stable until a precipitous decline began in 1999 — the very year the Arctic eruptions started."

Crabby Blind Guy, are you serious?  Volcanic activity tends to cool the earth?  And how does it do that?  By expelling particulate matter into the atmosphere that blocks solar radiation from reaching the earth.  Did you miss the fact that these are underwater eruptions?  How would they cool the earth?  And since you are such a genius, when is the last time that underwater volcanic activity of this magnitude has occurred in the arctic?  I've never heard of it before.

And Benjamin, the Scientific information on this matter comes from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, not Rush Limbaugh.  They discovered the massive eruptions that have been occurring since 1999 along a 1100 mile underwater mountain range.  The WHOI says of these eruptions ""Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process."   And since you clearly have a great scientific mind, let me just correct you:  13000 feet is approximately 2.5 miles, not 5 miles as you suggest.

Answer 6

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit

For anyone who’s betting that 2008 meltback will exceed 2007 meltback, I think that you’ll be able to pretty much know where you stand by the end of this week and your chances are not looking good right now based on this week’s exit polls. Another Climate Audit first.

The plot below shows the daily meltback for the last 5 years. 2007 is in red, 2008 in black. Notice the surge in 2007 at the end of June and beginning of July. We’re at julian day 182 today - July 2, 2008.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/seaice34...

The most intense melt occurred last year between day 179 (June 29) and day 184 (July 4) with 160,000 sq km meltback on day 182 (July 2) and over 200,000 sq km on day 183 (July 3). This year is a leap year, so that July 2 is already day 182 and was only 90,000 sq km. As of yesterday, 2008 was about 510,000 sq km behind 2007 and it looks like it is losing ground day by day in the first week of July - a big melt week where it has to make time.

Answer 7

Could you provide a link to this little known fact?

Thanks for the link - for the North Pole, the activity is 4 km down and the debris from an eruption are speculated to get to within 2 to 3 kilometers from the surface. The link also refers to drilling through ice - and also says 'The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice'.

So the answer to your question "Under sea volcano and lava extrusion would melt ALL the ice above it?" is not in this case. These volcanoes were not even noticed in 1999 when they were active - and the minimum ice sheet size was in 2007, not 1999.

Answer 8

I love it when the so called "skeptics show how much they don't know.

First of all, volcanic activity tends to cool the earth, not warm it--go look in your 5th grade science book if you got that far.

Second--Al Gore does not do any of the science--he only reports what scientists have found. Every time the kooks yap "Al Gore said such-and-such" they prove, right off the bat--that they do not know what they are talking about.

Third, an undersea volcano might affect a local area--not the entire Arctic.  

Since you're such a genius, , mind explaining why that volcanic activity has occurred dozens of times over the centuries and never melted the ice before?  And why did you ignore that fact--other than it proves you don't have the faintest notion what you are talking about?

Answer 9

ifoyo, I suggest you use sources that support your claim not refute it!

Here's the link (actually June 30):

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...

Note this is a business paper, not a scientific or climate-related one. A comprehensive review of the research from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute can be found on the science pages of the New York Times (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...

If ifoyo had read his own sources properly, he would have realised that it actually says that these volcanoes have zero effect on the ice caps above them:

"The heat from sea-bed volcanoes in the Arctic Ocean is kept isolated from the surface"

"Several experts said [ice cap melting from the volcanoes] was not plausible"

"Arctic oceanographers and climate and ice experts uniformly reject[ed] the idea that heat from the bottom could have a significant impact on ice on the surface"

"None of these will have any impact on the Arctic sea ice as the heat is trapped in the deep ocean"

"we have primary evidence that heat from the bottom is not reaching the ice"

"average heat added from volcanoes to the ocean is of order 0.1 W/sq m. The heat added (or removed) to the ocean from the sun and atmosphere is 100 W/sq m. It is very hard for volcanoes to compete"

Edit to dsl67

Let's not get too personal (about reading skills) but...

Your first part is a question by the IBD editoralist; as I pointed out earlier, this is a business paper, not science - he has a right to ask but that doesn't make it relevant.

The editoralist then states, but doesn't provide, that the NOAA "have a chart showing Arctic ice relatively stable until a precipitous decline began in 1999". Well, here's a chart from the NOAA that quite clearly shows a decline starting in 1970, not 1999... http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/ice_ex... Amazing what happens when you actually provide real data and not just spout words!

I notice you couldn't say anything about the 6 quotes I gave saying that the volcanoes are not contributing to melting ice...

More science: That two facts occured at the same time does not prove a causal relationship - it should, however, prompt investigation which is exactly what is happening. Scientists and true seekers of the truth tend not to jump to conclusions from one datum. My guess is that one of two things will happen:

1) They will find evidence of volcanoes having erupted under the arctic earlier than 1999 (maybe much earlier)

2) There is a cause-and-effect relationship but it is just as likely that GW is causing the volcanoes to erupt as the volcanoes are causing GW.