Surprise: Explosive volcanic eruption under the Arctic ice found

I posted on a similar story about volcanic eruptions under Antarctic ice earlier this year. What is unique about this situation is that it was a large eruption that went completely undetected, and under pressures that they thought not possible. The big question is then; where did the heat from the volcano go, and what effect did it have on the sea ice environment? Another question is how much CO2 would such an eruption emit, and how long would it take to outgas? Research has been going on looking at volcanism in the ridge but this discovery of a significant eruption in 1999 is new and unexpected.

From Science and The Sea: “In the last few years, for example, scientists have found that a long ridge beneath the north polar ice cap is dotted with volcanoes, and with vents of superheated water that could be home to many new species.”

More info on the Gakkel Ridge here

Today’s Press release from EurekAlert:

International expedition discovers gigantic volcanic eruption in the Arctic Ocean



A “lonely ” seismometer drifts with the sea ice.

Click here for more information.


An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.

“Explosive volcanic eruptions on land are nothing unusual and pose a great threat for whole areas,” explains Dr Vera Schlindwein of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association. She participated in the expedition as a geophysicist and has been, together with her team, examining the earthquake activity of the Arctic Ocean for many years. “The Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD and buried thriving Pompeii under a layer of ash and pumice. Far away in the Arctic Ocean, at 85° N 85° E, a similarly violent volcanic eruption happened almost undetected in 1999 – in this case, however, under a water layer of 4,000 m thickness.” So far, researchers have assumed that explosive volcanism cannot happen in water depths exceeding 3 kilometres because of high ambient pressure. “These are the first pyroclastic deposits we’ve ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible,” says Robert Reves-Sohn, staff member of the WHOI and lead scientist of the expedition carried out on the Swedish icebreaker Oden in 2007.

A major part of Earth’s volcanism happens at the so-called mid-ocean ridges and, therefore, completely undetected on the seafloor. There, the continental plates drift apart; liquid magma intrudes into the gap and constantly forms new seafloor through countless volcanic eruptions. Accompanied by smaller earthquakes, which go unregistered on land, lava flows onto the seafloor. These unspectacular eruptions usually last for only a few days or weeks.

The installation of a seismometer on an ice floe.

Click here for more information.

Volcanic ashes on the sea bed of Gakkel Ridge (Photo: WHOI)

Bathymetric chart of the Gakkel Ridge at 85°E. Photographic bottom surveys were conducted along profiles shown as thin, black lines. The photo showing volcanic ashes on the sea bed were taken at the site, which is marked with a red star and the letter a.
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
87 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tony Edwards
June 26, 2008 7:28 am

anna v (and others) there is a fascinating video available at
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/breath-of-a-nation-animated-co2-map/
showing various animations of CO2 production for 2002 over the USA.
WRT the undersea volcano and the various questions about heat produced, it seems generally to be beyond the imagination of most people to understand the vast amounts of heat needed to melt vast amounts of ice. While I’m sure that the volcano would have had some effect, I doubt whether it would have been significant.
crosspatch, I saw that or a similar video, the “bubbles” were sticking to the submersible’s structure, but, strangely showed little inclination to join up into bigger “bubbles”. The video is at
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04fire/logs/april10/media/eifuku_bubbles_video.html

craig Brown
June 26, 2008 7:49 am

I suppose the upwelling of lava or movement of the sea floor has a direct effect on sea levels also. I mean if the bath tub fills up with something other than water .The water has to go up over the lip of the tub–

DAV
June 26, 2008 8:10 am

BillSheldon (20:55:56) :

The equations are wrong and potentially yield an incorrect answer but we aren’t saying the answer is wrong

No, of course not. It’s the same sort of justification used when the Hockey Stick was debunked: “The answer was still right!”
There’s a driving need in the AGW camp to protect the answer at all costs.

Clark
June 26, 2008 8:14 am

The science is settled!
Stop asking questions or talking about this stuff or I’ll have Hansen come and arrest you!

retired engineer
June 26, 2008 8:17 am

The volcano erupts. It is hot (duh). Heat has to go somewhere. If it warms the water around it, that water should rise. The Arctic Ocean is big, so the effect may be small, but as noted, the heat has to go somewhere.
Methinks we do not know all the things we do not know.

Jeff Alberts
June 26, 2008 8:51 am

What is it with scientists these days that they feel compelled to make predictions about what they may find? Good grief. What, precisely, does this phrase mean: “estimate that in total there could be”? Any time a scientist talks like that he should have his grant money taken away for a year.

Astronomers do this a lot too. Mainly when speaking about Black Holes and Dark Matter. We know very little about the former, and don’t even know if the latter exists. Yet they speak in absolutes about black holes as if we know everything there is to know. Just like referring to Venus as a runaway greenhouse example.

Mark Nodine
June 26, 2008 9:19 am

OT: Anthony,
Perhaps this topic has already been talked into the ground before I started following WUWT, but I’d like to suggest a thread that debates the Miskolczi semi-transparent atmosphere model. There was recent comment (David Gladstone (17:59:09)) on the “A Window on Water Vapor and Planetary Temperature – Part 2” asking for the same thing, so apparently I’m not the only one who wants to discuss this model.
The link with the easiest introduction to the subject is http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolczi_theory.htm
REPLY: Done

Russ R.
June 26, 2008 9:21 am

We know the undersea volcanos can not have any effect on climate change, because they don’t have any money. If they can’t be taxed, they are by definition a non-factor!
The “science” is settled.

Peter
June 26, 2008 9:52 am

“There you have it. Volcanoes do not affect ice loss in the Arctic”
Let’s see now – the huge amount of thermal energy from undersea eruptions has absolutely no effect on sea ice …but a fraction of a degree warming of the atmosphere is enough to melt the whole lot within a few years???????

Dave
June 26, 2008 10:30 am

I would suggest that undersea volcanic activity and it’s effects on climate, and in the case of polar regions, the ice cap. It would make for very interesting and surprising research.
It’s certainly something that has been largely overlooked by climate researchers.

anna v
June 26, 2008 12:53 pm

Mike Bryant (05:23:29) :
“Oops, I made a big mistake the website you posted, Annav, shows the co2 for 2003, ”
Oops is mine. What are ten years between friends!! One of those times I look behind the door for creeping Alzheimers ;(. I remembered July correctly though!

Austin
June 26, 2008 1:52 pm

Mt St Helens released 24MT of energy.
Thats 1 x 10^17 joules.
Enough to heat 1 cubic KM of water to the boiling point at STP.
A drop in the bucket for the Arctic.
What is fascinating, though, are the sharp yearly ups and downs in the ML CO2 data. These are related somehow to the Boreal variation.

June 26, 2008 2:41 pm

[…] Polar ice cap melting – possibly due to – volcanic eruption on Arctic sea bed. From Josh’s favourite blog. As a geologist, I’m smiling from ear to ear…. […]

June 26, 2008 7:20 pm

[…]      Surprise: Explosive volcanic eruption under the Arctic ice found     […]

Admin
June 26, 2008 7:29 pm

Enough to heat 1 cubic KM of water to the boiling point at STP.

Or enough to heat 100 cubic KM of water 1 degree C. I haven’t checked your calculation btw, but if you are talking about the energy of converting that water to water vapor and not just 100 C, then we up my number an order of magnitude or two or perhaps 500 cubic KM or more (Sorry, I haven’t performed these Physics calculations in more than 30 years).
Now this energy was released by one eruption in a very short period of time, albeit a big one. Now if we are talking about thousands of smaller volcanoes steadily heating water 24/7, this might in fact be significant. If you don’t think a 1 degree temp change of water is a big deal in the Arctic, well…

June 26, 2008 9:08 pm

[…] Gigantic volcanic eruption in the Artic Ocean.  How many of these have we missed.  Does this contribute to the shrinking polar ice caps?  Apparently we should be harnessing the power of Volcanoes. […]

Mike Hodges
June 26, 2008 9:37 pm

Out of curiousity. It sounds like there are a bunch of volcanoes all over the Pacific floor. Has anyone every considered there effect and if they could at all be a driver of La Nina? Seems to me a lot of heat generated at the ocean floor may cause an upswelling in warm water. I have no idea but I’m am curious.

vinay2008
June 27, 2008 12:16 am

The eruption of volcanoes is not the main reason for melting of polar ice. The main reason is global warming which is caused by us .

June 27, 2008 12:51 am

[…] mentioned anywhere in that story is this inconvenient fact from earlier this week. (via Watts Up With That) An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the […]

June 27, 2008 2:21 am

nice post keep posting …

June 27, 2008 3:14 am

Underwater eruptions form Lahars. But do they generate a rising column of water? What size of eruption do you need to punch through to the surface? At that depth will hot water rise at all?

MarkW
June 27, 2008 5:13 am

With a volcanoe in the Antarctic, we aren’t talking about heating the entire Atlantic, just the water around Antarctica.

Bruce Cobb
June 27, 2008 7:43 am

The latest alarmist news about the arctic via Steve Connor, science editor at The Independent:
Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole
“There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water,” said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.” Must be some climate rule written somewhere I missed. Guess the volcanoes must have missed it too.

MichaelJ
June 27, 2008 8:01 am

“The eruption of volcanoes is not the main reason for melting of polar ice. The main reason is global warming which is caused by us .”
POPPYCOCK! Prove it! Remember when you try to “prove it”, using a computer model, ouija board or other non empirical device will not be accepted. Oh, and BTW, it has happened before and will happen again.

Mike Ford
June 27, 2008 9:40 am

Bruce…Yahoo has a lead story from Live Science, basically the same thing with even less “science” referenced.