One wonders how many of these newly found thousands of volcanic seamounts are producing CO2 that bubble into the ocean

From the National Science Foundation- Press Release 14-133

New map uncovers thousands of unseen seamounts on ocean floor

Mysteries of the deep come alive as satellite data bring new clues into focus; results offer foundation for new version of Google’s ocean maps

new_seamounts_mapGravity model of the N. Atlantic; red dots are earthquakes. Quakes are often related to seamounts.

Credit and Larger Version

October 2, 2014

Scientists have created a new map of the world’s seafloor, offering a more vivid picture of the structures that make up the deepest, least-explored parts of the ocean.

The feat was accomplished by accessing two untapped streams of satellite data.

Thousands of previously uncharted mountains rising from the seafloor, called seamounts, have emerged through the map, along with new clues about the formation of the continents.

Combined with existing data and improved remote sensing instruments, the map, described today in the journal Science, gives scientists new tools to investigate ocean spreading centers and little-studied remote ocean basins.

Earthquakes were also mapped. In addition, the researchers discovered that seamounts and earthquakes are often linked. Most seamounts were once active volcanoes, and so are usually found near tectonically active plate boundaries, mid-ocean ridges and subducting zones.

The new map is twice as accurate as the previous version produced nearly 20 years ago, say the researchers, who are affiliated with California’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) and other institutions.

“The team has developed and proved a powerful new tool for high-resolution exploration of regional seafloor structure and geophysical processes,” says Don Rice, program director in the National Science Foundation’s Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research.

“This capability will allow us to revisit unsolved questions and to pinpoint where to focus future exploratory work.”

Developed using a scientific model that captures gravity measurements of the ocean seafloor, the map extracts data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) CryoSat-2 satellite.

CryoSat-2 primarily captures polar ice data but also operates continuously over the oceans. Data also came from Jason-1, NASA’s satellite that was redirected to map gravity fields during the last year of its 12-year mission.

“The kinds of things you can see very clearly are the abyssal hills, the most common landform on the planet,” says David Sandwell, lead author of the paper and a geophysicist at SIO.

The paper’s co-authors say that the map provides a window into the tectonics of the deep oceans.

The map also provides a foundation for the upcoming new version of Google’s ocean maps; it will fill large voids between shipboard depth profiles.

Previously unseen features include newly exposed continental connections across South America and Africa and new evidence for seafloor spreading ridges in the Gulf of Mexico. The ridges were active 150 million years ago and are now buried by mile-thick layers of sediment.

“One of the most important uses will be to improve the estimates of seafloor depth in the 80 percent of the oceans that remain uncharted or [where the sea floor] is buried beneath thick sediment,” the authors state.

Co-authors of the paper include R. Dietmar Muller of the University of Sydney, Walter Smith of the NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry Emmanuel Garcia of SIO and Richard Francis of ESA.

The study also was supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and ConocoPhillips.

-NSF-

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jorgekafkazar

Thanks, Chiefio. Definitely relevant.

eyesonu

Having read through all the comments on this thread I find it most interesting and now I’m going back and following/reading the associated links offered by the commenters.
I recommend reading the ones above by E.M.Smith above. Especially http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/
Notice: Inquiring minds may expend considerable time should you indulge into this most interesting journey into the depths of and relating to this topic. By this topic I include all the other discussions on this thread. It’s brain candy extraordinaire.

Gee, who would have thought that volcanoes might be more common in regions where the Earth’s crust is really thin?

Latitude

and not one word about the gravity problems in Antarctica?…..
http://www.wired.com/2014/09/melting-antarctic-ice-shifting-gravity/
decreasing gravity is a sign of volcanoes becoming active

Streetcred

… and thinning the ice. 😉

None of this is new. Some of us have been asking and writing about these issue for decades. The sad part is we were ignored by most, including many of the so-called skeptics.
CO2 escapes in large quantities not just from the crater but for 100s of square kilometres around the volcano. This is also detected on land based volcanoes but is effectively ignored, especially on Mauna Loa. Some of the early studies were done on Mt Etna. The porosity of the lava makes a considerable difference.
CO2 uniformly distributed in the atmosphere; what a joke, except it is not funny.

I don’t think skeptics have been ignoring the issue, but its difficult to credibly estimate how much CO2 is being emitted from them. Alarmists persist with laughably low estimates, and without credible numbers its hard to overturn their nonsense. However evidence seems to be accumulating 😉

jorgekafkazar

You’re right. I’ve posted the result of my calcs a half dozen times since ~2009. Doesn’t seem to draw much interest, even though it indicates that total volcanic CO2 may be one or two orders of magnitude higher than the “official” numbers. See the paper* on Lake Nyos, a volcanic vent (perhaps the only one) with ~100% CO2 capture. It’s relatively easy to estimate the total CO2 evolving from the seep below the lake, based on Schmid et al. .
* Schmid, Halbwachs, & Wuest (2006)
See also http://iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm

JayB

“In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.”
Excerpt from a post by Anthony Nov. 16, 2013. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/16/another-known-unknown-volcanic-outgassing-of-co2/)

Tim, the volcanic emissions over land were estimated in 1990 to less than 1% of human emissions, this year the estimates increased to 6% of human emissions. Still negligible.
Even if the undersea volcanic vents are emitting 10 times the human emissions, so what? That should go into the deep oceans, where there would be an increase of total carbon and a decrease in pH, for which is no indication at all.
Moreover, to cause the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 160 years, not only the undersea volcanic emissions must be at least 100 times more than all land volcanic emissions together, but also must have increased a 4-fold over the same time frame, completely in lockstep with human emissions.
Any indication that something like that happened?

sleepingbear dunes

Tim Ball
What is known about the heat escaping from hydro vents and any other sources at the bottom of the oceans? This whole area is intriguing but I see so little about this potential heat source.

jorgekafkazar

It’s not a practical commercial source of energy. Too deep, in most cases. Doesn’t that explain why you see so little of it?

john karajas

There is an enormous amount of heat flow from the mantle and below towards the surface of the earth. The earth’s atmosphere must redistribute this heat and eventually allow it to be emitted into space. If such processes did not occur throughout geological time we would truly have runaway global warming by now.

jim

Tim Ball,
You’re right; none of the information is new.
But the map, or the NSF image linked in the article is new. And it is very interesting. The ocean bottom visualization, and seismic and gravimetric info is really neat.
It defiantly shows the dynamism of the earth’s surface.

MrX

It’s not actually new. I’ve had these datasets for quite a while. They release new ones for the seafloor age every few years (which isn’t even displayed here, only the height map). They can go several years between updates though. The volcano one is updated more regularly. Now, is this new for Google maps? No idea. But they’ve been around for a while. Really cool stuff nonetheless.

Hmmm… you don’t that thousands of active volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean could cause oceans temps to rise do you?

Hmmm… you don’t think that thousands of active volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean could cause oceans temps to rise do you?

mpainter

The ultimate sequestration of CO2 is in the form of carbonates: through organic means such corals, plankton, etc. But also inorganically by mere precipitation of CaCO3 on the continental shelves but especially in areas known as carbonate platforms such as the Bahamas or the Yucatan shelf. This goes into the carbon equation as do those subsea volcanoes. You will never convince me that it has all been figured out.

sophocles

It’s not just CO2. There’s volcanic activity and the heat from it.
About 72% of the Earth’s surface is covered by ocean. It would
not be unreasonable to ascribe about the same proportion of
global volcanic activity to submarine volcanoes, with active
aerial volcanoes comprising remaining 28%. We seem to
only pay attention to the aerial ones.
How much heat enters the deep ocean from submarine volcanoes,
volcanic vents and the seafloor spreading ridges?
Heating cold water releases dissolved CO2. The volcanic plumes can
rise to close to the surface.
Some studying the El Nino phenomenon have also noticed
tectonic activity which could have come from submarine volcanoes
leading up to the grand event. Is there a link?

Michael D

Yes, I presume ocean heat comes from the volcanoes. I it would be reasonable to assume that this could go through multi-year cycles or seasons of heat and less heat. Deep-water heat might be carried by the Gulf Stream and cause melting of Arctic ice. Do climate models include deep-earth heat sources ? I have not seen it but maybe it’s too small to count.

Back a few years ago, when I looked at the global heat flow diagrams of Trenberth and others, I thought it odd that there was no internally escaping heat included in any of the diagrams. Later I learned that the average was like 0.087 W/m^2, which makes some sense why not.
That average is okay, I guess, by itself, but some places have been directly measured at more than 30 watts/m^2 (a small part of the East Pacific Rise). Thus, while the overall is quite small, the regional seems to perhaps have the potential to be causing SOME regional effects. It seems reasonable, and I’d like to see a study done, myself. I don’t consider it ruled out.

Streetcred

It would also be reasonable to assume that there’s significantly more volcanic activity per sq.km. undersea than on the continental surface … it stands to reason that the mantle would be much thinner at depths of greater than 1000m below sea level.

How much heat enters the deep ocean? This site gives some idea, based on thousands and thousands of measurements:
http://www.heatflow.und.edu/index2.html – The International Heat Flow Commission’s Global Heat Flow Database (Yes, there is actually such a commission.)
Maps and data. Some extra interesting maps here: http://www.geophysik.rwth-aachen.de/IHFC/heatflow.html
(Disappointed that this study does not have a map of the Pacific, because the highest heat flow is in mid-ocean ridges, and the highest of all is in the East Pacific Rise.)

Goldie

So in the absence of any accurate data – we have been assuming that the rise in CO2 is caused by humans and that, in fact, anything we can’t explain with a moments positing is due to human induced climate change or human induced something. We are a sorry lot.

Bart

So true. So much of what passes for established fact is actually someone’s surmise which became accepted as fact after years passed and nobody came up with a better, or more widely accepted, surmise. Reminds me of the song “Rainbow Connection”, as sung by Kermit the Frog:
“Who said that every wish,
would be heard and answered,
when wished on the Morning Star?
Somebody thought of that,
and someone believed it.
Look what it’s done so far.”

Goldie, two facts which refute the oceans as cause of the rise:
The δ13C level of the oceans is between zero and +5 per mil, the atmosphere is around -8 per mil and fast decreasing. If the oceans were the cause of the increase, the δ13C level of the atmosphere would increase, not decrease.
There is a rough balance of the in and out fluxes between the oceans and atmosphere, based on measurements, which shows that the oceans are a net absorber of CO2, not a net emitter:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml

Bart

This is just an estimate based on a model for relationship to wind speed, ultimately calibrated by Keeling et al., 1996; Battle et al., 2000 which estimated it based on the assumed effect on atmospheric concentration. In other words, saying it proves that oceans aren’t the cause of the rise is a circular exercise: the oceans aren’t the cause of the rise based on the assumption that oceans aren’t the cause of the rise.

Bart, the influence of wind speed is estimated based on tank experiments for wind and waves, thus that is largely modeled, but the in/out fluxes of CO2 are directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and ocean surface for the same wind speed.
Assuming that wind speed didn’t change much over the years, the increase of atmospheric CO2 will suppress the input and increase the output fluxes, no matter if the atmospheric increase is caused by increased upwelling or human emissions.
The fact that there is a 4-fold increase in net uptake and a 4-fold increase in human emissions makes that you need a 4-fold increase in CO2 upwelling (and thus CO2 throughput) to match the slightly quadratic CO2 increase in the atmosphere, if that was caused by upwelling.
But there is no indication at all that the upwelling increased. Especially not in the δ13C level, which should go up, not down, with an increased upwelling. The latter is measured in the atmosphere, which is readily mixed and in the ocean surface, which is in closed contact with the atmosphere (but less well mixed).

Bart

There has been no 4-fold increase. I showed you the math.

Bart, your math was in error: it assumes that the sinks act different for human and natural CO2.
As the human emissions increased a 4-fold and the net difference between sources and sinks also increased a 4-fold and the driving force: the difference between pCO2 in the atmosphere and the historical equilibrium pCO2 also increased a 4-fold in the past 55 years, the only possibility for natural emissions to be the main cause of the increase in the atmosphere is to have increased a 4-fold too in the same time span.
Which is not seen in any observation. Thus the natural carbon cycles (oceans, volcanoes, vegetation,…) are not the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Bart

No, Ferdinand. And, my math is never in error.

Bart, your math is not in error, but the reasoning behind it is…
If we may assume that the human contribution is currently about 3% of the natural emissions and the human emissions increased a 4-fold over time and so did the net increase in the atmosphere, then the natural emissions should have increased a 4-fold too or they are not responsible for the increase.
55 years ago the human emissions were 0.75% of the total inputs (100.75%) and 0.75% of total outputs (100.375%) according to your reasoning, if the sinks act to natural and human inputs the same way. The net sink rate and increase in the atmosphere both were around 0.375% of total inputs.
As the human input increased and if the natural inputs didn’t, the total input increased from 100.75% to 103% which makes that the sinks increased from 100.375% to 102.6% for the same resistance of the sinks, leaving an increase of only 0.4% in the atmosphere. Far too low to explain the increase in the atmosphere. Thus one need an (4-fold) increase of the natural inputs too to give the observed increase in the atmosphere, if the sinks react near immediately on the inputs.
But that is where it goes wrong: there is no direct reaction of the sinks to the increasing inputs, the sinks react a lot slower than you expect on the increase in the atmosphere, not on the input fluxes…

Bart

I do not have time to dissect your errors, but you cannot have more than 100%. Everything you say is assumptions “proving” assumptions, e.g., “As the human input increased and if the natural inputs didn’t…” IF the natural inputs didn’t. Everywhere you put an “if” is a point at which you made an assumption, and your assumptions are tautological to your conclusions. I.e., it is circular logic.

Bart, it is such a simple point, based on the reaction of any system in dynamic equilibrium to a disturbance that I am surprised that you don’t see your problem:
Over the past 55 years:
The human emissions increased a 4-fold
The extra pressure in the atmosphere increased a 4-fold
The net reaction of the carbon cycle (a net sink rate) increased a 4-fold
The net reaction of the carbon cycle in this case is directly proportional to the increase in the atmosphere.
The only way that any natural source could be responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is that the total natural emissions also increased a 4-fold in the past 55 years.
You see, I didn’t use “if”, not even once.
And it doesn’t matter for the calculation that I used 100% for the natural inputs only, the surplus is what was added by humans or remains in the atmosphere…

Bart

Sorry, Ferdinand, no. Yours is a static analysis, in which you have assumed nature is a bystander. Your model is that of a fountain, with a basin and no drain, and a pump which is always set to deliver an unchanging and unchangeable flow. This is not a natural system. It is an artificial construct which exists only in your own mind.
We’ve been over and over it. I have given you the correct equations. I have shown you your errors. It has made no impression, so it’s useless to go over it once again.
I’m sorry that you cannot see why you are wrong. It really is elementary. I’ll let you get the last word if you like. There is no point in belaboring things any longer. Nobody is looking at this thread anymore, anyway.

Sorry Bart, your theoretical solution is not working in the real world: whatever the source of the increase in the atmosphere, the oceans as sources and sinks do react on the increased pressure in the atmosphere. No matter if that is a static or dynamic system.
Nothing in your math shows any feedback from the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere on the dynamics of the ocean’s uptake and release. That is where it goes wrong…

Aidan

As an ignorant human who through no fault of his own happens to live here, I would like to ask some simple questions.
You seem to be arguing that the amount of Co2 produced ‘naturally’ remains uniiform and does not fall or rise significantly or rapidly.
This means that humans must be responsible for the rise in Co2 beginning last century and continuing.
As plants would starve = Biosphere death begins to occur at around 180ppmv and the rise in Co2 began when they measured it at 280ppmv, added to the fact that plants thrive best above 1800ppmv, it appears that if the ‘natural’ processes are uniform the threat that really faces life on earth is not, in fact, the increase in Co2 wherever it came from.
It is the fact that if the Co2 hadn’t been supplemented, the biosphere could even now be dying due to lack of Co2.
Instead of worrying how we can reduce Co2 we should be looking at how to cause the ‘natural’ processes to work to release it more efficiently so we can stop worrying about it.
Are we really so sure that ‘natural’ processes are not as prone to violent swings affecting how much Co2 is released. I mean in orders of magnitude that dwarf anything humanity can do and very quickly?
Are we so very sure that the Nuclear testing in the fifties and sixties did not have a major effect for example, if not , why not, if so, how.?
It seems to me that until we get past the ‘earth’s gunna fry, we all gunna die, there’s too much Co2’ and start looking at it properly :
‘C02 good, there wasn’t and still isn’t nearly enough of it in the atmosphere, another 1400ppmv at least is needed’ – we are not going to get very far scientifically – an irrefutable proof might send the berserk wanna-be Malthusians back into their lairs…
It seems no scientists seem to want to look at the simple science that tells us we need more, lots more Co2 in the atmosphere, but argue complex stuff which the science-denier warmists can pretend to be the experts on and shift the parameters or ’causes’ around seemingly will.
At which point those who know they are lying shysters set about demolishing their latest argument, while they and their political masters continue merrily on to bankrupt and remove out liberties from us.
It looks increasingly like it’s the Skeptics that are the fools, not the ‘climate scientists and their masters’

Aidan:
You seem to be arguing that the amount of Co2 produced ‘naturally’ remains uniform and does not fall or rise significantly or rapidly.
Indeed that is the background: there is very little variation in the rate of change of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere: about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend. The trend itself is about 2 ppmv/year up and human emissions are currently around 4 ppmv/year. Thus the natural variation is less than halve the human emissions… See further for more arguments, why humans are the cause of the current increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
From ice cores we know that there is a rather fixed ratio between temperature and CO2 levels over the past 1 million years or so: 8 ppmv/°C. That gives 180-200 ppmv in the coldest periods and 280-310 ppmv in the warmest. The cold periods indeed were quite harsh for a lot of plants, even in warmer parts of the globe and may be the reason that the C4 plants started to emerge, which need less CO2 to grow.
For most plants, more CO2 is better, all other necessities being sufficiently available. Glasshouse growers frequently add 1000 ppmv CO2 and more into their greenhouses to have a faster growth…
Besides the emissions, there is little that humans can do to increase the CO2 level. If the earth cools and if we stop all emissions, the CO2 levels would drop back to the ~300 ppmv for the current temperature and below, depending of the temperature drop. That is driven mainly by the (deep) oceans, which enormous capacity in heat and CO2 level we can’t possibly influence (except if we burn all available oil and gas and most of coal)…

Most undersea volcanos emit under the carbonate compensation depth, so that co2 never reaches the surface. Learn basic facts first before jumping to conclusions. Makes tyou look silly.
(lukewarmer geophysicist)

TRM

Good to know. Another question I have is does the heat released cause a release of CO2 from the water as it rises past the point where the pressure isn’t enough. Or does the heat dissipate before it gets to that level?
Thanks

Michael D

Try to be more polite, please, Hans Erren. Makes you look grumpy.

mpainter

Whatever are you talking about- carbonate compensation depth? Please explain, if you would be so kind.

eyesonu

I googled “carbonate compensation depth” and that eventually led me to calcium carbonate. It was an interesting journey.
I hope this thread will lead to more discussion on the processes in the depths of the sea . One thing that appears certain is that the Earth has an abundant supply of calcium carbonate. A lot must be happening down in the deep.

Lets learn some basic facts.
“Principles
The carbonate compensation depth (CCD) is the particular depth level in the oceans where the rate of supply of calcium carbonate to the sea floor is balanced by the rate of dissolution. In practice, the CCD is mapped as the level at which percent carbonate values in marine sediments drop towards zero, i.e., the depth transition from carbonate ooze to red clay or siliceous ooze. Because the supply and dissolution rates of carbonate differ from place to place, the depth of the CCD is variable. In the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, the CCD is typically found at depths between 3,500 and 4,500 m. In the North Atlantic and the eastern South Atlantic, the CCD occurs deeper than 5,000 m.”
http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/77297.html
“Smoke pours from top of a chimney at the Mata Fitu submarine volcano, at a depth of 2,600 meters. NOAA scientists studied this and other underwater volcanoes as part of the Submarine Ring of Fire 2012: Northeast Lau Basin expedition.”
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/volcanoes.html
The Brothers volcano is a Pacific Ocean is the most hydrothermally active volcano known in the Kermadec Arc. The caldera floor lies 1850 m below sea level.
First two submarine volcanos I checked emit ABOVE the CCD. Don’t insult people unless you are aware of the FACTS first.

mpainter

According to those figures, most volcanoes will be above the CCD.
Hans Erren appears to be in error in his assertion “most undersea volcanoes emit under the carbonate compensation depth”. He apparently errs further in his claim “CO2 never reaches the surface” because indeed it does via circulation. Furthermore the reaction is reversible and apparently leads to the carbonate shelf sediments.
However, he does give good advice when he says: “learn basic facts before jumping to conclusions” and if he would only follow his own advice..well.

I agree with the “lets learn some facts bit” what was the rest?

Khwarizmi

Most undersea volcanos emit under the carbonate compensation depth“?
= = = = = = = =
Are you sure?
1) “At the present time the CCD in the Pacific Ocean is about 4200 – 4500 metres except beneath the equatorial upwelling zone, where the CCD is about 5000 m. In the temperate and tropical Atlantic Ocean the CCD is at approximately 5000 m. In the Indian Ocean it is intermediate between the Atlantic and the Pacific 4300 meters.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_compensation_depth
2) “The most productive volcanic systems on Earth are hidden under an average of 8,500 feet (2,600 m) of water.”
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138
3) “In its own right, a submarine volcano is nothing new. Dotted across stretches of ocean floor, chains of volcanoes may extend for hundreds to thousands of kilometres. But most of these tend to be less than 1000 metres down.
Crucially, says Dr Carey, the tremendous weight of overlying water will act to suppress a volcano’s explosivity. “So explosive eruptions from great depth, like the one at Havre, are rare,” she says.
The Havre volcano and surrounding ocean floor had been mapped in 2002; following the eruption, the floor was remapped. “Our survey found multiple new vents that ranged in depth between 700 and 1500 metres below sea level,” Dr Carey explains.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/havre-eruption-leads-scientists-to-biggest-undersea-volcano-20140509-zr7dw.html

Bart

Doesn’t the CCD itself depend on CO2 concentration? Aren’t you actually arguing for a steady state condition, wherein the fixed CCD is actually the manifestation of a long term equilibrium condition? Why would this preclude release of additional CO2 if volcanic activity increases?

Bart

Above questions to Hans.

Streetcred

What about the great ocean conveyor and upwellings in this ?

jorgekafkazar

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Hi Mr Erren
Ocean currents upwelling brings it to surface..

Doesn’t look silly to me, looks like he’s trying to question what’s happening. That’s what this site is for.

tty

“Most undersea volcanos emit under the carbonate compensation depth, so that co2 never reaches the surface.”
Whatever gave you that idea?

Gamecock

Additionally, what impact do the undersea volcanoes have on the size of the ocean basin? Could the 1.9mm/year SLR be due to volcanoes?

sleepingbear dunes

Meaning the volume decreases as the floor
is raised?

noaaprogrammer

Not only that, but also a continual rain of cosmic detritus, and sands from the Sahara Dessert, and … all at very small magnitudes to be sure, but additive nonetheless.

Gamecock

Not just cosmic detritus . . . plankton die and precipitate. That’s how we got vast layers of limestone around the earth. The process continues.

OH what a wonderful world we live on: it is so expansive yet we always seem to miss the forest for the trees or is it that we always derive so little from so much. Here we have just discovered thousands of volcanic seamounts and all we can think of is the emissions of CO2 bubbles. Does it not occur to us that these seamounts are all created by undersea lava eruptions which add volume to the seafloor on a continuing basis. Hence does it not occur to us that this seafloor volume is constantly being increased by these seamounts and pushing the continents apart e.g North America away from Europe and widening the Pacific Ocean. Do you think these seamounts add girth to the earth. If they do add girth to the Earth what effect do you think the expansion of the sea floors have on sea levels worldwide. The Mysterious Receding Seas`Youtube Richard Guy

How many Glaciers do these newly undersea active volcanic areas have?

*Discovered

geogeek

Yes, but the oceanic crust is being subducted at a similar rate.

Is it?

tty

Well yes, except for the (major) part that is accreted to the continents.

Bill Illis

The mid-oceanic ridges locate the “spot” where previously locked-together-continents divided and began separating long ago. Generally, the continents should have moved away from this central point at roughly the same speed and distance over time.
The Atlantic mid-oceanic ridge shows this very well.
But the one that I always found to show something different than the generally accepted continental drift of the continents theory is the oceanic-ridge between Antarctica and Australia.
This ridge shows that Antarctica was much farther North 50 million years ago or so than all the continental reconstruction maps show. It began moving south-West at this point after seperating from Australia and arrived centered over the South Pole, let’s say, 20 million years ago. It iced over 34.6 million years ago as would be expected given the speed and distance that it should have been travelled from the current location of the ridge.
But all the reconstructions have it at the South Pole centred position as early as 50 million years ago. The mid-oceanic ridge tells a different story with Antarctica being at least 2000 kms farther North at the time.
Its an important point in terms of when Antarctica last glaciated over and what cause that glaciation.

OMG – the heat IS hiding in the oceans!

LevelGaze

Ah, but not THAT heat.

Heat, schmeet – anthropogenic, misanthropogenic, volcanogenic….
We’re DOOOOOMED!!!

as a layman i have tried to tell folks for decades that the earth spews forth gases and oil 24/7 has been doing so for eons……to claim that humans release of co2 has upset some delicate balance is utter IDIOCY………there is no delicate balance, there is a chaotic system seeking balance that can never be found……..

Larry Ledwick

I have commented on the ocean basin volume multiple times in the last few years but it seldom gets any serious consideration. The idea of sea level rise has a built in assumption that the ocean basins are of approximately uniform volume but I suspect that is not a valid assumption. The Good Friday earth quake in Alaska 1964 had significant sea floor level changes measured, as did the Christmas Tsunami 2004. The obvious issue of lava flow near the ridges as mentioned above and sedimentation from the major rivers and sky fall of dust over the entire planet. The earth is busy trying to fill in the ocean basins all the time. In the Atlantic where it is growing wider you have increases in volume due to spreading but on the Pacific subduction zones you must also have a reduction in the Pacific ocean basin volume. To my knowledge no one has made any serious attempt to quantify and tabulate the and other possible causes of ocean basin filling. If atmospheric dust load, and river sedimentation along with volcanic flows in the deep ocean could all combined account for 1.8 mm per year in sea level increase. Throw in run off changes due to pumping of ground water and the apparent sea level rise could be totally independent of temperature changes. It would be nice if the sea level rise advocates would at least address these questions instead of leaving unspoken an assumption that the ocean basin volumes are constant over decade and century time spans.

dudleyhorscroft

Sand and loess particles, soot from forest fires, meteorite hits, are plausible natural airborne additions to the oceans. Diesel, industrial, transport (road dust, tyre dust) particles are plausible anthropogenic (got that word in!) materials to add to the oceans. Water from glaciers, and ice sheets are natural additions. Water from artesian basin extractions are man made additions. Note that rivers and dams do not count – by definition rivers are filled from evaporation and dams merely delay the water getting to the oceans. Landfill when new dry land is created, yes, these are also man made additions.
Volcanic eruptions of lava onto sea shores count. Volcanic eruptions from under the sea do not count as additions to the ocean basins becuse almost certainly this material has come from under the ocean, thus lowering the sea bottom and not changing the ocean volume.
Someone – not me – can make some heroic assumptions re the amount of material deposited each year into the oceans. One should perhaps take into the account the amount of water removed when it is contained in silts and sediments engulfed in subduction zones each year. I suspect the guesses on that tould totally cover the range from nil to more than all the totality of addition of materials to the oceans.
Now here’s a thing. Given that the top layer of water in the ocean is warming, and therefore giving off more CO2, or possibly accumulating more CO2 because the atmospheric level of CO2 has gone up, what effect will the change in dissolved CO2 have on water density. Is carbonated water denser or less dense than uncarbonated water? If you boil out the CO2 from sodawater, but prevent the water from evaporating (how?) will the water occupy greater or less volume after than before?
This is where one’s head says – “Forget it, my head hurts, it is lunch time. I am going to eat.”

PeterinMD

“Volcanic eruptions from under the sea do not count as additions to the ocean basins becuse almost certainly this material has come from under the ocean, thus lowering the sea bottom and not changing the ocean volume.”
I think the Hawaiian Islands disprove this comment.

tty

“Volcanic eruptions from under the sea do not count as additions to the ocean basins becuse almost certainly this material has come from under the ocean, thus lowering the sea bottom and not changing the ocean volume.”
Actually changes in the activity (and volume) of the mid-ocean ridges is considered the major driver of sea-level change, though it only works on geological time-scales.

stuartlarge

The argument about how much CO2 is emitted from natural means as opposed to man made means, is pretty pointless we cannot deny that mans emits CO2, the argument is what does this extra CO2 emitted by man do, personally I think very little except for causing more vegetation to grow, and I would like to see more CO2 not less.

M Courtney

The argument about how much CO2 is emitted from natural means as opposed to man made means, is pretty pointless we cannot deny that mans emits CO2…

True.
But if man’s emissions are negligible compared to natural variations then the argument is not pointless.
We could be talking about an effect that is vanishingly small… like trying to regulate the flapping of bees wings.
Not saying that is so, but it might be.

The point is that the net natural variations over the past 55 years were about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend of CO2 increase (including the 1992 Pinatubo and the 1998 El Niño), while human emissions increased from ~1 ppmv/year 55 years ago to currently ~4 ppmv/year and the increase in the atmosphere increased from ~0.5 ppmv/year to currently ~2 ppmv/year.
Thus the natural variations are not more than halve the current human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
That means that the human emissions “signal” surpasses the natural “noise” already in within a few years.

petermue

Hillier & Watts stated over 3 million subaerial volcanoes in 2007, from which an estimated number of 193,000 active volcanoes release CO2 into the oceans.
The study and numbers can be found here:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

sleepingbear dunes

A remarkable paper. The numbers are staggering.

Golden

Look !! The earth is about to split apart because of man-made-thingamigigy. We need more money for research ! We have to have conferences! We have to stop producing thingamigigies.

…except for he thingamigiggies that carry climate scientists to conferences..

Natural sources of CO2 vs Anthropogenic CO2?
If we treat “anthropogenic CO2” as a volcano in of itself, the anthropogenic volcano is dwarfed by the natural volcano every-time..
The amount of resources “wasted” by volcanoes per second compared to humans would make Dicaprio blush.
Volcanoes have a solid political manifesto, oh no wait… that’s humans talking balls again.
Volcanoes actually understand politics.

LogosWrench

Volcanoes do understand politics. Like politicians, they are sedentary, immovable and emit hot gas. Although I prefer the volcano as it sees no need to pick my pocket.
🙂

Leo Smith

Although I prefer the volcano as it sees no need to pick my pocket.
🙂

Just as caapable of trashing your nation though.

And when volcanoes get too much power they usually cause enormous destruction, laying waste to gigantic areas of land and ultimately cause widespread mayhem and death. Thus, the safest politicians are always found at the bottom of the ocean depths.

Joel O'Bryan

OCO-2 level 2 data should be fun. If it shows something so unexpected and controversial, the mission managers may elect to hold on to it for awhile to study the anomaly while the political types evaluate the impact to their careers..

The real main point should be that the warmist scientists have claimed that they have included everything in their thinking and their models, while in reality studies like this come along and show CO2 that they missed.
Similarly, when global warming came to the fore, in the 1980s and 1990s, they didn’t include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – because it hadn’t been discovered yet. Yet they claimed then that they had everything taken into account.
So, going forward, one question has to be, “What ELSE is going to show up down the road that they have they not recognized and included in their “complete pile of evidence”?

TRG

If the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is due to undersea volcanoes, does anyone have an explanation as to why it has been rising so smoothly and steadily all these years. I didn’t think so.

Rising? give some context as in capacity and potential? spill it genius!

Rising:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
If undersea volcanoes were responsible, their output should have increased a 4-fold in the past 55 years in complete lockstep with human emissions but that is contradicted by the δ13C drop in the atmosphere (and the ocean surface layer) and where would the human emissions then go if not in the biosphere (10% of the emissions in mass) and the oceans (45% of the emissions in mass).

The temperature anomaly in that graph has the 1930’s warming and the1940’s cooling removed. The CO2 compared to Maximum and minimum levels in the past would look like a straight line unrelated to temperature (therefor the graph has no correct boundaries for context). If I tried something like this in work I’d be sacked for incompetence. And yes, CO2 has risen a bit but this type of “lockstep” with human CO2 and temps graphs are unconvincing. Purely a manufactured artifact for a belief in my opinion.

Why the 21 year moving average ?
– to avoid the ‘pause’ ?
– global temperature change is responding to the solar magnetic cycle (21.3 years for 1880 -2013) ?
– any other valid scientific reason ?

Sparks and Vukcevic,
The 21 year moving average was added to show what such averaging does to the trend, I never used it, but some skeptics did show only the 21-year averaged trend since 1985 (!) to show that the temperature increase was the cause of the CO2 increase…
Thus there is no valid reason to use the 21 year averaging and I agree that temperature is NOT the cause of the CO2 increase, only is the cause of the year by year variability around the trend, which is hardly visible in the trend plot…
But if temperature is not the cause and human emissions are about twice the increase in the atmosphere, I don’t see any reason why humans aren’t responsible for the rise, the more that all known observations fit the human cause…
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg

Correlation between secular changes in the geomagnetic field and the global temperatures, since 1600s to the present, is just as strong or even stronger than that one with the CO2 emissions.
Mechanism proposed by Svensmark (when applied to the geomagnetic rather than heliospheric magnetic field is just as credible or even more so than that of the CO2.
In addition one could consider the geomagnetic field variability as a proxy for the crust movements (as used by geologists) as an alternative mechanism.
For more see my comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/01/test-driving-the-solar-notch-delay-model/#comment-1751557
Of course as a CO2 hypothesis advocate you may dismiss all above as irrelevant, and it would not surprise me in the least if you do , or even more likely not even take trouble to consider any of it.
Search for true causes or advocacy ?

my comment above is addressed to Mr. Ferdinand Engelbeen.

Vukcevic, there is hardly any correlation between temperature and CO2, but my point is that it is to both sides: CO2 is not the cause of most of the temperature increase (and the pauses) for all skeptics (myself included) but temperature is not the cause of the CO2 increase (as many skeptics think) either… Neither are volcanoes (land or ocean), which are much too variable in emissions to explain the smooth increase of CO2 which parallels the human emissions over the past 114 years (and their δ13C level is in general -much- higher than of the atmosphere).
I have no problem with any alternative explanation for the repeated warming / pauses in the temperature trend, but I remain skeptic until there is a proven physical explanation…

Mr. Engelbeen
Thanks for the explanation, it appears I misunderstood your views, I apologise for and withdraw the ‘CO2 hypothesis advocate’, if you found it in any way offensive.

John Andrews

E. M. Smith (Chiefio) notes today here and some time ago on his blog the undersea volcanos. One of the things I noted when reading them was that the CO2 emitted is a liquid. As I recall someone observed quarter sized balls of liquid CO2 floating near a vent in the images. CO2 is a liquid at deep ocean levels and hence may not readily mix with the water. Rather it will probably sink to the bottom because the liquid is more dense than water. So we don’t have explosions in vents when CO2 is emitted, we just get lakes or ponds of liquid CO2 that provides a continuous source for the natural content in the ocean circulation models.
One way to get rid of excess CO2 would be to pump it into the deep ocean where it will liquify and sink to the bottom. Not that we should do that at all, but you get the idea.

Alex

Liquid CO2 has a density of 770kg/m3. Water is 1000Kg/m3

Duke C.

Found this footage in E.M. Smith’s article. CO2 blobs are rising? Fascinating stuff.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRYgeOMBlmQ&w=420&h=315%5D

Bob in Castlemaine

One suspects the CO2 story still has many knowledge gaps. A couple of “denier” scientists who know something about these gaps are Professors Ian Plimer and Murray Selby.

Randy

Did I miss it? Over what time period of time were the earthquake data gathered?

Might be just a few bazillloon Btus with these as well.

Richard111

This layman is wondering about the reduced magnetic level of the current ‘quiet period’ of our sun. It seems this has allowed the Earth’s magnetic field to relax and expand. This seems to be controlled by the liquid magma of the Earth. Surely this will result is increased movement of the magma with consequent increase in the level of global earthquake and volcanic activity?

Over 30 years ago, I have read a book about the influence of the sun on a lot of earth’s phenomenon, including earthquakes. It was said that there are more earthquakes at some parts of the sun cycle, but I have never seen a confirmation…

Sarcastically, The Earths magnetic field had the time to “relax and expand” during a solar maximum, which you call a “quiet period’ on our sun” which in fact is the most noisy period of the solar cycle. /end sarc Don’t call me Shirley! “Increased movement of Magma” makes you sound like a Supervillain. are you Dr evil Richard?

Just over 3 years ago I found strong correlation between the tectonic events in the N. Atlantic (along mid-Atlantic ridge) and the N. Atlantic SST (AMO) and more recently the sub-Arctic atmospheric pressure:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAS.gif
IF, and it is a big with capital letters ‘if’, the correlation holds then the PAUSE will soon turn to a downhill slalom.
Oh, forget it, let’s go back to CO2, TSI, UV, long cycles or whatever.

Alex

Interesting. I could probably connect air pressure and sea surface temperature.
IF there is some connection then the flow chart would have to be.
Tectonic-Sea -Air.
Is the tectonic graph based on number or intensity? Is the epicentre/activity on land or in the sea?
Is it just a coincidence?
Worth pursuing. Be prepared to put a large book in the back of your pants before presenting any findings.

Hi Alex
I would think that amount of heat pumped into oceans is probably insignificant, considering oceans thermal capacity. Air pressure and tectonics are concurrent in time and lead the SST by number of years. I expect that air pressure simply reacts mechanically to tectonic pulsations, it has some effect on the atmospheric circulation, while the tectonics main effect is possibly via sea floor ocean currents, taking some years to show up on the SST. In the above case I suspect the little known North Icelandic Jet.

re vukcevic: “I would think that amount of heat pumped into oceans is probably insignificant, considering oceans thermal capacity. ”
And yet the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans to account for the lack of warming is considered a serious thing, regardless of thermal capacity.

Steve P

Where known unknowns collide.

Variables recorded from earth usually correlate very well with other measurements recorded from earth.
Just saying!

Ever since Robert Ballard found the first black smokers years ago, it has been known that, from a strictly uniformitarian standpoint, that they must exist along all 40,000 miles of the mid-ocean ridge system, quietly and invisibly pumping their wares into the ocean….along with a considerable amount of heat. The eruptions like those fissure eruptions on Iceland, are basically happening all along the MOR system. To overlook that fact (as the idea “newly found” would suggest) is pure folly…especially from the CO₂ emissions standpoint.
Here is a KNOWN process, based on and easily extrapolated FROM observation, completely eschewed by the model-crunching druids in climate-land. And it’s massive, like the plesiosaur in the closet.

Leo Smith

I love a plesiosaur in a closet.
So much more elegant than an elephant in the room or a gorilla in the bathroom.

Mike Bromley –
There is an actual international commission that measures heat flux in the oceans.
To get some of an idea of the numbers, see my comment above — http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/one-wonders-how-many-of-these-newly-found-thousands-of-volcanic-seamounts-are-producing-co2-that-bubble-into-the-ocean/#comment-1754845
Also this one: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/one-wonders-how-many-of-these-newly-found-thousands-of-volcanic-seamounts-are-producing-co2-that-bubble-into-the-ocean/#comment-1754840
The warmest places (heat flux wise) are over and near mid-ocean ridges.
IMHO, it is not the overall heat flux that is important, but the regional high spots. Just as warm ocean water can magnify the intensity of hurricanes when the system passes over, it seems reasonable that high heat flux regions can cause weather to be affected, as well.

CryoSat-2 primarily captures polar ice data but also operates continuously over the oceans.
For the most recent ESA’s CryoSat gravity mapping link (as posted yesterday on the other thread)
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_reveals_gravity_dip_from_ice_loss
double click on animation.

George Tetley

Yep ! http://www.treasure-island-shipping.com and we know about 0.00001% of whats down there

TonyN

I’m interested in the amount of ocean floor that is below the level at which water becomes the ‘universal solvent’.i.e. it will dissolve all minerals including gold. Is there such a contour? And if hydrothermal vents exist within this contour, then perhaps we could see places where mineral ore veins are forming in ‘real time’.

Alex

Universal solvent is a complex thing. Solubilities of solutions/ mixtures is really complicated. Don’t go there unless you’re conversant. Bacterial element formation is probably involved at the vents. If their was a contour like that it would already be exploited. Maybe there is a ‘contour’, but costs would be prohibitive. Not saying it’s impossible. Current technology allows for fusion energy but unfortunately we need to put more energy into the process than we get out of it. It’s the same with many things.

Alex

A thousand years ago I was discussing a problem about manganese ‘spotting’ housewives sheets. Apparently there is a bacteria that lives off the energy difference of multivalent manganese. These little f@ckers lived off the electron energy of valency change from 3 to 2 in manganese. That was an incredible shock to my system.’ Inconceivable’ , I thought. My choice was killing myself or continuing in this life.
.

Alex

I killed myself. I decided it was preferable to kill myself than to change my thinking

Alex

We know 1% but we act like we know 99%

Just an engineer

But as Will Rogers said, “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.”

Steve P

That saying probably predates Will Rogers, it has been attributed also to Mark Twain, Josh Billings, Eldon ‘Kin’ Hubbard, and probably others.
I first saw it in a book of quotes, attributed to Hubbard, and rendered as:

It ain’t what you don’t know
That gets you in trouble.
It’s what you know
That just ain’t so.

While the saying correctly identifies false knowledge as a bad thing, it seriously “misunderestimates” the evil of ignorance.
-☺-

Steve P

s/b Frank McKinney Hubbard, not Eldon

The radiative forcing watts (Btu/h w/ English hours) of GHGs & CO2 is over “estimated” and the heat flux watts (KJ/h w/ metric hours) of the ocean floor volcanism is under “estimated”, are within a decimal point of each other and amount to a small fraction of the global heat balance.
I thought the following was intuitively obvious.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop

patrioticduo

@LogosWrench – “Volcanoes do understand politics. Like politicians, they are sedentary, immovable and emit hot gas. Although I prefer the volcano as it sees no need to pick my pocket.” And if volcanoes get too much power they usually cause enormous destruction, laying waste to gigantic areas of land and ultimately cause widespread mayhem and death.

The safest politicians are always found at the bottom of the ocean depths.

Next article: “It’s worse than we thought! Since the Earth is producing so much CO2, we need to cut our CO2 manufacturing COMPLETELY”

Jim G

” Most seamounts were once active volcanoes, and so are usually found near tectonically active plate boundaries, mid-ocean ridges and subducting zones.” And how many of these and other unknown hot spots might be active and contributing heat to the oceans? Geothermal heat, that other heat source of our planet. How little we know with 70% of the Earth under water.

vonborks

I too have written about the earth “degassing” to an extent that makes anthropogenic CO2 insignificant, maybe NASA’s OCO-2 will prove that to be true. But then that would violate their “agreement” with IPCC.

Sun Spot

But the science is settled, we know with certainty all we need to know says president Obama et al.
We need to re-distribute wealth is their solution with certainty.

Gary Pearse

If global warming was responsible for volcanoes, the distribution of volcanoes would be in latitudinal bands, random, with numbers diminishing in successive latitudinal bands going towards the poles. Rather they are clustered along major tectonic plate boundaries and other deep fractures, as we always new them to be. If a geologist was asked in an examination question to trace on a globe or map where he thought volcanoes would be abundant, he would have produced something roughly like what is depicted. A major thing wrong with the thesis of global warming causing volcanism is that global warming has not affected the deep sea basins where most of these lie. This is another straw being clutched by those who are stressed by the 18yr flatlining of global temperatures. Surely the recent volcanism detected UNDER THE ICE of West Antarctica has not been caused by global warming!
http://www.livescience.com/41262-west-antarctica-new-volcano-discovered.html
Remember the global warming causing ice loss in W. Antarctica? Yeah, but it turns out the actual globe is causing the warming.

Thanks, Anthony. Very interesting article, with a very interesting side-trip to floating liquid CO2 bubbles. Thanks, guys!

Bursts of tectonic activity in the equatorial Pacific appear to precede the ENSO oscillations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSOetc.gif
Cause or just plain coincidence?

Is it possible the correlation is linked to seasonal orbital stresses? the weakest area of earths crust is on the ocean floor, the seasonal orbital and lunar stresses would be expected to manifest themselves as tectonic activity in those areas, the Multi-Variant Enso maybe a separate seasonal indicator, yet they can still correlate due to earths 47 degree axial tilt over the course of the year.

What is the name on the comment? Sorry, I’m not sure I understand.

I’ve just noticed your comment
“vukcevic October 4, 2014 at 11:20 am”
Is this the one? for some reason WP is linking to an irrelevant comment further up the thread for me.
Anyway.. it’s very interesting. My advice to you is to be very cautious, speak your mind of course, but stand back and take a good look at your Idea from time to time and don’t be afraid to explore the faults and criticism that will eventually show up.

Thank you, Vuckevic, for that. But I have to ask what locations for the tectonic events?
I’ve seen (and I think commented on WUWT) some such evidence, though right now I can’t find my link to it.
I think the tectonic events are often connected with magma movements, and in that way are also connected to heat flux at the mid-ocean ridges – which, of course, do release more heat when magma is extruded.

Svend Ferdinandsen

It is not only CO2 that bubbles up, there is also a fair amount of SO2. The Iclandic eruption is estimated to emit 32.000t of SO2 every day and release a heat of more than 100GW. The lava now covers ~50square km, and it flows with 200m3/s. Just to put it in perspective.

Really? that much? maybe that’s what causes “anthropogenic climate bollix”