The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.
Excerpt from the article:
Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.
Iceland has always been a natural lab for studying climate change. It may be spared some of the punishment hot, dry places like the American southwest get, but when it comes to glacier melt, few places are hit harder. About 10% of the island nation’s surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers—and they’re losing an estimated 11 billion tons of ice per year. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also—oddly—causing the entire island to rise. And that’s where the trouble begins.
Riiight.
Here’s the money quote:
“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases,” Compton said in an e-mail to TIME. “Rocks at very high temperatures may stay in their solid phase if the pressure is high enough. As you reduce the pressure, you effectively lower the melting temperature.” The result is a softer, more molten subsurface, which increases the amount of eruptive material lying around and makes it easier for more deeply buried magma chambers to escape their confinement and blow the whole mess through the surface.
“High heat content at lower pressure creates an environment prone to melting these rising mantle rocks, which provides magma to the volcanic systems,” says Arizona geoscientist Richard Bennett, another co-author.
Perhaps anticipating the climate change deniers’ uncanny ability to put two and two together and come up with five, the researchers took pains to point out that no, it’s not the very fact that Icelandic ice sits above hot magma deposits that’s causing the glacial melting. The magma’s always been there; it’s the rising global temperature that’s new. At best, only 5% of the accelerated melting is geological in origin.
So, Iceland has had melting glaciers, OK we’ll accept that, but Iceland is not the world, and a good number of volcanoes that have erupted in the last century are in the tropical parts of the world where there are no glaciers on the volcanoes or magma fields, yet somehow, this writer, Jeffrey Kluger, extrapolates Iceland’s glacier melt to volcano link up to to the entire world.
To the uniniformed (such as Time Magazine writers), graphs like this one might seem to be “proof” of such Icelandic-to-global extrapolation:
![volcano-2[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/volcano-21.jpg?quality=83)
Source data: http://volcano.si.edu/
Gosh, it sure looks like another slam dunk for carbon dioxide driven climate hell in a handbasket, doesn’t it? The VEI starts increasing right about the time of the industrial revolution.
For those unfamiliar: The volcanic explosivity index (VEI) was devised by Chris Newhall of the US Geological Survey and Stephen Self at the University of Hawaii in 1982 to provide a relative measure of the explosiveness of volcanic eruptions. (Wikipedia)
But, there’s a hitch, according to NOAA data, volcanic activity worldwide actually went DOWN in the 2000’s while the climate changing carbon dioxide went UP in global concentration:
![Volcanoes-figure-2[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/volcanoes-figure-21.png?quality=75)
![co2_data_mlo[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/co2_data_mlo1.png?quality=75)
Correlation isn’t causation, at least when it comes to CO2 and climate and volcanoes.
Something that DID increase during the study period was the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Guess where Iceland is? In the North Atlantic, which has been in the warm phase since about 1980.
The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principle expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field. The AMO is identified as a coherent pattern of variability in basin-wide North Atlantic SSTs with a period of 60-80 years.
![AMO_fig123[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/amo_fig1231.gif)
Source: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/AMO.html
Gee, do you think maybe, possibly, that Iceland might have more glacier melt when the AMO is warmer? The authors don’t seem to be cognizant of it, preferring instead to cite the universal bogeyman “climate change”.
Here is the publication that is cited in the Time article:
Climate driven vertical acceleration of Icelandic crust measured by CGPS geodesy
Abstract
Earth’s present-day response to enhanced glacial melting resulting from climate change can be measured using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. We present data from 62 continuously operating GPS instruments in Iceland. Statistically significant upward velocity and accelerations are recorded at 27 GPS stations, predominantly located in the Central Highlands region of Iceland, where present-day thinning of the Iceland ice caps results in velocities of more than 30 mm/yr and uplift accelerations of 1-2 mm/yr2. We use our acceleration estimates to back-calculate to a time of zero velocity, which coincides with the initiation of ice loss in Iceland from ice mass balance calculations and Arctic warming trends. We show, through a simple inversion, a direct relationship between ice mass balance measurements and vertical position and show that accelerated unloading is required to reproduce uplift observations for a simple elastic layer over viscoelastic half-space model.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062446/abstract
Again, no mention of the world here, only Iceland. Compare that to the baseless claim made by the TIME writer Jeffrey Kluger:
The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.
Newsflash Mr. Kluger: Iceland is not “everywhere”, and the authors make no claim about the issue affecting the rest of the Earth.
WUWT reader Mike Bromley writes something on his Facebook page that I really can’t improve upon:
Plate tectonics….caused by climate change. No mention of the fact that Iceland has one of the highest geothermal heat fluxes on the planet, that its geomorphology is controlled by vulcanism, that many of the scientific terms for glacial melt features are in Icelandic Language, and oh boy, 11 billion tons of ice is really not that much, in fact, one eruption of Hekla or Eyjafjallajokull would release about that much ice.
These people have zero shame, and even less uniformitarian common sense. They elevate conjecture to the level of fact, for an uncritical media to spew around in alarming terms. This one takes the cake. Vote Green, everyone. Soon you’ll find out what living under nature is all about.
We’ll have more on this later, readers are encouraged to add comments regarding this inanity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.nat.is/travelguideeng/thingvellir_sacred_site_for_all.htm
They should go stand in Thingvellir Valley where the first Althing met. They would see the spreading of continental plates and see magma that as come up from below. Such nonsense they write.
Definitely a natural wonder. As you say, you can see the Atlantic magma rising from the spreading earth.
This is indeed one of the most incredible sight on our planet, but I guess you have to be a geologist to appreciate it.
Volcanoes are bad . . . mmmkay?
As always happens with the alarmists, we are supposed to fear that which is “caused.” What’s not to like about volcanoes? Why is warming bad? I don’t like glaciers and sea ice.
Old news, Mother Jones were all over this 3 years ago ;
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-change-linked-to-volcano-eruptions-earthquakes
My only surprise at this is that Jeffrey Kluger didn’t go full bore and throw earthquakes in there too. He missed a great opportunity to scare the crap out of the gullible Californians among Time’s readership.
Maybe just those countless Californians who have recently moved to Oklahoma…
I think you mean Arkansas or Missouri. The largest Earthquakes observed in North America were the New Madrid Fault Earthquakes in 1811/12. There were four big ones.
These were not just seismic reports like the recent hokum scare in Oklahoma. but actual temblors.
There was no glacier involved and little CO2.
Here in OK, we not only have recently exiled Californians all over the place, but multiple earthquakes every day. I sure hope that if there are any big ones, that they stay to the East, as you pointed out.
One thing noticeable about the past couple of years’ quakes here, is that they started out centered m.o.l. East and NE of OKC, but now are predominantly North and NW, occurring now also in Southern Kansas (West of center of OK.) A person could map these quakes’ path over time and find that it parallels the Arkansas River valley, although some miles to the West. I’ll make nothing of this…
Earthquakes are actually far more plausible than volcanism. Dam building in the Sierra foothills resulted in a couple of shakers when I was much younger. As far as “scaring Californians,” I wish. The state would be lots nicer if the aerospace industry had picked Oklahoma in the 1950s. Unfortunately, unless the quake is a magnitude 6 or above people simply are shaken up enough to leave. The recent spate of quakes and “aftershocks” up near Fortuna is a beautiful example of plate tectonics in action. The sharp linear boundary of the southern limit and the northern spread was due to the existence of a plate boundary right there handy to geologists.
“…aren’t shaken …”
They are taking the p&ss, right ?
So the only proof seems to be that 2 things (atmosphere’s and CO2 content and volcanic eruptions) went up at the same time? Since there are only 3 possible directions (up, down, unchanged) chances are 2/3 that climate change has a correlation or anticorrelation with everything.
And finding a murky theory that explains a relationship isn’t very hard too.
thesis:Global warming is a plot to increase the number of elected republican’s in the US congress.
mechanism:People in the south vote for republicans more often then in the north. The south ist warmer . heat-> reoublicans win.
proof: the number of elected republicans increased from 2008 to 2014 as did the CO2 content in that same time
Crop death is caused by weed competition, fungi, smut, scab, mold, blight, rot, rust, black spot, wilt, mildew, insects, worms, maggots, nymphs, etc..
There are plenty of benign chemical controls and inputs already in use to solve these problems.
Boomers have been seeking to remove these chemical inputs for several decades and the removal/replacement of these neutral, benign, and beneficial chemicals from agriculture would destroy the quanitity and quality of nutrition for all people and for all domestic animals.
To aggressively and treacherously remove the chemical inputs from agriculture would be malicious crime against many unsuspecting people.
To blame the use of electricity and cars before committing such a crime is called “grooming the victim,” – a method used by scheming criminals to prepare the victim beforehand both to accept the crime, and to blame himself.
ref: Paradigm Shift Urgently Needed In Agriculture: UN Agencies Call for an End to Industrial Agriculture & Food System “A rising chorus from UN agencies on how food security, poverty, gender inequality and climate change can all be addressed by a radical transformation of our agriculture and food system Dr Mae-Wan Ho“
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Hey that name rings a bell. An infamous anti GM propagandist.
High on dogma, low on discovery.
Many years ago (ca 1978) I stopped into a roadside produce stand in Arizona run by a recent arrival from Vietnam. At that time her command of English was still very weak. (last I heard her son was an honors grad at ASU though) A new age type was enthusing about how gorgeous the produce was, but kept asking “You’re sure you never spray this produce?” to which the answer was “We no spray.” Satisfied, the new ager purchased a box full of produce and went her way. I then asked the owner, “I’m a ag consultant in this area, and I don’t believe it’s possible to grow this quality of produce in this area without spraying. Are you sure you don’t spray it?” Her reply, “No, we no spray. We dust.” and proudly reached under the counter and produced a bag of Sevin 4 dust. When, a few minutes later, I was finally able to talk again, I bought several boxes of produce, and continued to do so all the years I was in that area.
That’s hilarious and made me think of the days I grew soft fruit, I was asked the same questions at farmers markets and as your lady I answered the same way, ” no sprays” ( we used fertilizers and pesticides through irrigation, bait and dusted and injected our trees). Lovely fruit. As with global warming or climate change and having farmed for 40 years I have a very hard time believing in organic foods.
Many years ago I was at a party in Albemarle County, which surrounds the People’s Republic of Charlottesville, home of UVa. I let on that I grew some pretty good vegetables, and one of the partiers asked me if I believed in organic gardening.
“Hell, yes”, I said, “with organic chemicals!”. All the greenies in the crowd nodded approvingly.
Yup, I applied my share of organic chemicals myself. organophosphates mostly… EM 6-3 Parathion even came in a green can. [grin]
Some will read this and think it is true, others will think it total rubbish.
About half the human population genuinely and honestly believe in the supernatural, supported by no evidence at all. This is just an example of who we are!
My own view is that most things in life don’t matter, and some things don’t matter at all.
john cooknell,
My almost 65 years of experience interacting directly with people in a couple of dozen different countries sadly leads me to think that about 9 out of 10 people “genuinely and honestly believe in the supernatural supported by no evidence at all”. This is even so among my science, engineering and technical corporation management acquaintances and associates.
John
“My own view is that most things in life don’t matter, and some things don’t matter at all.”
Good observation, and quite metaphysical at that. 😀
Ah, metaphysics. What is the meaning of wife? Is there wife after death?
If a man falls in the forest… and there is no woman there to hear it, is he still wrong?
john ; you may be wrong on the about half . I have read sixty three percent believe in Astrology .
The propaganda techniques at play are becoming easier to recognize. This may be a sign of desperation as the logical fallacies become increasingly more absurd. Just watch for the Useful Idiots to pick up the story and begin to spread the propaganda.
Interesting… Sigrun Hreinsdottir was the one auther from Ice Land, and this seem to be the only paper Sigun has written for the Journal. Seems Sigun went from being at the Univ of Iceland, to now being in Avalon New Zealand . I ask anyone from “Down Under” is Avalon N.Z. a nice place, pretty, good Univ. ?
Not that I’m suggesting anything.. Just things that make you go hmmm.
smile
michael
As an NZer the only Avalon I know was a tv studio in the Hutt Valley, I think
In related news, coast lines in Norway and the UK have recently been inundated with undocumented migrants arriving by canoe and sail boat from Iceland. Authorities were further perplexed by the fact that the migrants were exclusively young and female. Upon investigation, it turned out that the headlines in Iceland resulting from the article above had frightened a large percentage of Iceland’s female population due to the known remedy for stopping volcanic eruptions. Iceland’s political leadership apparently was quite upset about the incident, with at least one parliamentarian referring to the young women as unpatriotic.
davidmhoffer,
. . . thanks for some finely parsed parody on a fine Saturday afternoon in San Jose CA . . . I love it . . .
John
Saturday. . . FridayDavid,
I am tempted to reply in fashion. LOL
Delightfully-omitted sarc tag.
Thanks for the laugh David, I had just about given up on reading the comments and now it made it well worth it!
Unless said Icelanders of the distaff variety have gone severely against type regarding sexual activity in their peer group, they are likely to lack one traditionally very important qualification as a suitable candidate for the “known remedy”.
As you reduce the pressure you lower the melting temperature??
This phase is scientifically wrong , surely ??
Increased pressure increases the melting point.
Fail.
Not really. It just sounds counter intuitive. But the process is also complicated by chemistry – a lot. So the bald statement is pretty near meaningless. See this for instance:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~reiners/Leeetal2009.pdf
The phase diagrams of temperature vs. pressure are clear enough. The minerals that crystallize out of the melt change the properties of the melt. Which would result in the same melt at the same depth, and experiencing the same pressure change behaving differently over time. In terms of the original post though, the whole idea at a minor amount of melted ice could cause volcanism is, as Anthony said, so stupid it burns.
What could happen is that the magma is very near surface. In Ice Land it is very, very near. In fact it is so close that the heat from the magma might very well cause the ice to melt. The magma does carry some dissolved gas. With reduced pressure that gas might “froth” like a shaken bottle of carbonated beverage, forcing an eruption. The magma would have to be in a very, very special thermodynamic and chemical balance though.
Keep in mind that Iceland vulcanism is basaltic, and therefore relatively quiet. High-temperature, low-viscosity magma rich in Iron & Magnesium silicates. Entrained gas can escape with relative ease compared to the andesites and dacites of the much more explosive subduction-related volcanoes like Mt. St. Helens, which, incidentally, did not erupt until the cork was removed from the champagne bottle by one of the largest landslides in history.
Try “Decompression melting” in any vulcanology text.
Kruger’s education: [Wikipedia]
Since Eyafjalljokel blew its lid a few years ago, is there any chance a plume from the the deep crust simply took a few decades to rise, lifting Iceland with it, but being totally unrelated to atmospheric events?
Good question, and one that has an unequivocal answer of “yes.” Their model is only as good as their assumptions. On any temporal basis the earth’s surface bucks and heaves dramatically. It is in no way “as eternal as the hills.” The big quake in Japan changed elevations by meters in a few minutes. Similar events within the historical era in California have tacked on more than three meters of altitude to parts of the Sierra Nevada.
How can melting glaciers cause an island to rise? Aren’t islands attached to the ocean floor? The idea of melting glaciers allowing more volcanos to rise doesn’t make sense to me. I would think if a volcano were in the making it would come to be whether or not a glacier is sitting on top of it; it would slowly melt the ice…?
Rock is not solid on geologic time scales. You want to see the plasticity illustrated, read essay Reserve Reservations for the Monterey Shale folding. Some nice pictures from California state parks.
More silicaceous Continents and islands ‘float’ on denser basaltic magma many miles down toward Earths core. Cause granites and carbonates (limestone) and metamorphics (slate) are all less dense than basalts. Heavy is relative.
20000 years ago, Reykjavik was about 30 meters below sea level cause of ice weight. And that sea level was about 120 meters lower than today cause the ice was not in the oceans. Put more weight into a boat, it sinks lower into the water. Like a loaded oil tanker, even tho oil floats on water. Archimedes. Same principle here, except our boats are continents and islands, the extra weight is ice, and geological change is very slow on human time scales.
But you are quite correct that this paper is incomprehensible nonsense. There are volcanos erupting under the ice all over Iceland. The resulting sudden flood that rushes out from under the glacier edge is called a jokulhlaups (I omitted umlauts, and probably spelled it wrong anyway).
Put another way by other posters upthread, rock is just a lot heavier than ice. Regards. Hope you like my new ebook on this stuff. This paper and thread would have made a terrific additional essay. Too late, and it is hard to envision this level of Time mag stupidity and bias in advance.
hi Victoria,
here’s a link about isostasy:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/isost.html
marty
Victoria, it is the principle of isostasy. The crust floats like a ship on the mantle beneath. If you load the ship, it sinks, if you unload it, it rises. However, the ship of Iceland is a special case: it rides higher on the mantle because of a “thermal welt” related to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The idea that removal of 11 billion tons of ice per year would cause isostatic rebound is sound, it’s just that that is a tiny amount of ice relative to the mass of the basaltic roots of Iceland…and to declare that rebound is measurable as such on a rather bumpy part of the earth is, well, not so bright.
And yes, you are correct, Icelandic volcanoes do not give a hoot about their glacial caps. They’ll erupt anyway…as Eyjafjallajökull did in 2009. The volcano’s name translates to “Islands’ Mountains’ ice cap”. These subglacial eruptions result in a catastrophic discharge of melted glacier water termed a “jökulhlaup”…or “running glacier”…a not-surprisingly Icelandic term adopted for such an event.
https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=isostasy+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ijjMVPHuBO3s8wfJ94JA&gws_rd=ssl
+10. Well said.
That makes sense. Thanks guys:)
; > )
Anthony,
Scientists, and indeed rational people in general, understand that things don’t magically change temperature.
True. That takes homogenization.
+10
Gunga Din,
Odd quip given that the AMO data upon which Anthony based his argument ….
… relies on homogenized, processed, interpolated data too. Make up your mind already guys: do you trust the data or not?
So….CO2 is out?……(8>))
So brandon, the story makes sense to you right? How many more eruptions around the world can we expect from the future warming and how does this affect the coming climate change? How is this accounted for in the models?
bob boder,
Yes, quite a bit.
The paper itself is paywalled, but from the abstract … We use our acceleration estimates to back-calculate to a time of zero velocity, which coincides with the initiation of ice loss in Iceland from ice mass balance calculations and Arctic warming trends. … I infer that the paper doesn’t make any forward-looking predictions about Iceland — to which the scope of this paper was limited — much less any global projections.
If AOGCMs take it into account, which I doubt, it would have been necessarily been based on prior research. I say that I doubt the CMIP5 ensemble accounts for any future volcanic activity because Figure 11.25 makes it pretty clear they don’t:
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/UPDATED_11-25.png
It would be nice if we could predict major volcanic eruptions before they happen, in the same way that I’d love the USGS to be able to tell me the next time the Hayward/Rodgers-Creek fault system is going to uncork another magnitude 7.2 temblor. Best they can do is tell me what the surface rupture and shaking intensity might look like:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/simulations/hayward/M7.2.php
Damned rent-seeking alarmist geophysicists. They’ve been saying it’s going to happen for YEARS and it hasn’t.
There needs to be a understanding of what is the dog and what is the tail. There are multiple fundamental errors/unknowns concerning the mechanisms that cause cyclic millennial climate change, cause cyclic changes in volcanic activity, and cause cyclic changes to the geomagnetic field.
It is a fact that there is a recent set of peculiar unexplained geological changes which correlates with past cyclic climate change and past cyclic abrupt climate change (same weird group of supposedly unrelated phenomena appear cyclically at the same time in the past).
It is an observational fact that the north geomagnetic pole drift velocity increased by a factor of 10 starting in the mid 1990’s), it is an observational fact that the reduction in the geomagnetic field intensity has increased by a factor of ten (the geomagnetic field intensity drop has increased from 5%/century to 5%/decade) starting also in the mid 1990s, and it is a fact that geomagnetic excursions correlate with the start and end of interglacial periods, and it is a fact that there is an increase in volcanic activity that correlates with millennial climate change. There needs to be a physical explanation as to why in the 1990s the geomagnetic field should suddenly start to change and why there is past correlation of supposedly unrelated geological phenomena and climate change.
It is an observational fact that something in the past has caused bipolar volcanism which in turn correlates with millennial climate change. Volcanic eruptions are theoretically random, there is not an internal earth mechanism to cause simultaneous bipolar volcanic eruptions. (i.e. There is more than one mystery, what causes an increase in volcanic activity both hemispheres and why does that increase in volcanic activity correlate with millennial climate change and geomagnetic field changes.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.abstract
This paper notes it is a fact that geomagnetic field excursions correlate with cyclic abrupt climate change. The question is what is causing the cyclic geomagnetic excursion. The geomagnetic excursions causes/could cause abrupt cooling from Svensmark’s mechanism.
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/apr252003/1105.pdf
What caused an abrupt change top the geomagnetic (the geomagnetic field excursion) is what caused five geologically separated (different magma chambers, same location on the planet, same island) volcanoes to erupt simultaneously.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027284.shtml
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
This piece needs some additional input.
PLOS One The Human Impact of Volcanoes: a Historical Review of Events 1900-2009 and Systematic Literature Review explains the oddities from the graph of volcano numbers in the essay:
The time series used for Continuously Operating GPS Stations in this study were quite short — many of them less than ten years, some as short as seven years. It is of no great surprise that on this actively volcanic island, there is a great deal of “up and downing” of the land surface.
I should point out that there are many skeptic predictions that predicted that there would be a number of “predictions” from the alarmists that we could expect a significant increase in volcanic activity and eruptions which would, according to the alarmists, be directly caused by global warming.
It seems that based on the evidence from “Time,” those predictions by the skeptics made without any benefit of any models and using only observation appear to be correct.
Further skeptic predictions are that the alarmists will soon predict that solar output is directly affected by global warming.
We await confirmation of that skeptic prediction with considerable interest and with baited sarcasm although I have a suspicion I have already seen somewhere that that particular alarmist prediction has already been made.
So ….
1) Increased volcanism cannot be explained by melting ice. Check.
2) Volcanoes cannot explain The Pause: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/ben-santer-tries-to-explain-the-pause-in-global-warming/ Check.
3) Volcanoes can explain short-term cooling: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/get-laki-get-unlaki/ Check.
4) Volcanoes might explain rising CO2 levels: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/ Che …..
… errrr … wait a minute:
Paging Dr. Hovland. Anyone … anyone? Bueller?
“volcanoes might explain rising CO2 levels …Paging Dr. Hovland..”
Dr. Hovland only suggested that “tectonically-induced activity” might explain a few CO2 “hot spots.”
That’s very different to the strawman you attacked, isn’t it?
Khwarizmi,
He’s very careful to not spell it out. That didn’t stop others from running with it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/#comment-1827003
If human emissions were the major driver behind atmospheric CO2 concentration, atmospheric concentration would be accelerating. It is not.
Or: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/#comment-1827051
Lake Nyos blew the whistle (unfortunately at the cost of thousands of lives) on another big Warmist lie. Analyses of the underlying vent and estimates of its flow rate reveal that it is a major source of CO₂. If the Lake Nyos vent is at all typical, estimates of total volcanic CO₂ are too low by one or two orders of magnitude.
The crux of my rebuttal to such silliness is in this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/#comment-1827015
Now here we have Anthony himself employing similar logic: Gosh, it sure looks like another slam dunk for carbon dioxide driven climate hell in a handbasket, doesn’t it? The VEI starts increasing right about the time of the industrial revolution.
The irony is too thick.
Tell it to the “it’s volcanoes whut do CO2” crowd, not me. They are the ones who read into Hovland’s essay that which you say is not there.
So if the VEI fell in the 21stC why didn’t temps shoot up? Is cooling worse than we thought?
See essay Blowing Smoke in ebook of same name. You logic is correct. The science is sketchy, the PR and MSM reporting based on the PR just awful.
Not only stupid, but arrogant with it.
I quote from Kluger’s article, “Perhaps anticipating the climate change deniers’ uncanny ability to put two and two together and come up with five……..”
Clearly ‘Great Brain’ Kluger thinks that anyone who dares question climate change is an idiot, not realizing, of course, that he may be the one with a problem.
Those seismometers they had back in the 17th Century, do we know how they were calibrated?
No seismographs they used a different method. It involved concentric areas of damage and destruction the Mercalli scale for earthquakes, is an example.
http://geology.answers.com/methods/scales-for-measuring-earthquakes
michael
I did not see somebody here mentioning possibility that there is dependency between volcanic activity and temperature caused by contraction/expansion of materials by changing temperature. It is simple, temperature is going down, earth crust is contracting, creating and widening cracks, thus increasing volcanic activity. And vice versa increasing temperature is expanding crust sealing cracks making volcanic activity to get to surface harder.
I found coefficient of expansion for rock like materials is around 10^-6 m/mK, water 69^-6m/mK, quartz 0.33^-6m/mK.
Taking average 10^-6m/mK and delta T between glacial/interglacial 10K, that means that earth crust is contracting 10^-5. This is 0.001%
Taking width of N. America as 4000km and width of Eurasia as 10000km it represents width of cracks 40m and 100m. That is enough if we imagine that even 1cm crack is probably enough to start magma venting.
This can also explain 4000 years time shift between Milankovitch insolation and actual start/end of glacial. It just takes a lot of time for heat to get to earth crust deep enough for make change. According rough experiences in Europe in winter it takes 6 months to change temperature in 1m depth. At around 2m is temperature more less same. 4000 years are needed to make change in 8km depth with 16km depth end of change, corellating very nicely with earth crust thickness.
Actually propagation of heat down through earth crust can be imagined as heat wave. So in time where cold wave is reaching depth causing increase of volcanism another warm wave could be on the way down as volcanism switching of mechanism.
This would be definite positive feedback for cooling. Earth cools, crust is cooling contracting more volcanic activity is forced causing more cooling.
@ur momisugly Peter, it is simple, temperature is going down, earth crust is contracting, creating and widening cracks,
Correct me if I am wrong but if the Earth is contracting, would the cracks actually not become narrower?
If you think like cooling and contracting full sphere crust, holding together yes, cracks should be narrower. But if you think like cooling only patches – continents on otherwise liquid sphere covered by water cooling will make cracks wider.
Imagine that like cooling crust is squeezing molten core of Earth which is increasing pressure inside until it cracks somewhere creating magma outburst.
It should be similar mechanism as tidal contraction and extension is making cracks in ice of Europa moon. Or ground cracked by drought.
So….Kilauea is erupting now because of all those long gong …er… gone (I couldn’t help thing of the old “The Gong Show”.) because Hawaiian glaciers?
Does that mean we could shut her down by turning all the Man-made CO2 into dry ice and bombing Hawaii with it?