The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.
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:
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?resize=720%2C394&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.
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.

I have looked between the lines on this one. They discovered that the increased reports of volcanic activity were due to increased reporting. Just like with hurricanes, tornadoes, diseases, snowmageddons, downpours, heat spells, etc. But that realization was scrubbed from the records as being inconvenient. Instead, the sexy media campaign began that would convince us of this volcanic sciencysoothsayer-sourced anthropogenic “truth”. The campaign is based on this: We report experiencing more of whatever the media says there is more of; storms when the media says there are more storms, getting hotter because the media says it’s getting hotter, etc. The power of suggestion is the key component to fashionable, grant-sucking science, getting the sheeple to open their wallets even wider, and coaxing them into the bend-over and grab-your-ankles “you-are-f***ed” position necessary for this gig to reach its final conclusion desired by all watermelons.
The power of suggestion – and mass hysteria on a scale we’ve never seen before. The alarmists have completely lost touch with reality.
“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.”
And they know this how? Are they actually suggesting that regions of high volcanic activity have magma underneath that is an equilibrium state, with no significant fluctuations?
“The magma has always been there”, that was the dumbest line in what is being declared the dumbest article of the year.
In German: Klug = clever, smart, intelligent, wise, skillful, prudent.
te he he
“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.”
Vivid imagination but scientifically incorrect. Magma underneath a volcano is already molten. I suppose by “more molten” they mean decrease in viscosity. But viscosity is not dependent on pressure, it is dependent on temperature. Higher temperature, lower viscosity for liquids. The plastic (solid) rocks are in the mantle, which is 30 km below the magma chamber. The lava in volcanic eruptions comes from the magma chamber.
I think it is true that high pressure tends to liquefy rock, so the converse is no doubt true as well. Pressure is a form of physical work, which creates heat. However, their apparent assumption that conditions are constant in a zone of known volcanic activity seems to me to be poorly founded.
No, high pressure will crush solid rocks. Pressure creates heat in gases. Molten rock is almost incompressible. The pressure will not be converted into heat. The pressure will be transmitted to the surrounding of the molten rock.
I was talking about solid rock, not molten rock, and I was thinking in terms of heat generated by physical work such as that transferred by bending metal or drilling a hole in solid material. To some extent, I think solid rock is compressible and its compression would likely generate heat. How much, I don’t know.
I’m talking about molten rock. Magma is molten rocks. Drilling a hole in solid materials generates heat because of friction. Bending metals generates heat because they are elastic. The molecules slide past each other generating friction. Solid rock is a rigid body. Rigid bodies don’t bend, they break.
Dr. Strangelove says: “Vivid imagination but scientifically incorrect.:
Ah … the irony.
The melting point DOES depend on pressure. Google “melting temperature as a function of pressure for rocks” and you will find lots of hits, with articles and graphs confirming that pressure is indeed an important factor. Reducing the pressure (eg by removing glaciers) will result in more magma (from additional rock melting without needing to raise the temperature). And since molten rock has a WAY lower viscosity than solid rack, removing pressure greatly decreases viscosity.
So Dr. Strangelove’s claim that “viscosity is not dependent on pressure” is definitely wrong. (Much of the rest is correct, but this key misunderstanding belies his main point.)
Read carefully. Melting point DOES depend on pressure. Read my previous post where I computed how much pressure reduction is needed. Viscosity is dependent on temperature, not melting point. Melting is a phase change from solid to liquid. Viscosity is a property of fluids.
I think you might be unclear on the fact that I’m talking exclusively about the potential effect of severe pressure on solid rock. It’s the phase transition that is of interest to me. I don’t care about the possible effects of pressure on liquefied rock. I don’t know how susceptible solid rock might be to a phase change under conditions of extreme pressure. Maybe it’s not that much, but your insistence on discussing magma is not shedding any light on my question. If it’s magma, it’s liquid, and therefore is not relevant to my question.
“I don’t know how susceptible solid rock might be to a phase change under conditions of extreme pressure.”
Read my post on Jan. 31 at 1.23 am. To reduce melting point of dry granite from around 900 C to 800 C, you decrease pressure from < 2 kilobars to 1 bar.
Also, when you say “rigid bodies don’t bend, they break”, I’m not at all sure what you are talking about. Is it your contention that neither solid steel nor solid iron is a “rigid body”? Those materials certainly bend when heated. Other examples abound.
Metals are elastic (“non-rigid”) Rocks are inelastic (“rigid”)
“In physics, a rigid body is an idealization of a solid body in which deformation is neglected.” – Wikipedia
No solid body is perfectly rigid but inelastic bodies are almost rigid. Their deformation is negligible.
Upon further review, I think we probably agree with respect to the quotation from the original article. Lower pressure certainly would not promote liquefaction of solid rock. My apologies if I have created a rabbit hole.
Sometimes rabbits need holes, and solids are not quite.
I have not had time to read all the comments in this post. So the question is: where in the study does it mention volcanoes? I did not see any mention in the abstract. Anyone?
At best, only 5% of the accelerated melting is geological in origin.
The most self-delusional aspect of such narratives is the belief, based on no facts, that they can limit, Canute-like, the contribution of geothermal energy to the melting to “5%”. This is based on nothing but wishful thinking and computer models – which are actually the same thing.
Of course a volcano in Iceland can literally be felt around the world….it has an economic domino affect.
This is a hypothesis that can be tested.
Shocked silence…
embarrassed coughs;
Relax, please, I’m a scientist in industry so I can suggest testing a hypothesis without it amounting to professional suicide.
So the meme goes, warming melts ice over volcanoes freeing them up to erupt. OK when did real warming happen? Yes – at the start of the Holocene and other interglacials. So were these strong warming episodes accompanied by increased volcanic activity? It’s a simple matter of mass-spec ing sulphur in the ice cores.
Did such an obvious and easy test of their hypothesis even cross the minds of these authors?
“A study of the last 11 centuries reveals over 200 eruptions, with around three quarters of these explosive, and with an average frequency of 20-25 events per 100 years (Thordarson and Larsen, 2006). The apparent increase in eruption frequency over the last few centuries can be accounted for by improved documentation of eruptive events. Studies of longer timescales e.g. the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, suggest similar eruption rates to historic times.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/latest/volcano/iceland
Phlogiston ponders: “Did such an obvious and easy test of their hypothesis even cross the minds of these authors?”
You might look in the actual article. Did such an obvious and easy solution to your question even cross your mind?
http://time.com/3687893/volcanoes-climate-change/
Yep, it looks like people did consider past melting events and found confirmation that melting of ice leads to more eruptions.
30-fold increase in volcanic activity compared to today or compared to last ice age? The D-O event 11,500 years ago was more rapid warming than today. Greenland warmed by 8 C in 40 years. Since the end of the D-O event 10,000 years ago, eruption rates are similar to historic times.
Well, thanks, I’m reassured that some scientists even in climate still retain an instinct for hypothesis-testing and real world observation. A ray of hope.
BTW there is a chicken-and-egg question about the start-of-Holocene volcanism – did it result from the melting or did it cause it? Some (e.g. Maslin) speculate that what triggers the sharp rapid warming at the deep end of glacial periods could be volcanism due to weight of ice.
Mauna Loa is a dormant volcano and what better place to take CO2 measurements, given that all volcanoes exhale CO2, even dormant ones.
Bezotch February 1, 2015 at 10:31 am says: “How about:
Due to thermal expansion caused by global warming, the earth has a larger surface area and therefore is much more likely to be hit by an asteroid or comet. Co2 causes asteroid strikes.”
Or in the same vein, “How about: extraordinary levels of CO2 and SO2 gases emitted by volcanic activity on Iceland now anthropogenic. OCO-2 now suddenly can “see” the anthropogenic emissions on Iceland!”
Question for the study’s authors …
You claim that global warming causes volcanic eruptions. Can you please provide an estimate as to what percentage of volcanoes in the world have been caused to erupt this way?
Expected answer …
97%
cue laughter
Just wondering if we could detect a volcanic signal via compounds trapped in ice cores around the Holocene, Roman, and Medieval Global Climate Optimums? This might be a robust method to falsify or verify the thesis.
Don’t laugh. If this keeps up Iceland might tip over. http://tinyurl.com/plgyw3k
I found the answer. 97% of everything is caused by climate change.