Inconvenient study: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate – models may be wrong

New data show strikingly regular patterns, from weeks to eons

seafloor-volcanoes
This topographic map of Earth’s ocean floor in the Atlantic ocean reveals thousands of sub-oceanic volcanoes along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/32.summary

From The Earth Institute at Columbia University:

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:

tolstoy_figure3a

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

286 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pamela Gray
February 7, 2015 10:24 am

AP, (from the top of the thread) there is a human trait so strong, it has left unbroken footprints in countless earth-shattering discoveries and conversely countless atrocities. What is it? The desire to ascribe a complex problem to a simple cause. Religions are thusly born. Campaigns are thusly scripted. Dictators malevolently use it. And scientists rise and fall by “the cause of everything” mindsets. It is so ubiquitous that one side of the debate, which ascribes to their pet single cause, is answered by the other side of the debate, which ascribes to THEIR pet single cause.
This blindered blinkered bent is a primrosed and thorned path that more often than not dirties gold-standard research (let alone ones own view of it from the outside), instead of enlightening it and us.
Rather, we live on a complex globby goopy globe with various kinds of ecosystems and biospheres each with their own viscosity. As such our planet has the potential to demonstrate an incredibly large degree of intrinsic, interacting and entwined variations, even when impinged upon by outside forces whether they be variable or steady.
Will we find a single scientifically verifiable “cause-of-everything”? I doubt it, unless you prefer to consider the wisdom of holy writ as your flavor of science.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 8, 2015 2:43 am

Its worse, Pamela, even than that. The implicit assumption that the world is composed of observable phenomena each of which has a cause to be found the the observation of previous phenomena and connected to them by noumenous (mathematical) causal relationships, is not something we ‘discover’ in the phenomena at all, it is something that is hard-wired into the worldview we use to do science.
And behind science lies precisely that ‘holy writ’ of which you speak. The implicit assumption that the world is real, out there, composed of ‘things’ and connected to each other in space time by mathematically accessible causal relationships.
We can have no real proof that this is so: at best we find that we thereby attain a self consistent world view that more or less allows us to predict the future in broad terms in certain ways with some accuracy. At best it is a pragmatic and necessary assumption: At worst it is a complete act of faith more damaging than any religion.
Cf Kant, and particularly Shopenhauer, for speculations on the limitations of this worldview.

February 8, 2015 2:33 am

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.”
Did anyone else find the above as incredible as the so called ‘Gaia’ hypothesis, not because its radical, but because its so patently obvious that splitting the universe into discrete non mutually interactive systems is just a way to do (approximate) science, and has never ever represented the actuality of anything, as to be not even worth saying?
.
The universes is not discovered to be a single closed system: That’s a pure assumption, the a priori of science and ‘natural philosophy’.
Discovering your a prioris is as specious as the ‘think of a number game’ we used to play as kids*.
I am genuinely aghast at the lack of understanding of basic scientific and mathematical concepts displayed by people who really ought to know far far better.
For those unfamiliar, it consisted in asking the sucker to think of a number, and perform multiple mathematical transformations on it, of which the only salient one was ‘take away the number you first thought of’ thereby eliminating the unknown from the equation. You then informed him of the ‘answer ‘ he had arrived at, and the implicit assumption that you had ‘discovered’ his original secret number.
Many later versions of the same thing became know to apprentices as ‘bullshit baffles brains’ . The apparent ease with which people proud of their book learning could be hoodwinked by tricking them into engaging in misdirected thinking while the real action went on elsewhere.
Climate change the political meme is the best example of this ever invented.

johann wundersamer
February 8, 2015 2:43 am

Shineon,
Annual
average CO2 forcing
1950-2013 and the
annual US national debt
outstanding 1950-2013
has an r-squared of 0.83. I
don’t think anyone
without a tinfoil hat
would consider there
might be causation
implied in this correlation.
_____
Industrial evelopment between 1950 / say 1990 was based on political support via Federal Reserve Bank.
So, tin hats or not,
enhanced CO2 emissions correlated with national debts from 1950 to 1985, 1990, 1995, ….
INDICATE causation; you’ve shown the the correlation.
Thanks – Hans

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
February 8, 2015 3:22 am

Industrial evelopment
read
Industrial development
Thanks – Hans

Boris Winterhalter
February 8, 2015 12:54 pm

I came late to this site, but reading the comments opened many interesting questions, which I will not discuss now, but just add my letter to Maya Tolstoy on why I do not agree with her view that submarine volcanoes would influence global climate. Some of my points have been addressed above, but anyhow the following is what I wrote Maya on Feb 6th. Haven’t yet received any reply from her:
Dear Maya,
Your recent paper on submarine volcanic eruptions and their possible role in climate variability due to CO2 release makes me wonder.
Your study on the annual cyclicity of volcanic eruption and their relative frequency during the first part of the year is intriguing and understandable considering the annually variable distance between Earth and the Sun and thus changes in gravitational pull in Earth’s crust. I also find your idea that the gravitational effect could trigger volcanic activities especially along mid ocean ridges to be plausible. Aside of that, I would assume that terrestrial volcanoes are more dependent on plate tectonism than sea floor spreading per se.
You mention: “Orbital eccentricity, which ties closely to the 100 kyr signal, is a relatively small forcing in terms of insolation, and thus its association with the largest peaks in CO2 is unexpected.” I agree very unexpected!
You assume that out-gasing of CO2 due to volcanic activity might have an impact on global climate. However, a primary question regarding global climate variability is the actual role that carbon dioxide is assumed to have on global temperature. The role given by the IPCC as a main driver of global climate seems to be unsubstantiated by experimental science. The idea is mainly based on questionable climate modelling.
Disregarding the assumed climatic effects of Milankovitch cycles on glaciations a question to be answered is the broad coincidence between the onset of glaciations some 3 million years ago and the closure of the Panama Isthmus causing a drastic change in the ocean water exchange between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X05004048
You write: “There are several ways in which seafloor volcanism can contribute to global climate change. The first is the direct emission of CO2 into the ocean that will eventually contribute to atmospheric levels through venting at upwelling sites. In addition to immediate release of greenhouse gases from seafloor eruptions, the subsequent increased high and low temperature hydrothermal venting may impact the CO2 output. However, whether hydrothermal venting is a net source or sink of CO2 is still unclear (e.g. Lang et al., 2006), due to paucity of measurements.
Further on you write: “However, the transport of CO2 from the sea floor to the atmosphere is physically and geochemically complex and likely only a fraction reaches the atmosphere (Huybers & Langmuir, 2009).” Very questionable!
“The contribution of off-axis volcanism, submarine back-arc volcanism, and island arc volcanism, which would also be influenced by loading and unloading, may be an additional factor.” Very hypothetical!
Your interesting hypothesis regarding the climatic effect of deep sea expulsion of carbon dioxide does not seem plausible. You should be aware of the existence of clathrates (solids consisting of H2O, CO2, CH4) on the ocean floor, thus CO2 out-gassing at depths would not find their way to the surface. Clathrate formation etc has been extensively studied, e.g. : http://www.pnas.org/content/103/38/13903.full.pdf+html
The negative correlation between temperature and CO2 in ice cores does not prove that low CO2 causes climatic cooling and high CO2 would cause warming including a time lag of 500-1000 years. The fact is that a warming ocean will increase atmospheric CO2 through out-gassing (lower solubility of gas in warming water) and a cold ocean will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere due to higher solubility of gas in water.
I would be very pleased if you could explain why I might be wrong and you to be right.
Best regards
Boris

Steve Garcia
February 8, 2015 7:27 pm

FWIW, I invite all to view the map at

Its parent website is http://www.heatflow.und.edu/index2.html
It may not be only volcanic eruptions that need to be taken into consideration that may be factors in the climate.
In that map (somewhat similar to but different from the one in the post), notice that some of the locations have VERY high values – approaching 50000 watts/m^2. What that may mean no one knows yet, but I would posit that it is not the overall average that is important but where very high values occur, creating hot spots. In vulcanism, for example, it does not matter what the overall world average is but what it is at the weak points in the crust, as at along tectonic plate boundaries (usually). And geothermal does not care if the average globally is high or low – only what it is at the point of the geysers or vents or magmatic chambers.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
February 8, 2015 7:28 pm

Dang, that didn’t post as I’d thought. The map is at http://www.heatflow.und.edu/marine.jpg

Reply to  Steve Garcia
February 8, 2015 8:56 pm

Thanks for the link, Steve. However, your claim that the high values are “approaching 50000 watts/m^2” is a misreading. The units of the map are mW/m2, so the maximum measured heat flow is 500 W/m2.
Also, the color scale is deceptive. Each color covers a range of 20 mW/m2 … except the last one in red, which covers from 180 to 500000 mW/m2.
So I took a look at the dataset. It contains 58,363 heat flow measurements. The median heat flow is 62 mW/m2 … that’s six hundredths of a watt …
If we take the mean instead, of course it is larger than the median due to a very few very large values … but even then the average heat flow is only two-tenths of a W/m2 (203 mW).
Finally, how many large values are there? Well, let’s take all values above half a watt per square metre … of the 58,363 measurements, only 2.5% of the heat flow measurements are more than half a watt/m2.
In any case, no matter how you calculate it, globally the geothermal heat flow is on the order of a couple tenths of a percent. Are there hot spots? Of course … but even then they are few and far between. Less than 1% of the datapoints are greater than 2 W/m2, and they are all contained in only a few areas of the ocean.
w.

Boris Winterhalter
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 9, 2015 3:58 am

Thanks Willis for correcting the actual heat flow values. The highest value comes probably from a hydrothermal vent area??? Furthermore, considering the vastness of the oceans and the very spot like occurrence of submarine hydrothermal vents and even lava flows, their influence on global climate is hardly measurable even with the most sensitive methods.
It is strange how people seek novel explanations and forget the intensity of solar energy being continuously input across the vast area of our Earth continuously facing the Sun.
Regards
Boris

Mike A
February 9, 2015 12:09 pm

Wow, great stuff here!
I watched Ms. Tolstoy’s video a couple times. In one part of the presentation, she showed daily graphs of seismic/volcanic activity in a mid-ocean rift area, with twice-daily spikes coinciding with lunar cycles. I don’t believe she indicated exactly when in the lunar cycle the spikes occurred, but since she postulated that lower ocean levels were putting less pressure on the ocean floor and allowing magma movement and leakage, these must have been at low tide.
An earlier poster here expressed doubt that the change in pressure (well under 0.1 percent) was great enough to have this effect. I agree. It seems to me that if the events are happening consistently at low tides, which are when the moon is on the horizons, the most likely cause is direct gravitational pull by the moon on the nearest tectonic plate creating a slight spread at the rift, just as a sideways pulling on skin near a recently sutured cut can make the area bleed.
Comments?

Verified by MonsterInsights