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.
No discussion of the physical form of the CO2 that is found in subsea volcanos. At the temperature and pressure found in the deep sea, the CO2 is a liquid, somewhat heavier than water. My guess is that it pools in the deeper areas forming lakes that are a constant source of some CO2 for the deep water currents that pass slowly over them. Those currents appear to get to the surface in the southeastern Pacific. CO2 in the atmosphere is elevated in that area. Something to think about.
That’s a very interesting point. At ocean depths where temperatures are close to 0C and hundreds of atmospheres of pressure, CO2 would reside roughly in the center of its liguid phase. (Except perhaps near those volcanic ridges.)
http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/46127/media/image4.png
http://www.astro.uwo.ca/~jlandstr/planets/webfigs/atmospheres/images/press.gif
http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/images/water/temp.jpg
So, CO2 might be automatically sequestered in the oceans, absorbing a lot of heat in the process too. But then some part of it might be released around the ridges. Could there be something like “CO2 weather” on the bottom of the ocean, where it rains liquid CO2? (How soluble is liquid CO2? )
Just waving my hands here of course, but have these questions been addressed in the climate literature? Has any CO2 pooling been observed? Or would it just turn into limestone?
me:”…absorbing a lot of heat in the process too. But then some part of it might be released around the ridges…”
I got that backwards, didn’t I. Of course, heat would be released when CO2 liquifies (heat of condensation) and absorbed when it turns back into a (dissolved) gas (heat of vaporization). Because entropy (dQ/T) of a substance decreases when it passes from gas to liquid etc.
I recall reading an article where a team of Japanese Scientists found a pool of liquid CO2 in the deep ocean. I believe the pool was below an inversion layer. Sorry that I can’t give you more detail.
I found this, which may be the paper you saw.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026115/pdf
“Liquid CO2 venting on the seafloor: Yonaguni Knoll IV hydrothermal system, Okinawa Trough”,
Uta Konno,Urumu Tsunogai,Fumiko Nakagawa,Miwako Nakaseama,Jun-ichiro Ishibashi,Takuro Nunoura,
and Ko-ichi Nakamura
A more complex process than I imagined. Also saw several other papers on the CO2-hydrate as an ocean sequestering idea.
Thanks.
At the temperature in the hydrothermal vents CO2 will be a supercritical fluid.
“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.”
Sun-earth distance from January to June is almost equal to July to December. If distance was really the cause, she should see the effect either January or June. The difference in gravitational pressure on earth between perihelion and aphelion is around 4.6 MPa. The compressive strength of most rocks including granite and basalt is over 20 MPa. The squeezing will have little effect on solid rocks. It might pull the magma upward if a volcano is ready to erupt for other reasons.
Solar tidal bulge is half the lunar tidal bulge. If sun’s gravity influences magma and rocks in earth’s crust, the moon should have greater influence. Tolstoy should see more eruptions during high tides. This is a common perception among laymen but volcanologists dismiss it.
‘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’.
‘People … are assumed to be
in a steady state’ ‘which they’re not.’
priceless. repeated.
Now for the claims that volcano pulses or lack of volcano pulses by ‘lucky chance’ balance out the warming that would have happened because of AGW.
Climate ‘science’ can you find another area has easy to be ‘right in’ ?
I don’t think the window of activity of Jan to June is accurate.
One of NZ’s most active volcanos, Mount Ruapehu seems to
like popping its cork between July and December. (Dec 1945,
Nov 1994, Sept 1995, Sept 1996, Oct 2006, Sept 2007, May
2008 etc).
White Island, an almost continuously active volcano, erupted
in August 2012. and again August and October 2013.
Mount Tongariro (same volcanic line as Ruapehu and further
to Nth East) cleared its throat and had a cough in November
2012
The submarine volcano, Monowai, has been erupting on and
off since 2012, the last activity in Oct 2014.
Currently there is a submiarine volcano in Tonga active. It seems
to be the only one inside the Jan-June window.
These have in common:
– July to December eruptions (exception is current active cone in Tonga)
outside the Jan to June window..
– all are Southern Hemisphere.
Some are sub-aerial, some are submarine.
Ruapehu, Tongariro and White Island are in the Taupo Volcanic
zone, which is a sub-aerial spreading ridge.
Monowai is on the edge of the Tongan Trench
The majority do occur within three months of perihelion, if that
is not coincicence.
I look forward to reading the paper.
Ruapehu has one of its many rumbles in the jan-june window with a cough in May 2008. Otherwise,…
sophocles February 6, 2015 at 2:55 am
IF the volcanic action were driven by tidal forces, there’s a huge problem with both her and your claims. IF tidal forces are the driver, we’d expect the eruptions to be at the time of maximal flexion, which is the time of the maximal tidal forces. Here are those forces:
As you can see, the maximal forces are not aligned with the calendar year, nor would we expect them to be. So IF tides rule eruptions, they would not fall in a particular section of the year (e.g. first six months).
Do tides rule eruptions? Possibly … but neither your data nor hers help in any form.
w.
Tolstoy’s paper proposes that eruptions occur as the force decreases, hence the Jan-June and neap tide connection.
The paper is about seafloor volcanoes, not above-ground volcanoes like Ruapehu.
And in related news….
So … What the author Maya Tolstoy is saying is that undersea volcanoes are alternately in a state of war and peace?
She might be even e countess for what we know, but Americans don’t go for that sort of thing.
Here is her talk on the sea floor
Very interesting speech! 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…
Hydrosphere is (almost) free to move into atmosphere, that is not the case for the magma, outer liquid or the heaviest metallic inner core. Since none of these are ‘compressable’ I suspect some kind of ‘shunting’ effect, however small, propagating in a spiral from the centre towards periphery.
Point she makes about the regular jolts eventually triggering a major event, could equally apply to the geomagnetic storm circumstance, I described in the comment further above.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26923-melting-ice-spells-volcanic-trouble.html
Article first published online: 6 FEB 2015 DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062446
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;jsessionid=31DF5ED191B0EE67BE89233C497B12D6.f04t04
What is bizarre is that climate science often behaves as if this wasn’t true. Probably because it would involve admitting that since they do not know how the Earth, the atmosphere and water operate as a single system, they have no business claiming they can diagnose what may or may not be wrong with the climate. They would have to admit in fact they are practicing pseudo-science; take some science, ignore what they don’t know, mix it up with a bunch of BS and then make extravagant claims.
The extravagant claims of climate doom requires everything in the Earth, and the atmosphere and water to be steady state…except for CO2. This is a ridiculous premise to base any theory on but is required to claim CO2 as a poison to the system.
Could underwater volcanic activity be the source of el nino heat?
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/el-ninos-generated-by-geological-heat-flow-not-global-warming.html
All of this is in a word is ridiculous and does little to explain why the climatic historical record is what it is. They do not believe in data.
My explanation as to why the climate changes conforms to the data. It is far superior to this.
factors which also could affect squeeze \ unsqueeze cycles are the wobble of entire 11? body solar system barycenter ➡️ solar flares ➡️ cloud formation…
undersea volcanoes could cause warming effect by increasing water vapor while land volcanoes cause cooling via reduced albedo …. what net effect occurs?
MY REPLY TO WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS BELOW:
A small part of the story and does little to explain abrupt climate change which takes place in decades. A 100,000 year slow moving cycle is not the explanation.
The climate most likely acts as a two tier system in that it has slow moving cycles such as Milankovitch Cycles that gradually move the climate toward a warmer or colder climate but super imposed on this gradual cycle are forces, and events that can create counter abrupt climatic trends especially when the climate is near the glacial/inter- glacial threshold condition which the slow moving cycles in the climatic system bring the climate toward and away from over long periods of time.
They do not get it. They try constantly to isolate an item that may influence the climate without considering it in the context of the entire spectrum of items that may be impacting the climate at that given time or the state of the climate at that given time and think they can somehow come up with an explanation as to why the climate changes. Wrong , wrong and wrong.
Their feeble explanation below along with their feeble attempts in this article in general is a great example of what I am talking about.
From the article below:
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.
This is a follow up to the points I tried to make in the previous post elaborating on what I had mentioned. This is part one of my two part paper on how the climate may change. Only part one applies to this discussion and the point I am trying to make.
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts.
PART ONE
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.
From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.
My explanation:
I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.
What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place.
The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable. Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal.
The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend.
QUESTIONS:
Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it’s mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it’s mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?
Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?
Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?
My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.
Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness.
NOTE 1- Thermohaline Circulation Changes are more likely in my opinion when the climate is near the glacial/inter-glacial threshold probably due to greater sources of fresh water input into the North Atlantic.
Well, we know how this will play out with the alarmists – “Oh no!!! The oceans haven’t been warming because they have been absorbing the man-added CO2 emissions – they’ve been warming because of underwater volcanism which means WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE because now nothing is accountable for thecatastrophic never-ending rise of fossil fuel emissions” – and they will conveniently forget they have been explaining the pause of the last 18 years based on the oceans absorbing the CO2…
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.”
No — what it shows is that the overall system is fiendishly more complex than we have been assuming
The prime directive is still that building and running Models does not replace developing a fundamental understanding of the processes — and that in the absence of said fundamental understanding the models are GIGO-centric
If there’s anything to this January-June correlation, that corresponds better to northern snow pack than to solar tides, and would cause a comparable compression of the lithosphere. –AGF
I’m still shaking my head at Edward Baker’s “most interesting takeaway” statement. Really? REALLY? Surely if ANYTHING in the scientific world WAS actually settled prior to today, it was that the “solid Earth, the air and water all operate” as parts of ONE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM!
Wow. Just. Wow.
“note the uptick in the present” – What uptick? The chart shows CO2 ranging from about 180-280 ppm, which is prior to the last 100 years when it went off the chart. Besides, a 100,000-year cycle can hardly explain a 100-year trend.
Edward Baker, NOAA:
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.
Dr. Edward Baker misinterpreted his own thoughts, while looking at this illustration
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAS.gif
while reading its legend he was attempting to say:
“The most interesting takeaway from this graph is that the
Earth
Air and
Sea
all operate in concert within a single system, but the Tolstoy’s paper doesn’t provide any further evidence to tell us why.”
With this imaginary thought of Dr. Baker I am in a full agreement, regretfully I too am unable to provide any further evidence to tell why it is so.
Thank you to all who took the effort to read what I wrote, regardless what you may thought of it, and apologise if the answers were not adequate.
I’ve long thought that underwater volcanism deserves greater scrutiny as an influential factor in climate cycles. But from the standpoint of directly warming the patches of overlying ocean, rather than the secondary effect of CO2 emissions.
http://gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mobi/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/abstract
Mr Settled science lord of every Volcano emission on earth can’t be questioned is in trouble now lol
http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/Leybourne_Oceans_Fin.pdf
Maybe they need to check this properly
Countless trillions have been spent on an assumption. I have reached the assumption that Agenda 21 is the gaol and Climate Change is the key to get there. If you can’t win by democracy win by regulation.
Hi Jim
“If you can’t win by democracy win by regulation. ”
And you could promote climate change by altering the weather where and when you see fit .
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/weather/frontline.html
America plans to own the weather by 2025 even though the technology is already here .
Variable rates of seafloor spreading have also been posited as causing changes in sea level. Part of the topographic elevation of mid-ocean ridges can be attributed to thermal uplift, and it follows that if the spreading rate increases, the amount of thermally-uplifted crust increases, at the expense of basin “room”, causing a direct displacement of seawater. The high sea levels of the Cretaceous Period were in part ascribed to the increase in seafloor-spreading rates in the Atlantic basin. If CO₂ was also involved in the Cretaceous’ naturally-warmer climate, it may have been this increased activity that was responsible. It could, of course be that the CO₂ increase was related, but lagged behind the warming that might logically have been CAUSED by an increase in sea-surface area….caused by ridge elevation.
…a demonstration of logical weasel-word use….