New data show strikingly regular patterns, from weeks to eons

Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years–and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses–apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth’s orbit, and to sea levels–may help trigger natural climate swings. Scientists have already speculated that volcanic cycles on land emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide might influence climate; but up to now there was no evidence from submarine volcanoes. The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
“People have ignored seafloor volcanoes on the idea that their influence is small–but that’s because they are assumed to be in a steady state, which they’re not,” said the study’s author, marine geophysicist Maya Tolstoy of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “They respond to both very large forces, and to very small ones, and that tells us that we need to look at them much more closely.” A related study by a separate team this week in the journal Science bolsters Tolstoy’s case by showing similar long-term patterns of submarine volcanism in an Antarctic region Tolstoy did not study.
Volcanically active mid-ocean ridges crisscross earth’s seafloors like stitching on a baseball, stretching some 37,000 miles. They are the growing edges of giant tectonic plates; as lavas push out, they form new areas of seafloor, which comprise some 80 percent of the planet’s crust. Conventional wisdom holds that they erupt at a fairly constant rate–but Tolstoy finds that the ridges are actually now in a languid phase. Even at that, they produce maybe eight times more lava annually than land volcanoes. Due to the chemistry of their magmas, the carbon dioxide they are thought to emit is currently about the same as, or perhaps a little less than, from land volcanoes–about 88 million metric tons a year. But were the undersea chains to stir even a little bit more, their CO2 output would shoot up, says Tolstoy.
Some scientists think volcanoes may act in concert with Milankovitch cycles–repeating changes in the shape of earth’s solar orbit, and the tilt and direction of its axis–to produce suddenly seesawing hot and cold periods. The major one is a 100,000-year cycle in which the planet’s orbit around the sun changes from more or less an annual circle into an ellipse that annually brings it closer or farther from the sun. Recent ice ages seem to build up through most of the cycle; but then things suddenly warm back up near the orbit’s peak eccentricity. The causes are not clear.
Enter volcanoes. Researchers have suggested that as icecaps build on land, pressure on underlying volcanoes also builds, and eruptions are suppressed. But when warming somehow starts and the ice begins melting, pressure lets up, and eruptions surge. They belch CO2 that produces more warming, which melts more ice, which creates a self-feeding effect that tips the planet suddenly into a warm period. A 2009 paper from Harvard University says that land volcanoes worldwide indeed surged six to eight times over background levels during the most recent deglaciation, 12,000 to 7,000 years ago. The corollary would be that undersea volcanoes do the opposite: as earth cools, sea levels may drop 100 meters, because so much water gets locked into ice. This relieves pressure on submarine volcanoes, and they erupt more. At some point, could the increased CO2 from undersea eruptions start the warming that melts the ice covering volcanoes on land?
That has been a mystery, partly because undersea eruptions are almost impossible to observe. However, Tolstoy and other researchers recently have been able to closely monitor 10 submarine eruption sites using sensitive new seismic instruments. They have also produced new high-resolution maps showing outlines of past lava flows. Tolstoy analyzed some 25 years of seismic data from ridges in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans, plus maps showing past activity in the south Pacific.
The long-term eruption data, spread over more than 700,000 years, showed that during the coldest times, when sea levels are low, undersea volcanism surges, producing visible bands of hills. When things warm up and sea levels rise to levels similar to the present, lava erupts more slowly, creating bands of lower topography. Tolstoy attributes this not only to the varying sea level, but to closely related changes in earth’s orbit. When the orbit is more elliptical, Earth gets squeezed and unsqueezed by the sun’s gravitational pull at a rapidly varying rate as it spins daily–a process that she thinks tends to massage undersea magma upward, and help open the tectonic cracks that let it out. When the orbit is fairly (though not completely) circular, as it is now, the squeezing/unsqueezing effect is minimized, and there are fewer eruptions.
The idea that remote gravitational forces influence volcanism is mirrored by the short-term data, says Tolstoy. She says the seismic data suggest that today, undersea volcanoes pulse to life mainly during periods that come every two weeks. That is the schedule upon which combined gravity from the moon and sun cause ocean tides to reach their lowest points, thus subtly relieving pressure on volcanoes below. Seismic signals interpreted as eruptions followed fortnightly low tides at eight out of nine study sites. Furthermore, Tolstoy found that all known modern eruptions occur from January through June. January is the month when Earth is closest to the sun, July when it is farthest–a period similar to the squeezing/unsqueezing effect Tolstoy sees in longer-term cycles. “If you look at the present-day eruptions, volcanoes respond even to much smaller forces than the ones that might drive climate,” she said.
Daniel Fornari, a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution not involved in the research, called the study “a very important contribution.” He said it was unclear whether the contemporary seismic measurements signal actual lava flows or just seafloor rumbles and cracking. But, he said, the study “clearly could have important implications for better quantifying and characterizing our assessment of climate variations over decadal to tens to hundreds of thousands of years cycles.”
Edward Baker, a senior ocean scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said, “The most interesting takeaway from this paper is that it provides further evidence that the solid Earth, and the air and water all operate as a single system.”
###
The research for this paper was funded in large part by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Copies of the paper, “Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve” are available from the author, or the Earth Institute press office. (I have a request in for a copy and will post excerpts when it is supplied -Anthony Update: The author kindly provided a pre-print copy, linked belowm plus a selected figure, note the uptick in the present)
Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve
Maya Tolstoy
Abstract:
Seafloor eruption rates, and mantle melting fueling eruptions, may be influenced by sea-level and crustal loading cycles at scales from fortnightly to 100 kyr. Recent mid-ocean ridge eruptions occur primarily during neap tides and the first 6 months of the year, suggesting sensitivity to minor changes in tidal forcing and orbital eccentricity. An ~100kyr periodicity in fast-spreading seafloor bathymetry, and relatively low present-day eruption rates, at a time of high sea-level and decreasing orbital eccentricity suggest a longer term sensitivity to sea-level and orbital variations associated with Milankovitch cycles. Seafloor spreading is considered a small but steady contributor of CO2 to climate cycles on the 100 kyr time scale, however this assumes a consistent short-term eruption rate. Pulsing of seafloor volcanic activity may feed back into climate cycles, possibly contributing to glacial/inter-glacial cycles, the abrupt end of ice ages, and dominance of the 100 kyr cycle.
The paper: Tolstoy_inpress_GRL_2015 (PDF)
Tolstoy figure 3A:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I wonder why CO2 seems so “well mixed” over the planet compared to that other GHG, water vapor. Yes, H2O has phase changes from gas to liquid to solid etc, which accounts for a lot of the clumpiness. But still, for a planet that’s covered mostly with water, the variability of water vapor seems remarkable, IMHO, compared to CO2.
Atmospheric CO2 density seems ‘rock solid’, currently about 396 ppm plus or minus a few percent all over the planet. And it is monotonically rising at a remarkably smooth rate, at least from 1958 when Keeling first started publishing his famous curve:
Inquiring minds want to know: why this curve is rising so steadily and uniformly all over the Earth? Man-made CO2 production is certainly not as ‘uniformly’ generated over the Earth. (see OCO2 prelim data)
Could most of this CO2 be transpiring from all over the Earth simultaneously from oceanic CO2 sources at these undersea vulcanic sites?
Finally note how well the Mauna Loa CO2 correlates with HADCRUT4 global temps (NH and SH)
[Thanks to “Bart” for showing this on previous WUWT posts]
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1960
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1960
Why does the SH correlate better than the NH?
Chickens and eggs, here. Which came first?
I meant to say “…note how well the Mauna Loa CO2 trend (derivative) correlates with HADCRUT4 global temps …”
“Why does the SH correlate better than the NH? “
I ask because most of these volcanic ridges appear to be in the SH. Is that right?
http://www.scienceclarified.com/landforms/images/ueol_03_img0096.jpg
possibly because most of the continental mass once was in the SH and drifted to the nH where it is found currently
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eden/media/time_animation.gif
Your chart shows spreading zones. Now, in a different color, add the (‘equal but opposite’) subduction zones to roughly define all tectonic plate motion. (Hint, the Andes did not arise by accident.) Then note that in complex areas like off the isthmus of Panama, you really have to zoom in to get some comprehension. Essay by Land or by Sea in the ebook shows how important ‘zooming in’ is even in relatively stable places like Western Australia.
Just like for the San Andreas fault in Silicon Valley below highway 101 from San Jose to San Fransisco, which is neither spreading nor subducting, only shearing. Which will eventually ruin 101 and all of its environs like it did in 1906. But somehow I doubt Apple, Facebook, Google, Cisco, and Oracle are going to move to Detroit because of this more eventually certain but less time defined disaster. More certain than IPCC’s CAGW, on similar time scales.
Thanks for posting the chart you did. A good start and good question for all here to ponder.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/nasa-satellite-sends-back-most-detailed-co2-view-141218.htm
How much of this activity(elevated CO2 levels), especially in the Southern Hemisphere might be related to tectonic activity/volcanoes?
Johanus,
Water vapor is not well mixed because there is a limit in maximum water content of the atmosphere for a given temperature: less when colder. That gives clouds and rain if the temperature drops below the maximum saturation point. CO2 and air can mix in all ratio’s and all temperatures until the CO2 freezing point.
Further, there is little doubt (except from Bart and Salby and a few others) that humans are the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, as humans emitted twice the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than observed, which is in near exact ratio to the human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg
By plotting the derivatives, you look at the variability around the trend, which is quite small: +/- 1 ppmv, while the trend is about 110 ppmv over the past 165 years and humans emitted some 200 ppmv, currently about 4.5 ppmv/year.
The variability is entirely caused by the influence of the temperature variability on (tropical) vegetation (ENSO), but temperature hardly influences the trend (some 6-8 ppmv from warming oceans since the LIA)…
Yes, Ferdinand, human emissions are the reason that CO2 is rising.
However, despite the early concern, and after many thousands of scientists have intensely studied the effects, there remains no verifiable indication of ANY global harm due to the rise in CO2.
I understand that this must be monitored — just in case. But every year that passes confirms the observation that CO2 is completely harmless.
In addition, the plant kingdom absolutely thrives on the added CO2. More is clearly better. More CO2 keeps food costs down — an extremely important consideration to the one billion people living on less than $2 a day.
Do you see anything wrong with what I wrote here?
Ferdinand,
I understand the variability of water vapor. Yes, as a gas, H2O can vary from 10ppm to over 50,000ppm in the atmosphere.
Actually I am more surprised by the uniformity of CO2 in the atmosphere, given the relative sparsity (compared to H2O) of CO2 sources and sinks, over all of the Earth’s surface. According to some initial findings of the OCO2 satellite experiment, the density over the entire earth stays within 392 to 402 ppm. (I realize that was preliminary data, with an update due next month)
It seems to be an incredibly small variance when you consider that the CO2 sources are relatively sparsely distributed over the earth.
So that’s why Tolstoy’s article suggested to me a possible explanation for this “uber-uniformity”. But apparently that would require a lot more than 88 megatonnes per year (if that is correct).
Just wondering out loud, but still remain skeptical about the extent of man-made contribution to CO2 levels.
Thanks for providing the information!
Johannus wrote: “Actually I am more surprised by the uniformity of CO2 in the atmosphere, given the relative sparsity (compared to H2O) of CO2 sources and sinks, over all of the Earth’s surface”.
The atmosphere is in constant motion, so any gas released into the atmosphere will, in a few years, get mixed throughout the troposphere. If the gas gets removed from the atmosphere in less time than that, it will tend to be found in higher concentrations near its source and its concentration will be variable with place and time. The shorter the lifetime, the more variable the concentration will be. Gases, like CO2, with lifetime of more than a few years are pretty close to uniformly mixed.
Interesting from dbstealey there:
“Yes, Ferdinand, human emissions are the reason that CO2 is rising.”
The meme of temperature leading CO2 increase seems to be gone then. Could that lead to the conclusion that rising CO2 will lead to rising temperature?
Perhaps. Because dbstealey is busy trying to move the gooalposts:
“However, despite the early concern, and after many thousands of scientists have intensely studied the effects, there remains no verifiable indication of ANY global harm due to the rise in CO2.”
That leaves a lot up to more personal judgments. What is “harm”? And why the qualifier “global”? Sure seems like an attempt to cover the most bases possible.
At least it seems like there have been developments for dbstealey.
rooter,
Get a grip on reality. “Global” comes from “global” warming, see?
If you believe there has been ANY global harm, or negative reaction of ANY kind due to the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, then post it here. Otherwise, you are just cluttering up the thread with pixels. As usual.
rooter:
To add to my reply above, what would constitute “harm” is anything that would make the alarmist crowd (and the media) jump up and down and point to it, saying excitedly, “Look! That is being caused by the rise in CO2!! And it is getting worse!”
Is that a good enough definition of global ‘harm’?
Make no mistake, they will blame anything they can on CO2. But the fact that they have been unable to find anything to point to is *very* strong evidence that CO2 is harmless.
Johanus,
As already said by Mike M, atmospheric mixing is quite rapid, but the ITCZ delays the exchanges between NH and SH, allowing only about 10% of air masses exchange between the hemispheres. Seasonal exchanges are huge: about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged between atmosphere and other reservoirs over the seasons, but as the exchanges with oceans and vegetation are countercurrent with temperature (vegetation in the NH dominates), the net result is only some 2% change in the atmosphere over the seasons which is visible in the Mauna Loa curve.
Human emissions are for 90% in the NH and one can see that the increase is measured at sea level (Barrow) in the NH first, reaching the same level some 6 months later at height (Mauna Loa) then in the SH at sea level (Samoa) some 15 months later and then in the SH at height (South Pole) some 2 years later:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
Ferdinand
You say
You claim “Human emissions are for 90%” of what?
Human emissions of CO2 are ~2% of total CO2 emissions (natural and human).
At issue is what contribution – if any – the human emissions provide to the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Your ‘mass balance’ assumptions are that the human emission causes all the change by overloading the ability of the carbon cycle system to sequester all of it.
However, the equilibrium between atmospheric and ocean concentrations of CO2 is affected by ocean pH. A change to general ocean surface layer pH of less than 0.1 would be too small to discern but cause a change to atmospheric CO2 concentration larger than has been observed. The paper by Tolstoy requires serious scrutiny because it suggests “pulses” of undersea volcanism may affect ocean chemistry and, thus, ocean surface layer pH.
Richard
Richard please…
What you write was rejected many times before:
– Human CO2 emissions are currently ~10 GtC/year, of which 90% is released in the industrialized huge populations of the NH. The natural cycle is ~150 GtC/year or humans emit ~7% of the natural cycle.
– Human CO2 is additional, the net natural cycle is negative: more sink than source. That means zero contribution of the natural cycle to the increase in the atmosphere, whatever the distribution and changes in fluxes in nature over the years.
– If there was an enormous increase in natural CO2 circulation, dwarfing the human emissions, that needs to be a fourfold increase over the past 55 years in lockstep with human emissions increase, for which is not the slightest indication in any observation. To the contrary: the later estimates of the residence time show a small increase, as the throughput remained quite constant in an increasing CO2 level of the atmosphere.
– If undersea volcanoes emit sufficient amounts of acids (in the enormous carbonate buffer masses of the deep oceans), then the pH of the oceans could lower somewhat, but that would show up in a lower total carbon (DIC: CO2 + -bi-carbonates) content of the oceans as they release CO2 to the atmosphere. If the lower pH from the oceans is caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, DIC would increase. The latter is what is observed…
Thus sorry, undersea volcanoes are not the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…
The problem is that on a thourough inspection, neither the green nor the purple lines look anything like the the blue or red lines. There is no proper correlation.
Ferdinand
You have not answered my question.
Your having repeatedly disputed a possibility is NOT your having “refuted” the possibility.
You say
The same issues remain. Variability of DIC and the lack of data over almost all of the oceans for almost all of the time of the rise means that your claims are meaningless. There are no measurements of DIC which could reliably indicate its global change during the recent period of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I repeat
The suggestion may be determined to be right or wrong, but scrutiny of the paper to assist the determination should not be inhibited by false confidence in inadequate data.
“We do not know” is a scientific statement.
Richard
dbstealey says:
“To add to my reply above, what would constitute “harm” is anything that would make the alarmist crowd (and the media) jump up and down and point to it, saying excitedly, “Look! That is being caused by the rise in CO2!! And it is getting worse!”
Is that a good enough definition of global ‘harm’?”
dbstealey seems to have moved from doubting IPCC wg1 conclusions that the world has warmed and we have caused it. Caused the rise in CO2 and the increased temperature.
Now he is moving goalpost. Those goalpost are made out of rubber and can be moved whenever he feels threatened.
Richard,
There are many million measurements done over a lot of repeated tracks in all oceans. While that still is sparse for the full oceans (especially the South Pacific) surface, all repeated measurements of the same places over time show an increase in DIC, and as far as measured, a decrease in pH. That includes the main upwelling areas where the deep ocean volcano releases should be measurable first.
It would be a really bad luck if the ocean measurements would have missed any large area of the oceans where there was a drop in pH combined with a drop in DIC. That is one point in the story.
The other point is that the “missing source” must have started and increased its emissions completely synchronized with human emissions, probably together with coal mining, which mass release triggered undersea volcanoes to emit more CO2 at thousands of kilometers distance…
Seems rather impossible to me…
Ferdinand
You still have not answered my question
The number and coverage of the measurements is completely inadequate for determination of changes to global ocean DIC and global ocean surface layer pH.
And, yes, the human CO2 emissions and rise in atmospheric CO2 are coincident. So what? It would also indicate nothing if the human CO2 emissions were coincident with a fall in atmospheric CO2 because the atmospheric CO2 must be rising or falling if it is not constant.
I repeat, “We do not know” is a scientific statement.
Richard
Richard, I did say “human emissions are for 90% in the NH”. That implies that only 10% of human emissions are in the SH. That is why the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the NH first.
All points on a row:
– The pH gets lower, DIC gets higher in the oceans which only can be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. There are no measurements of the opposite trend anywhere. The increase in DIC is in perfect ratio with the increase in the atmosphere as per Revelle/buffer factor.
– CO2 gets higher in the atmosphere in the NH first, while the main deep ocean upwelling is in the SH near the equator.
– The δ13C level of all CO2 from volcanoes of the world and from the oceans is higher than of the atmosphere, all CO2 measurements in the atmosphere and the ocean surface give a steady decline in δ13C in near perfect ratio to human emissions.
– The undersea volcano CO2 emissions are estimated les than 1/50th of the human emissions.
– Volcanic emissions are intermittent, as the above research shows. The increase in the atmosphere is fluent, slightly quadratic, in near perfect ratio with human emissions.
“We do not know” is a scientific statement.
“We don’t want to know” is a much more appropriate statement in this case…
@rooter:
You completely ignored my definition. Instead, you deflected. Then you accused me of ‘moving the goal posts’!
rooter, your problem is psychological ‘projection’: imputing your own faults onto others.
Ferdinand
Thankyou for ther clarification of “90%” which you have now provided.
Yes, you very clearly do not want to know – or at least, you do not want to admit – that the sparse ocean DIC and pH data is inadequate to indicate what you want it to.
Richard
dbstealey says:
“You completely ignored my definition. Instead, you deflected. Then you accused me of ‘moving the goal posts’!
rooter, your problem is psychological ‘projection’: imputing your own faults onto others.”
Your rubber definitions reflect your failing defenses. Those rubber definitions are all you have left. From denying we cause CO2 rise and temperature rise to clinging on to “it cannot be harmful!”
That is development. Interesting development.
That is not an argument in favor of your theories. Virtually all theories have been rejected many times before they were accepted. There are countless examples down through history of theories that were rejected time and time again by the established scientists, only to later be shown to provide a better explanation of observations than the theories of established scientists. Often after the established scientists retired or died, and their roles as gatekeepers were eliminated.
“Science advances one funeral at a time.” Max Planck
Richard Courtney says:
Ferdinand
You have not answered my question.
Ferdinand has ignored my question completely.
Next, rooter says:
Those rubber definitions are all you have left. From denying we cause CO2 rise and temperature rise to clinging on to “it cannot be harmful!”
Ah, rooter. Name-calling and misrepresenting my position is all you have left. In case the reason is that you’re slow to understand, I will repeat, in more detail:
a) I do not deny that humans caused the recent rise in CO2. In fact, as I have explained many times, I think that human emissions are the main cause. Ferdinand convinced me of that. So that is a misrepresentation.
b) What is a “rubber” definition? Is that your way of trying to say what I pointed out about you, except using different words? Seems so. I gave you a perfectly good definition of global “harm”: when scientists and the media start to point to harmful effects, stating that they are caused by the recent rise in CO2, then we can discuss whether CO2 is harmful. But so far, there are not any harmful effects at all. Otherwise, we would hear about it 24/7/365. Wouldn’t we?
c) I have never denied that human emissions caused a rise in global temperatures. But I am a skeptic. Show me, in a convincing way, by using scientific measurements and empirical evidence, that this is so. But as of now, that is only an assertion. Skeptics call such assertions “conjectures” unless they are accompanied by testable evidence. So far, you have none. Note that a conjecture is an opinion.
d) What am I “clinging” to, rooter? By using that political term du jour, you are just playing the man instead of the ball. But since that’s all you’ve got, I’m not surprised. You certainly do not have sufficient corroborating evidence. If you think a comment like that is convincing in any scientific way, let me inform you: it’s not.
e) Yes, my position that the recent rise in CO2 is not harmful. Prove me wrong. I do not say that it cannot be harmful. But that is your burden. You have not met that burden. Show us verifiable global harm from the rise in CO2. If you do, you will be making Ferdinand’s response easier, too.
You need to think logically, rooter. So far, it appears that the ‘carbon’ scare has colonized your mind. Try to overcome that by being more objective.
I think the study has merit, the mechanical part of it anyway. It can be replicated, too. The CO2 part is pure hogwash. Maybe she had to add the obligatory phrase. This might be a signal to peer reviewers and bankers of science.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
This is a fascinating article, and yet another potential blow to climate-alarmist fantasies.
“They belch CO2 that produces more warming”
You can imagine the sense of relief that this was included.
The problem with so many in climate science is that they try to prove their points with specific items they want to try to convince us may or may not change the climate in ISOLATION ,rather then in the context of the entire picture.
Again a given force and magnitude changes of that force have to be taken into account with the entire spectrum of items that are exerting an influence on the climate at that given time ,along with the state of the climate at that given time in order to get a sense of what impact that specific force may or may not exert on the climate.
This is why it is so hard to prove and show a simple cause and effect relationship between the climate and items exerting a force upon the climate even though it does exist..
I addressed this in a paper I just did. I posted it on this web-site under the topic ,Many mixed signals in the UKMO’S latest 5 year global surface temp. forecast.
There’s a challenge to all you climate modelers. Take those volcanoes into your climate models, and stop changing the historical record!
Golly gee, something I have asked about on this site many times. Seems the data that I found available on under sea volcanos indicated insufficient energy output for making much difference in ocean temperature. But since geothermal is the only other source of actual heat on this planet other than UHI situations I have always thought it might be another place to look.
Other than UHI situations?
What a joker!
Other, being solar, of course, but we are told that solar cycles do not account for more than .1 degree of warming. So you have solar, geothermal and actual man made heat ie UHI type situations. What other sources of heat are there on this rock?
I really thought that you were being snarky, because as you know, UHI accounting in temp records is controversial. It was a good joke.
Real world UHI- not enough added energy to matter. Temp record UHI- cause for alarm.
Alan,
No, just trying to account for all the potential sources of heat and some of it IS man made, though as you point out it is very little. However, as a motorcycle rider I can tell you it is very noticeable when one enters a UHI area. In terms of measurement it is also quite apparent as one rides along how different the temperature can be in a short span of distance between sun and shade slight changes in elevation. Siting is a big issue. Forget CO2, what other sources of actual heat are there on this planet other than those I have mentioned?
The introduction of solid-earth geophysics here suggests that it might be interesting to assess the opinions of scientists in diverse fields, such as geology or biology, on the prevailing trends in climate research.
Any study that concludes: “The findings suggest that models of the earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted.” is a giant step in the right direction. The implication that climate is determined by complex earth dynamics instead of simply “Carbon forces temperature” is a starting point for warmists to back down from defending climate models that have failed to predict climate for the past thirty years. I wonder if Mann, Hansen et.al. will use these findings as a side door to make an escape from their carbon obsessed hockey stick predictions… We can only hope.
Interestingly, I Just saw a presentation by Dr. Bob Ballard at an ONR conference in Washington DC.
He spent a lot of time talking about the profound effects of these “black smokers” on sea-water chemistry.
He also said that there are about 10,000 documented black smokers, or underwater volcanoes that have actually been mapped along these oceanic ridges, but they estimate that there are 100,000! They are all down there spewing great gobs of chemicals into the water and we have barely scratched the surface in learning about them.
True that. We are only starting to learn about smokers. Only discovered them a couple of decades ago with the invention of deep sea drones. And these smokers support really archaic/exotic life forms that do not even metabolize oxygen or CO2! Wonderful new science on many fronts.
But as for ocean chemistry and heat, the oceans are really big and really deep with enormous thermal and buffering capacity. Plus, they and life have been around for at least 2.4 or so billion years based on the most recent algal mats paper published earlier this week. Much to learn, but not to worry about in re CAGW.
Active black smokers were first observed in 1977, however the geological record from Archean times revealed deposits of massive sulphides that were laid down on or near the sea floor in volcanic conditions. Geologists generally agreed that sea floor volcanic processes were important in the 1960’s in formation of Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide deposits and maybe earlier, however it was not until 1977 that observational proof was acquired. So knowledge goes back more than a couple of decades.
My take away from this study is an acknowledgement of how little we really know about a lot of factors. Just publishing this in a distinguished publication gives credibility to questions that heretofore have been pooh poohed by the climate establishment.
Good for them. Now let’s go forward and devote resources to finding some more known unknowns and if we are real lucky, even an unknown unknown may pop up.
Supports the importance of tidal effects. Tides influence not only magma flows, but ocean currents and even atmospheric circulation and perhaps even the sun’s activity cycles. Understanding all of this is a major undertaking.
Rivers predominately carry alkalinity to the oceans, but the merely slightly alkaline state of the oceans suggests some compensating chemistry. For a long time people thought that ocean pH was regulated ultimately by reactions between deep seawater and sediments, but as Walt Allensworth February 5, 2015 at 3:08 pm, says there are so many black, and clear, vents along the midocean ridges spewing acidic water, that these probably maintain ocean pH instead.
The oceans are an alkaline liquid in an alkaline container. Not very surprising that they are alkaline. Fresh water on the other hand is normally mildly acidic, so rivers if anything predominantly carry acidity to the ocean.
Doesn’t it depend upon the mineral characteristics of the river bed and erosion thereof?
At what point in their flow are rivers normally acidic? If the water input to the oceans is acidic, then why is the ocean mildly alkaline? If dissolution of CO2 into water produces a weak acid, carbonic acid, why is the ocean mildly alkaline?
Something that develops slowly, like vulcanism, is likely to be finally triggered by a small cyclical change, as it gets slowly closer to that trigger point and the cyclical force makes that last little difference.
I am delighted to see this concept finally gaining serious attention. I have been thinking along these same lines (periodic orbital and precessional gravitational forces triggering plate tectonic activity) for over twenty years, although I must say that an effect from sea level variations hadn’t occurred to me. Two points: first, it seems to me that such gravity-induced tectonism provides a far better, and less problematical, explanation for climate variations with Milankovitch cyclicities, including cyclical ice ages, than radiative forcing does. Second, as my colleague, volcanologist Peter L. Ward, has argued, a far more likely driver of global warming than carbon dioxide is ozone depletion resulting from episodes of intense basaltic volcanism releasing chlorine to the atmosphere, such as the massive Icelandic eruptions that accompanied the Preboreal Warming about 11,300 years ago, ending the last ice age. The recent dramatic warming of the last 3 decades of the 20th century coinciding with massive releases of chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere tends to support this model, especially as that warming episode appears to have ended some 17 years ago. More on this at our website ozonedepletiontheory.info.
Coda to my post, as I forgot to check the “Notify me of new comments via email” checkbox.
It would be fun to find a link between LOD (length of day) and ice ages. The headlines so far have said both that global warming will lengthen the day and will shorten it. An ice age might shorten it, with massive glaciers near the poles and lower oceans, causing the earth to spin faster. Then there would be some adjustment needed to the geoid due to the changed gravity forces, going from oblate spheroid to less oblate spheroid, and those forces might generate some increased volcanism. If there aren’t enough mights woulds and coulds yet, an ice age buildup could cause massive volcanic outbursts which might then end the ice age.
Sketchy, very sketchy.
Do seafloor volcanoes determine/alter climate?
Lunacy.
Geography determines climate.
IPCC AR5 TS.6 admits they have no idea what’s going on in the ocean below 2,000 meters which accounts for half of it.
Fascinating research. I expect it will be validated via peer review as on-target and significant. Two posters mentioned important points for why there isn’t a perfect correlation: lag and triggering / tipping points of slowly-building events like volcanic eruption. The parochial view that the Earth is not subject to similar processes throughout the rest of the solar system diminished a lot with comet Shoemaker-Levy. There are tidally influenced / driven volcanoes on Io. Why should the Earth not be similarly influenced by the Sun?
“Researchers have suggested that as icecaps build on land, pressure on underlying volcanoes also builds, and eruptions are suppressed.”
?w=640
Huh? Where on earth does ice cap volcanos? Maaaby Iceland and the Antarctic peninsula, or not. Any volcano worth its salt would burn through ice like a hot knife through butter. The rest of the ridge and trench system remains free to expel all the WATER and CO2 it likes.
There is good evidence that in the Cretaceous some music of the spheres harmonized to produce impressive amounts of WATER and CO2 from unusual amounts of volcanism. Interesting that this same music seems to have suppressed magnetic reversals.
It is entirely possible that this massive outgassing produced a taller atmosphere, substantial adiabatic heating, and near surface pressure and density increases sufficient to aide in the evolution of the enormous mass and wingspans of dinosaurs.
Or is it the lack of magnetic reversal which made more volcanoes to erupt and also was the cause of the warmer Cretaceous?
If they are scientists they have no right to presume anything. These patterns have been clearly there and have been pointed out to them years ago by those they dismissed as washing machine fixers. Any ten percent or more competent computer modeller would also assume that all sources of CO2 whether geological or biological should be included in any model. The absence of even data on so much should have told them the models were total tripe.
Oh, come on! And what do you think CAUSES the tectonic activity?
Anthropogenic CO2, of course!
I gotta say, I’m far from convinced. The author claims that mid-oceanic tides are causative of mid-oceanic volcanic “events”. Regarding what an event might be when it’s at home, she says:
Seems terribly vague to me, elsewhere they are described as “mid-ocean ridge eruptions/diking events”. In any case, she says:
That seems bizarre to me. Open ocean tides are typically small, on the order of perhaps a meter. The ocean depth in the regions is on the order of 3,000 metres. This means that the tides cause a variation of the weight on the ocean floor which is not a variation of even one percent. And it’s not a variation of even a tenth of a percent. It’s a variation on the order of three-hundredths of a percent …
I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that a variation of three hundredths of a percent of the weight on the ocean floor makes any difference at all. I think she’s looking at coincidence, particularly since her dataset is so dang small. How small? A pathetic sample of nine, count’em nine mid-oceanic “events”, eight of which make some kind of pattern with respect to tides? Not impressed.
w.
“That seems bizarre to me. Open ocean tides are typically small, on the order of perhaps a meter. The ocean depth in the regions is on the order of 3,000 metres. This means that the tides cause a variation of the weight on the ocean floor which is not a variation of even one percent.”
////////////////////
That was my immediate gut reaction, but perhaps something more than simple changes in the mass of over lying water is being influenced.
It is most likely flexing of the crust, it is relatively thin at the deep ocean floor in comparison with much thicker continental shelf.
I am just wondering if the tidal waves are not from the oceans, but tidal waves of the magma itself, as that is as good a liquid. When that gets its way towards the surface, one can imagine that it triggers more earthquakes, including “tidal” peaks…