Volcano erupts near Eyjafjallajoekull in south Iceland
An Icelandic volcano, dormant for 200 years, has erupted, ripping a 1km-long fissure in a field of ice.
The volcano near Eyjafjallajoekull glacier began to erupt just after midnight, sending lava a hundred metres high.
Icelandic airspace has been closed, flights diverted and roads closed. The eruption was about 120km (75 miles) east of the capital, Reykjavik.
What volcanic scientists fear is the fact that this eruption could trigger an eruption of Katla, one of the most dangerous volcanic systems in the world.
Eruptive events in Eyjafjallajökull are often followed by a Katla eruption. The Laki craters and the Eldgjá are part of the same volcanic system. Insta-melt could occur:
At the peak of the 1755 Katla eruption the flood discharge has been estimated between 200,000–400,000 m³/s; for comparison the combined average discharge of the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile, and Yangtze rivers is about 290,000 m³/s.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katla
Video of the eruption:
Volcano Eruption in Eyjafjallajökull Iceland 20 Mars 2010.
The volcano near the Eyjafjallajoekull glacier began to erupt shortly after midnight, leading to road closures in the area.
No one was in immediate danger, but 500 people were being moved from the area.
It is almost 200 years since a volcano near Eyjafjallajokull, 120km (75 miles) east of Reykjavik, last erupted. The last volcanic eruption in the area occurred in 1821.
Taken from C-FQWY / TF-SIF DHC-8-314Q Dash 8
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. de Haan (15:25:57) said:
I don’t know what you did to that link, but here is the correct one.
Jeff L
Herewith a paper based on some seismic tomography showing the clear absence of a subduction zone under Indonesia
http://www.davidpratt.info/subduct.htm
See especially Figure 3 in the link above, as Choi points out, enough to bury subductions zones. Plate Tectonics is much like AGW in many respects, come to think about it.
“Anu (15:54:23) :
…The oceans are heating just as expected:…”
Do we get a sea level rise?
davidmhoffer (13:10:43) :
…I’ve examined the historic record and it is clear that the only mechanism for controlling volcanoes is virgin tossing. Yet I have not seen one of you mention it…
David, since you reminded me, I’ve had a quick look around for the appropriate kind of volunteers to stop the volcano. Now, I’m pretty sure we’re all gonna die.
Anu (15:54:23) :
Changing the temperature of the planet by even 0.9 deg C is a tremendous amount of energy being trapped: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
First, better plot using the absolute Kelvin scale, a temperature increase from 287.0 K to 287.9 K is not much. This change would not even be visible in a Kelvin scale plot.
Second, please explain how this is “trapped” when TSI varies with 90 W/m² between January and July?
The fact that the equilbrium temperature is not fluctuating more than 287 ± 1-2 K is quite impressive, given oscillations between
1. day and night,
2. summer and winter,
3. ice ages and warmer periods
A process engineer would be very happy with a regulator that manages to keep the temperature that stable…
🙂
CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:37:43) :
Luc VC (10:24:48) :
About our newest and best-est buddy, the green algae. Are either of you old enough to remember The Shmoo?
I wrote this:
After the rash of large quakes around the globe, I wonder if this is the precursor to a massive spreading event? I’m not talking about a massive Al Gore type event, but something that is not expected, such as the plate spreading in fits and starts in a way we don’t expect. Lets face, we’ve only known about the connection of the mid Atlantic ridge to plate movements for about fifty years. There is still a lot we don’t know about the behavior of the tectonic system.
I think a few took this the wrong way. I am not remotely suggesting that the world is going to suddenly split open or anything like that. I’m wool-gathering, conducting a thought experiment, if you will, on the statistical probability that the tectonic processes goes through periods of greater activity then becomes less active for a while. Just as climate has various variabilities contained within the system, so does the movements of the geologic engine.
We do of course know that volcanic and seismic activity has fluctuated throughout history, as is evidenced in geologic history. What I’m curious about is the possibility of being able to determine smaller scale increases and decreases in activity that would be harder to show in that record.
For some reason, I’m thinking about the statistical case for cancer clusters. On the one hand, in a perfect world, you shouldn’t see too much variability in the reported cases of cancer from one area to the next. Yet statistics show that having cancer clusters at random, where there is no specific cause for the occurrence (as in a chemical spill, or neighborhoods built on dumps) is just as likely as not. If this is correct, then it is not a stretch to postulate that you would have periods of increased seismic and / or volcanic activity, and thta perhaps we are seeing an increase in the current period.
BTW, Just so there is no misconception, while in college a few moons ago, I was a geology major…. until calculus got the best of me. So I have a bit more knowledge on the subject than the average College Of Wikipedia graduate….. And again, I’m just wool-gathering..
Louis Hissink (16:05:01) :
An interesting article but looks to be pretty clearly a mis-interpretation. Choi is trying to interpret this in the context of a purely dip-slip subduction zone – the classically defined subduction zone. However, in this case , the more appropriate interpretation is that of an oblique convergent margin. See:
http://highlyallochthonous.blogspot.com/2006/05/earthquake-in-java.html
All the non-compliant observations made by Choi are because this is an oblique convergent boundary. The key to remember is that “one size fits all” type of model for geology rarely applies. The earth is inhomogeneous, both from a physical properties & stress/strain setting – both shallow & deep, so every situation needs to be interpreted independently to properly assess what’s going on. Plate tectonics, with subduction being an element of the model, is only a framework to interpret data – it doesn’t give you the answer – you have to let the data speak for itself. In this case, Choi didn’t listen to the data.
Antonio San (12:32:53) :
“James F. Evans, subduction zones are perfectly known by their seismicity, volcanism, tomography, rates of plate convergence measurements etc… inform yourself instead of spreading utter bS.”
Actually, I have informed myself, I have researched in depth the evidence from both sides of the debate. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence that contradicts the standard model of so-called “subduction”.
Most “subduction” assumptions are model driven — where have we seen that before? Most geology papers that discuss “subduction” simply build on assumptions published in previous geology papers and rarely critically examine those underlying and foundational assumptions.
Needless to say, geologists in the “subduction” camp don’t discuss the contradicting evidence — many, if not most, aren’t even aware of all the contradicting evidence because they are taught the prevailing view and discouraged from considering contradicting evidence.
(Similar to AGW proponents not being aware of contradicting scientific evidence to the AGW paradigm. Or, if they are aware, are loath to discuss that contradicting evidence.)
“Seismic tomography, which produces three-dimensional images of the earth’s interior, appears to show that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. McGeary and Plummer (1998) say that these findings cast doubt on the original, simple lithosphere-asthenosphere model of plate behavior.” — David Pratt, 2000
Continents that have ‘roots’ up to 600 km deep don’t go “wondering around” the Earth’s surface to periodically group-up into “super continents”.
For a long discussion that cites authority to numerous scientific papers questioning the “subduction” paradigm please see the link below:
http://davidpratt.info/tecto.htm
“It has been said that “A hypothesis that is appealing for its unity or simplicity acts as a filter, accepting reinforcement with ease but tending to reject evidence that does not seem to fit” (Grad, 1971, p. 636). Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff (1974b, p. 411) argued that this is “an admirable description of what has happened in the field of earth dynamics, where one hypothesis – the new global tectonics – has been permitted to override and overrule all other hypotheses.” Nitecki et al. (1978) reported that in 1961 only 27% of western geologists accepted plate tectonics, but that during the mid-1960s a “chain reaction” took place and by 1977 it was embraced by as many as 87%. Some proponents of plate tectonics have admitted that a bandwagon atmosphere developed, and that data that did not fit into the model were not given sufficient consideration (e.g. Wyllie, 1976), resulting in “a somewhat disturbing dogmatism” (Dott and Batten, 1981, p. 151). McGeary and Plummer (1998, p. 97) acknowledge that “Geologists, like other people, are susceptible to fads.”
Yes, I was like most folks that simply accepted what the scientists said.
(As we have seen in the AGW debate, there has been too much uncritical acceptance of what the “leading” (the “Team”) scientists said and the same shenanigans go on to silence the minority view in numerous other scientific disciplines — geology has been one of the worst offenders in this regard.)
But when I researched the subject I was astonished to find so much contradicting scientific evidence to the “subduction” paradigm (at the time, it did not come easy to accept the contradicting evidence, such was my prior subscription to the “subduction” paradigm).
It is a similar situation to AGW “science”, but is generally unknown to the general public because it is an academic question, where as AGW “science” is the base of support for a huge defining public policy dispute with possible outcomes threatening the world economy and personal liberty.
Regarding so-called “subduction”, Wikipedia entries are similar to Wikipedia entries on “global warming” where the prevailing view is parroted, so these entries are not helpful regarding presentation of contradicting evidence.
Needless to say geologists in the “subduction” paradigm camp react with displeasure whenever arguments are raised that challenge their world-view.
What else is new.
Layne Blanchard (14:06:39) :
Anu (11:59:14) : “Only the inexorable rise of CO2 in the atmosphere have a non-pulse, non-periodic effect on the planets temperature in the 100 to 500 year time frame of interest.” ………………..
…….Ah, Yes, that inexorable, devastating rise of 3 molecules in 10 Thousand …..to 4 whole molecules in 10 Thousand… shocking! Devastating. I’m melting already.
——————–
Do you have a problem with the mathematics of strychnine poisoning too ?
0.2mg/kg of victims body weight works nicely – that’s 0.2 ppm.
We must obliterate all trace of Capitalism, implement Socialism, divide up US wealth among world nations, and everyone will bike to their new job dragging a plow at the (local) organic farm. Once we repent our climate sins with a vow of poverty, will the mother ship swoop in from its hiding place behind the moon?
Or, we could spend the money-equivalent of a small once-every-five-years war to finally get fusion power, and leave the coal of the 19th century in the dustbin of History.
Do you doubt all science, or just climate science ?
Louis Hissink (16:05:01) :
Voodoo geology, what next?
Did you stop to find out about this journal?
Here’s their own description from their web site:
“The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology.”
You are suggesting that this represents some kind of breakthrough in our understanding of plate tectonics.
UFO’s? Alternative Medicine? Please!
I have a good one for you. How about dousing for magma? In Iceland.
Anu (15:54:23) :
A 39% increase in C02 is like adding 1 dumptruck load of sand to your favorite beach. The sand probably weighs 10 tons, but is lost in the quantity of sand on the beach.
We’re talking parts per million, not parts per hundred.
Point is that you have to start with something substantial in order for 39% increase to be making a difference.
Try RH.
James F. Evans (16:51:05) :
OK – you have laid down the gauntlet, now defend it with DATA.
1) If subduction is not a valid part of the plate tectonic movement, how do you explain what happens to the earth’s crust at convergent boundaries? It doesn’t simply disappear & we rarely see it at the surface (except for the small & rare obduction events) – so that only leaves one place for it to go – down. You may argue how it goes down, but it must go down.
Convergent boundaries are real and we are measuring plate motions with GPS TODAY. See:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
2) How to you explain the last dataset with out subduction or some equivalent mechanism?
We can see plate motions through time :
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tectonics/crustages.jpg
3) How do you explain the data in the last link without seafloor spreading? And if seafloor spreading is real, if there is no subduction or equivalent mechanism, are you implying the earth is expanding?
4) If you are implying the earth is expanding, what fills the void? Is the bulk density of the earth continually decreasing? And how are you accomplishing this both chemically & gravitationally? Oh, and BTW, GPS data shows the earth is not expanding. So, again, how are you going to explain all of this data without subduction or equivalent in your model?
5) How do explain all the contractional geologic structures see through out the world, throughout geologic time without convergent margins?
I could go on & on but I have already wasted too much of my time with this. You can believe whatever you want, but I make money being right about geology & geophysics. I think I saw some post something here to the effect of “If you don’t know anything, then anything seems possible”.
Show me the data!
Eyjafjallajökull Eruption News from Iceland
For heaven’s sake. Evans, you are repeating an updated version of Harold Jefferey’s 1920s-1930s objections to plate tectonics. Just because the continents have “deep roots” is no reason to call into question the following: 1) The occurrence of mantle rock (peridotite) in the melange of deep oceanic sediments in rock found shoreward of deep ocean trenches, 2) Benioff zones that dip quite linearly into the mantle from deep ocean trenches on the convex side of the arc, 3) the occurrence of volcanic arcs above the Benioff zone on the convex side, 4) magnetic lineations on the floor of all oceans that vanish in — you guessed it, deep ocean trenches, 5) Magnetic Polar wander, 6) lack of any oceanic crust older than Jurassic, 7) the termination of deep ocean trenches in transform faults, 8) gravity anomalies coinciding with deep ocean trenches, 9) lack of any reasonable mechanism to explain the maintenance of deep ocean trenches in the first place, 10) no reasonable explanation for the suite of rocks found in the paired synclines and anticlines that occur in volcanic arcs, and 11) not to mention again, that new crust originating in sea floor ridges, must have a compensating convergence of material some other place that decends into the mantle–i.e in the subduction zones occurring with deep ocean trenches. No geophysical evidence will tolerate an expanding Earth of declining average density.
Some continents have deep roots, and thus move quite slowly or perhaps rotate in the main, but even this is no evidence against subduction zones, which occur on the boundaries of continents.
I see that Jeff L has also chipped away at Evans’ promotion that subduction zones do not exist using some excellent observations involving GPS, and I might add that when I said “no reasonable explanation” in my previous post I meant so in the absence of subduction; and also add that trust-fault mechanisms for earthquakes dominate in and below subduction zones as shown by focal-plane solution of first motion, and also by ground deformation and damage patterns resulting from the earthquakes. Consequently, in order to entertain the idea of no subduction one has has to ignore deep problems with dozens of lines of well-established evidence.
Based on a total sample of one, the icelanders I spoke with were more concerned with Glacier turning (semi) liquid and rushing to the sea in a big hurry, than the volcano eruption per se.
I’ve seen first hand the devastation cause by one of the “glacier flushes” a “small event”. It’s kind of like taking everyting downstream ( for a large value of down and wide) and turning God’s own firehose to it. Impressive, I hope someone gets video this time around.
Anu (15:54:23) :
“CO2 is now at 389 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-Industrial Revolution. That’s 39% increase. Changing the temperature of the planet by even 0.9 deg C is a tremendous amount of energy being trapped:”
The energy isn’t trapped, the temperature of the atmosphere rises and equilibrium is again achieved.
The first order temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm works out to be 1.2 degrees when the earth reaches a new equilibrium.
Ask Trenberth, Hansen, Mann et al, they will all agree, the first order forcing of going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in a 1.2 degree rise in temperature.
Where there is disagreement is whether that 1.2 degree rise(.9C already occurred) will trigger second order effects..I.E. A substantial change in earths albedo, a substantial change in cloud formation etc etc etc.
The second order effects are speculation…the science on them is weak, since no one has figured out how to model clouds. Whether or not second order effects will or will not occur is pure speculation.
The evidence against is that the total heat content of the oceans has actually dropped since 2006 and we have not seen a verifiable temperature rise in the atmosphere to conclude there are second order effects.
Louis Hissink and James F. Evans:
Plate tectonics has evolved. The fact a general schematic had to be more complex in nature and show variations is hardly a refutation…
This gem is showing the level of the argument:
“Thrust faults are seen in the lower slope affecting Units III to VII, and are usually attributed to plate subduction. However, since there are no compressional tectonic features in the underlying units, Choi thinks that they are better interpreted as the result of sediment overloading in the middle to upper slope. He argues that the block-faulted units (I and II), which indicate a predominantly tensional stress regime, and the well-layered, little-disturbed Unit III, are unequivocal evidence against plate subduction.”
So compression occurs in the accretionary prism since most sediments, both oceanic, and volcano-detrital series overlying the oceanic basaltic crust do not subduct with the oceanic lithosphere, scrapped by the overlying plate. The flexure of the subducted plate does show horst and grabens consequence of “extra-dos” tensions and there is compression within the lower portion of the plate itself (small seismicity). The fact two different regimes are affecting locally two uncoupled geological elements (except the most basal sediments sheltered in these small crustal grabens) is hardly evidence against subduction!
And David Pratt site brings quite a few gems that do not even suggest science:
“Introduction
Theosophy teaches that a series of seven root-races or humanities will evolve on earth during the present fourth round, each living on its own ‘continent’. In its broadest sense, the word ‘continent’ is used here to denote all the dry land during the life-period any particular root-race, and in a narrower sense it refers to the central locality where the evolution of a particular race takes place. The midpoint of one root-race sees the emergence of the next, and is marked by a series of geological cataclysms, involving the submergence of old landmasses and the elevation of new ones. Just as the root-races overlap, so parts of the continents of one root-race become incorporated into the continental system of the next race.”
Again, nature’s complexity and the fact Plate Tectonics integrates an overwhelming array of measures and evidence doesn’t mean we know it all and there is nothing to learn. But the kind of stuff offered David Pratt and company is hardly what scientific research what’s about.
I can be classified as a “subductionist”????? Who knew?
Well, you learn something new every.
PS. Subduction explains the near disappearance of the Farallon plate quite nicely. How do the nonsubductionists explain it? How do they explain the ring of fire? How do they explain the presence of ophiolite found across the Coast Range, and all the serpentinite found within the Calaveras complex and various terranes that make up the geologic hell that is California?
Jeff L (17:34:05): “You may argue how it goes down, but it must go down.”
No, not if the Earth expands. Surely, you are aware of Samuel Warren Carey (1911 — 2002)?
If not, here is a Wikipedia biography of Carey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Warren_Carey
Oh, as I understand it, in the “subduction” plate tectonic paradigm, all mountain building is the result of “subduction”.
But the Rocky Mountains chain that runs from Canada through the U.S. into Mexico is not associated with any alleged “subduction” activity. So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?
Yes, there is activity at plate tectonic boundaries where there is stretching and tearing. Expansion is an uneven process where activity is constant.
Actually, these trenches show remarkably little build-up of sediment if the plate has been scraping underneath the continent for eons of time (no such build-up is observed say in the Mariana Trench.
Also, responding to the observation that continents have ‘roots’ doesn’t respond to all the other arguments in the Pratt link I provided (these arguments stand independently of David Pratt as they are from independent scientists, Pratt collates the points raised in the individual papers).
In reference of the “Farallon plate”, that is a huge assumption.
Well, it does not surprise me that there are objections — it is reasonable to object, to be sceptical — but it is also encumbent to be open minded about the evidence too.
I’ll provide this link (not that it will answer every objection) to provide some background:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html
Obviously, this discussion won’t change the minds of those that have a strong opinion, either for or gainst, rather, it is to suggest there is more to the story.
harrywr2 (18:43:33) :
The energy isn’t trapped, the temperature of the atmosphere rises and equilibrium is again achieved.
——————–
The rising temperature of the troposphere and the oceans do, in fact, represent a higher average kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules involved. This ‘trapped energy’ is solar energy that would previously have been reflected into space.
——————–
The first order temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm works out to be 1.2 degrees when the earth reaches a new equilibrium.
Ask Trenberth, Hansen, Mann et al, they will all agree, the first order forcing of going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in a 1.2 degree rise in temperature.
Let’s ask Dr. Hansen about climate sensitivity:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.
A global climate forcing, measured in W/m2 averaged over the planet, is an imposed perturbation of the planet’s energy balance. Increase of solar irradiance (So) by 2% and doubling of atmospheric CO2 are each forcings of about 4 W/m2. Charney defined an idealized climate sensitivity problem, asking how much global surface temperature would increase if atmospheric CO2 were instantly doubled, assuming that slowly-changing planetary surface conditions, such as ice sheets and forest cover, were fixed. Long-lived GHGs, except for the specified CO2 change, were also fixed, not
responding to climate change. The Charney problem thus provides a measure of climate sensitivity including only the effect of ‘fast’ feedback processes, such as changes of water vapor, clouds and sea ice.
Charney used climate models to estimate fastfeedback doubled CO2 sensitivity of 3 ± 1.5°C. Water vapor increase and sea ice decrease in response to global warming were both found to be strong positive feedbacks, amplifying the surface temperature response.
Climate models alone are unable to define climate sensitivity more precisely, because it is difficult to prove that models realistically incorporate all feedback processes. The Earth’s history, however, allows empirical inference of both fast feedback climate sensitivity and long-term sensitivity to
specified GHG change including the slow ice sheet feedback.
They don’t rely on climate models alone – they have empirical, past climate data.
——————–
Where there is disagreement is whether that 1.2 degree rise(.9C already occurred) will trigger second order effects..I.E. A substantial change in earths albedo, a substantial change in cloud formation etc etc etc.
The second order effects are speculation…the science on them is weak, since no one has figured out how to model clouds. Whether or not second order effects will or will not occur is pure speculation.
Ice ages and other past climate swings are not “pure speculation”. You’re right about climate models being a bit weak on clouds, but there are plenty of studies at different time/space scales that are then parameterized, and with the inexorable increase in supercomputer power, the parameterization is being decreased in scale every few years. Given this uncertainty, they run large ensembles of climate model predictions, and give the results as a range of expected climate developments.
Of course, by 2100, they will know exactly what the climate in 2100 will be.
——————–
The evidence against is that the total heat content of the oceans has actually dropped since 2006 and we have not seen a verifiable temperature rise in the atmosphere to conclude there are second order effects.
Sorry, no.
The ocean heat content has been rising for decades (Argo allows us to look down to 2000m, not just the 700m that shows “no warming”), as has the temperature of the troposphere. Perhaps you missed the news, things like the Argo data being analyzed and the satellite data being corrected are fairly recent:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/the-current-el-nino-still-hanging-on/#comment-349454
Satellite temperature measurements show the lower troposphere is warming at between 0.13 and 0.19 °C per decade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
Hey Charles, didn’t I predict this eruption a few months ago?
What is the assumption about the Farallon plate? That it exists?
James F Evans:
“But the Rocky Mountains chain that runs from Canada through the U.S. into Mexico is not associated with any alleged “subduction” activity. So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?”
James, ever heard of this thing called the San Andreas Fault? It runs all the way up the west coast. North American Plate is subducting the Pacific Plate and the San Juan plate underneath it. Makes things like Mt St. Helens, Mt. Rainier, Hood, Shasta, Bachelor, Baker, and other western volcanos erupt from time to time. Oh yeah, and that megavolcano, known as Yellowstone National Park, in the Rocky Mountains…
A better question is, whats with the Appalachians?
Mountain ranges have formed for billions of years James, sometimes the fault that formed them goes away entirely, or simply moves (for instance, the Appalachians were formed by the Mid Atlantic Ridge spreading seam back when North America was just starting to be disconnected from Gondwanaland).
If you are gonna question such a very basic and well established thing as plate tectonics, and claim something as absurd as the earth’s expanding (gee, this sounds like you believe in Pellucidar too), then I’ve really gotta question anything you say.