The Kavachi Sharcano

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The Solomon Islands, where I lived for eight years, is just north of Australia and just south of the Equator. It is part of the “Ring Of Fire”, the area of strong earthquake and volcanic activity that encircles the Pacific. You can see below that the islands are on a plateau, with a clearly visible earthquake fault just south of (below) the island group. This fault is actually the line where the Indo-Pacific plate (lower left) dives under the Pacific plate (upper right), and has been diving there since forever. As a result it is the location of an unending string of earthquakes, tsunami, and vulcanism. You can also see another fault that starts just above the lower left corner and comes up to the right.

Google Earth kavachi volcanoFigure 1. The Google Earth view of the Solomon Islands. The capital is Honiara, on Guadalcanal Island.

And along the main fault, in the location shown by the red circle, is an underwater volcano named Kavachi. There is excellent information about the volcano at the Smithsonian Global Volcano Program, including a photo gallery, an eruptive history, and the following geological description:

Kavachi, one of the most active submarine volcanoes in the SW Pacific, occupies an isolated position in the Solomon Islands far from major aircraft and shipping lanes. Sometimes referred to as Rejo te Kvachi (“Kavachi’s Oven”), it is located south of Vangunu Island only about 30 km N of the site of subduction of the Indo-Australian plate beneath the Pacific plate. The shallow submarine basaltic-to-andesitic volcano has produced ephemeral islands up to 1 km long many times since its first recorded eruption during 1939. Residents of the nearby islands of Vanguna and Nggatokae (Gatokae) reported “fire on the water” prior to 1939, a possible reference to earlier submarine eruptions. The roughly conical edifice rises from water depths of 1.1-1.2 km on the north and greater depths to the south. Frequent shallow submarine and occasional subaerial eruptions produce phreatomagmatic explosions that eject steam, ash, and incandescent bombs above the sea surface. On a number of occasions lava flows were observed on the surface of ephemeral islands.

So it has been sitting under there, smoking and muttering and bubbling and putting out ash and steam and gas for about a century and likely much more. And it has continued right up to near the present, viz:

Most Recent Weekly Report: 29 January-4 February 2014

According to NASA’s Earth Observatory, a satellite image acquired on 29 January showed a plume of discolored water E of Kavachi, likely from lava fragments and dissolved gases. A bright area above the submerged peak suggested churning water. There was no sign that the volcano had breached the sea surface.

Why is Kavachi of interest in the climate discussion? Well, the National Geographic was interested in what was going on inside the underwater volcanic crater, so they organized an expedition with the usual underwater camerafolk and scientists and the like. As they had expected, the water inside the crater turned out to be a) hot, and b) acidic. Not phony “acidification” like the alarmists are all up in arms about, which is really partial neutralization of the normally alkaline sea water. And as they might not have expected, the water in the crater was acidic enough that it was burning the skin of the divers, so they couldn’t actually enter the crater. The expedition leader said:

“Divers who have gotten close to the outer edge of the volcano have had to back away because of how hot it is or because they were getting mild skin burns from the acid water.”

This makes sense, because the volcano puts out large amounts of sulfur and CO2, and when lots of either sulfur or CO2 hits water you tend to get lots of sulfuric acid and carbonic acid. The NatGeo article says:

Despite the fact that Kavachi was not actively erupting, the video shows carbon dioxide and methane gas bubbles rising from the seafloor vents, and the water appearing in different colors due to reduced iron and sulfur.

So we have hot acidic water loaded with carbon dioxide, iron, methane, and sulfur … sounds like a recipe for a barren landscape, although perhaps a fascinating one. I can see why NatGeo was interested.

And even though the divers couldn’t go inside to get a look, they still wanted to find out just how few creatures were living in that extreme environment.

Well, this being 2015, the scientists pulled out their nifty robot camera and dropped it into the hot, acidic ash plume filled waters of the volcanic crater … and when the camera popped back to the surface after its allotted hour, to their immense surprise they found an entire ecosystem going full bore inside the crater, with fish, both silky and hammerhead sharks, and other usual undersea suspects.

As the expedition leader says, this brings up an interesting question:

“These large animals are living in what you have to assume is much hotter and much more acidic water, and they’re just hanging out,” Phillips says. “It makes you question what type of extreme environment these animals are adapted to. What sort of changes have they undergone? Are there only certain animals that can withstand it? It is so black and white when you see a human being not able to get anywhere near where these sharks are able to go.”

My conclusion? I gotta say, when I see life going on at a rate of knots in hot ocean water that is not just slightly less alkaline but instead is actually acidic, it merely reinforces my belief that the slight neutralization that will likely come with increasing CO2 will have little measurable effect on the ocean. Life is amazingly adaptive, and the amount of pH change predicted from CO2 is quite small. Given this discovery that fish and sharks can hunt and feed in hot, CO2 laden, acidic seawater, water humans can’t even enter, it’s just more evidence that the ocean life likely won’t have much trouble dealing with such a small change in its current level of alkalinity.

Regards to all,

w.

You Might Have Read This Before: If you disagree with anyone, could you please quote the exact words that you disagree with? That way we can all understand just exactly what you object to.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
202 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lil Fella of Oz
July 11, 2015 12:19 am

Hot is hot and some of these wonderful creatures adapt to the conditions. Oh of course the other AGW will come up with some cherry picked data in an attempt to distort these claims. Thanks Willis.

joelobryan
July 11, 2015 12:26 am

OA is a scam, a fallback catatrophe claim when the warming catastrophe is falsified.. By now any serious analysis will show that even high pCO2 will not cause the oceans to become hostile to diverse aquatic life. The buffering power of vast basalts and submarine Calcium carbonate (aka Tums) will prevent of the proposed lowerings of pH below the already wild ocean swings of “normal” pH.
As for the vulcan contributions of CO2 and sulphur to the oceans around those islands, the added minerals those inject are just fertilizer to a highly adaptable ecosystem.
On note related to geothermaol CO2 hotspots, has there been any new updates from the OCO-2 mission data? I’m guessing the NASA pols have the OCO-2 team on a data news blackout. If I’m right it’s because they are seeing natural CO2 sources and sinks in their data swamping man’s puny CO2 sources, and that would be politically “un-useful” before COP21.

joelobryan
Reply to  joelobryan
July 11, 2015 12:45 am

I should say, “now that the warming catastrophe has been falsfied by the data. As it’s only in the fervid wetdreams of the model believers does CO2-temperature catastrophism still exist.”

Manfred
Reply to  joelobryan
July 11, 2015 1:59 am

fervid? ‘Febrile’ more like, though possibly ‘delerious’ too.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Manfred
July 11, 2015 3:44 am

Or even delirious.
: > )

Bill Treuren
Reply to  joelobryan
July 11, 2015 12:51 pm

What is interesting to me is the impact of Fe on the volcanic areas fish life.
In my mind one of the biggest drivers on pH change is Fe deficit driven by industrial fishing without fertilizer replacement.
The green movement are very scared of this Fe deficit as it would demand a non Marxist solution.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Bill Treuren
July 11, 2015 7:57 pm

True.
They’re terrified that the “solution” to the “problem” could be as simple as iron dust in the oceans.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Bill Treuren
July 12, 2015 11:01 am

That would mean turning the Greenpeace boats into iron filings.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  joelobryan
July 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Probably about time for a FOIA request.

Felflames
July 11, 2015 12:35 am

Given this “discoverty”
A minor spelling error.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Felflames
July 11, 2015 3:56 am

Ditto “vulcanism”. I never thought curing rubber was found there.. 😉
We’re picky today huh..? Interesting post though Willis, thanks.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Olaf Koenders
July 11, 2015 4:10 am

I think vulcanism is in fact a correct alternative spelling of ‘volcanism’ – ‘pertaining to volcanoes’

Ed MacAulay
Reply to  Olaf Koenders
July 11, 2015 11:12 am

I would have thought that a “vulcanism” was a witty saying or comment originating with Mr. Spock!

auto
Reply to  Olaf Koenders
July 11, 2015 2:07 pm

Ed,
Did Mr Spock ever have a forename – or a family name, if his father was Sarek?
Auto – curious, because . . . .

oeman50
Reply to  Olaf Koenders
July 12, 2015 2:26 pm

Live long and prosper!

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Olaf Koenders
July 13, 2015 5:12 pm

According to memory-beta, a wiki-style site, his full name is “S’chn T’gai Spock”.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Olaf Koenders
July 13, 2015 5:22 pm

That is volcanism in a region which produces rubber.

July 11, 2015 12:36 am

Thank you Willis. A very enlightening article.

Jay Hope
Reply to  krb981
July 11, 2015 2:54 am

Yes, thanks Willis!

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 12:44 am

That’s good, Willis. As the ‘reality difference’ between models of global temp and observed temp widens, and people get to see that releasing CO2 hasn’t made the world a warmer place, I think that the crazy warmist media will start to focus on ‘CO2 changes other stuff’. This will be stuff that we cannot actually feel, like less-alkaline oceans. You could even say it’s started already. I don’t know if it’s my imagination, but I think I’m seeing more articles on the subject, and a slight veering away from ‘CO2 boils the world’ stuff. I am so glad to see Willis not use ‘ocean acidification’, and we really must start contacting editors when their journals use it.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 12:58 pm

Yes I have searched for the best way to talk about the Acidification wording and Willis has hit it, “Ocean Neutralization”.
At current rates of ocean neutralization we should get to neutral in X years.
Straight lining it would suggest millions of years. Someone tell us when it could get to be acid at current rates so we know when to start worrying.

climanrecon
July 11, 2015 12:52 am

The Ocean “Acidification” brigade are very fond at looking at life near “CO2 vents or seeps”, but they are remarkably blind to what else is coming out at those places, such as sulfur, which of course produces sulfuric acid. I guess those people would be more scared of soda water than of sulphuric acid.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 12:55 am

Can I have some other opinions in a little off-topic matter? It regards water vapour. In this article:
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
It states:
“it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one”
It may be that I have literally just got out of bed and haven’t had any coffee yet, but I’m struggling with it. The statement is true on Winter days, as it says, but definitely not on Summer days, so surely the point is moot, isn’t it? I am away from my PC all weekend, but would appreciate anyone looking at the article and commenting. Thanks.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 8:38 am

Living in a desert makes you notice that if clouds move in on a hot day (as in afternoon thunderstorms) they will tend to slow the cooling into nightfall. Cloudless skies will get much cooler overnight. In winter high cloud cover will tend to slow the rate of warming through the day and again cloudless skies go much cooler at night. freezing fog is just miserable and cold cold cold so if that is the night time cloud cover bundle up!

Hugh
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 2:01 am

Yes, more vapour in air means warmer winter in Arctic, but colder summer days everywhere. They say this is an active research area, which cannot be true, since the climate science is settled.

climanrecon
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 5:31 am

I would say that a clear winter day can often be warmer than a cloudy one during the day, but will almost always be a lot colder at night. The article is standard “alarmist” posturing, trying to downplay water vapour in order to scare us all about CO2. They claim that CO2 is the driver, and water vapour just responds, but that would clearly be ridiculous if there were only a few CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Their argument about CO2 being the driver does not invoke the concentration of CO2, so must be regarded with suspicion.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  climanrecon
July 11, 2015 6:54 am

The article seems very reasonable to me. They conclude:
“Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.”
There has been an increase in water vapor on the planet. One can see the effect from this in the form of increased global warming coming from the higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere(where the planet loses more heat than it gains from solar radiation and clouds blanketing the sky keep some of that heat in) as well as warmer night time temperatures on the planet being responsible for most of the warming vs not much warming during the day……… many more record high lows have been set in recent decades, than any other type of temperature record.
We know this has happened with certainty but assuming that it will continue to progress in the same manner by using equations in global models that represent the processes involving H20 that we think caused it, then extrapolating out is exactly why most global climate model projections have been too warm, many much too warm the past 2 decades.
Wouldn’t it be great if all we needed to do is plug in the value of CO2 into the models and, since we can represent all the physical processes with all the right mathematical equations, including those that involve water vapor……….we could project temperatures for the next century.
20 years ago, this seemed possible. However, the disparity in temperature between models and observations since then…….all in the too warm direction make it clear that this is not the case.
Many scientists continue to defend those model equations because they represent the ‘known” and “best” physics we have to represent the atmosphere. They look for reasons to explain the “temporary” jog in the cooler direction being caused by the system being unexpectedly effected by natural forces, including things like heat recycling in the oceans.
My position is that these scientists have gone long past the point where they should have started making adjustments to the equations that represent their theory vs looking for reasons/excuses to justify why the theory is solid “science is settled” and looking every where else for the the disparity.
Back to clouds. Since the planet has failed to warm the same way it did in the 1980’s/90’s over the last 15+ years, I suspect that clouds may have been a factor. Has the decrease in cloud height over that period been a factor, causing an unexpected negative feedback? Lower(warmer) clouds radiate heat out more effectively than high clouds. There has been a big increase in evapotranspiration from the vegetative health index of the planet soaring higher(CO2 fertilization) which has contributed to an increase in low level moisture. No way is this properly represented in the models as well as many other processes.
If this discussion was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, I could see the argument for not changing the models or the theory. However, it’s delusional in 2015, when the models are obviously too warm and the global temperature has no chance of catching up to the models to be making statements about increased confidence in models or the theoretical science that they represent, when what should have been done a long time ago is making more adjustments that cause a decreasing slope of temperature projections and being frickin honest about it……………..stating that “We don’t think the warming will be as bad as we thought it might be 20 years ago”.
Doing the exact opposite, defending something that’s broken is the entire problem that skeptics have with this issue………..even those of us that agree with most of the basic physics but see the glaring disparity between the theory and reality.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  climanrecon
July 11, 2015 9:23 am

When Chaos Theory came out in the 1970s I remember discussing limits on weather prediction with Stan Barnes at NOAA and Doug Lilly at NCAR in Boulder, Colorado. With the butterfly effect in mind, they were saying we would have to take into account the energy transfer on a scale to account for every little dust devil in order to have our then computer models be accurate beyond a week or two.
I don’t know when weather modelers forgot this, but it behooves them to learn or remember it.

KuhnKat
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 11, 2015 7:31 pm

noaaprogrammer,
“With the butterfly effect in mind, they were saying we would have to take into account the energy transfer on a scale to account for every little dust devil in order to have our then computer models be accurate beyond a week or two. ”
Do you have any idea what the term dissipation means and how it applies in the real world?!?!
You are telling us about mythology for scientists.

Reply to  climanrecon
July 11, 2015 10:48 am

@noaaprogrammer: +1,000

Bubba Cow
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 8:57 am

Agree with comments, but more importantly – here we have a clear insight (actual data, albeit circumstantial self-reporting with n of 1) into the place of WUWT in the daily life of a WUWT regular.
While being “away from my PC all weekend” Ghost says “I have literally just got out of bed and haven’t had any coffee yet”. So we have spotted the NEED to check in at WUWT first thing in the day, literally “before coffee” (BC), and post a comment with a link for fellow WUWTers to investigate and comment upon over the weekend so that Ghost, upon his return to PC land, can benefit from all of our (well your) hard works, knowledges, and insights.
Have a great weekend, Ghost. (I did same game last weekend with the exception of revealing my NEED.)
p.s. I look in before bedtime, too, but refrain from keyboarding due to well-known effects of distilled spirits.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 9:06 am

It also depends on where the clouds gather in terms of whether or not their effects cancel out and become a moot point. Clouds that gather around higher latitudes versus clouds that gather around equatorial latitudes may indeed be moot in one location, and centrally important in another location.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 9:26 am

During the summer, people who hunt snakes by driving low traffic rural roads after dark have found that it stays warmer longer and that the snakes stay out much longer. I believe this is because the clouds reflect the outbound radiation back to the ground.

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
July 11, 2015 12:06 pm

Except for small birds, …… there is more “snake food” roaming around after dark than during the light of day …… and with the snake’s IR “sensor” …………. a “KERSTRIKE” is more productive.

george e. smith
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 1:50 pm

Let me correct your English grammar error.
“”””””…..“it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one”……”””””‘
Should read: ‘ It is cloudier on a warmer winter day, than on a cooler one. ‘
There now it is grammatically correct.
g
The increased warmth causes both the increased warmth and the increased clouds (later in the day)

Editor
Reply to  george e. smith
July 12, 2015 6:59 am

I disagree with your intended interpretation, at least in New England. Things are a bit more complicated in the lee of the Great Lakes.
A cold winter day in New Hampshire generally means we have a NW wind bringing in cold, dry Canadian air. The wind keeps things mixed, and it’s colder than average during the day, warmer than it will be in another day or two when the high pressure system is overhead.
Then convection during the day can keep daytime temps pretty low, but the wind chill is much warmer and the Sun helps make things comfortable. During the long night what little heat makes it through the blanket of snow radiates like crazy and the air is so dry that when we reach the frost point the temperature fall barely slows down.
Cloudy weather generally has east or southeast winds, and the air mass is warmer over all. There’s much less cooling at night thanks to the clouds and we often don’t make down to the frost point.
On nights with good radiational cooling but with midlevel clouds moving in, reflected IR from the clouds stops the temperature fall. When the clouds move on, the fall resumes, sometimes catching up to nearly what we’d have with a clear night.
I’m going to have to spend some time this winter collecting satellite photos and matching them with my temperature traces. I wonder if I can dig up old METAR data, that would at least have information about cloud cover and height.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 12, 2015 1:17 pm

Willis Eschenbach (replying to george e. smith)

A much better example of the effect of clouds is what happens on a clear winter night when a cloud comes over. You can immediately feel the increase in downwelling longwave radiation.
This is because on a cold clear winter there is little of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor, in the atmosphere. As a result, we’re pretty much exposed to just the microwave background radiation of space at something like ~3 Kelvin. That is to say, there is little downwelling longwave radiation on a cold clear winter night.
But when the cloud comes over, it is somewhere around I don’t know, say between -30°C to 0°C or so. This provides downwelling radiation of something like 200 to 300 W/m2. The contrast between virtually no downwelling radiation when the sky is clear, and two or three hundred W/m2 downwelling radiation from the clouds, is quite palpable.

True, very true statement. But …
(And you knew there was a “but” coming, didn’t you? )
What is the actual fiormula for the relevent radiant heat loss?
Real world values – not the “heard it described 10,000 times” general wave-your-hand case as we read above.
Assume two cases in the Arctic Ocean: Sea level, 1020 mm pressure, T_water = 2.0 degrees C, T_Air = -25.0 deg C at 2 meter, T_Dew = -32 deg C, 1 meter/sec wind speed, clear skies, but T_Sky_10,000 meters = -50 deg C. How much heat is lost at this relative humidity up towards “pure space” at -273 deg C?
Or is the T_Sky the relevent temperature of the heat sink?
Second case: Arctic Ocean again, T_Icepack_Surface = -20 deg C, T_Air = 5 deg C, T_Dew = 2 deg C, Pressure = 980, T_Sky_10,000 meters = -50 deg C again. Cloudy.
How much heat is lost from the ice surface?
The internet doesn’t present any consistent answer, nor do my heat transfer textbooks, nor do the available (commercial) radiant heat transfer calculators (since they are designed for inside-furnace-gaseous-burning-very-high-temperature environments, not cold-water-radiation-to-clear-skies environment.
Oddly, I cannot even find agreement between various on-line papers about the heat sink definitions: T_air, T_air-corrected for relative humidity), T_sky (at what altitude?), or T_space. Hundreds of papers use generic averages of generic “ground-into-space-at-0-K” … But that general description is not useful when you are trying to determine the radiant heat loss changes caused by humidity and clouds.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 12, 2015 10:19 am

So Willis, if what you say about down welling IR is true, then cloudless nights in 2015 must be warmer than cloudless nights in 1805 due to the 400 ppm of CO2 versus the 280 ppm of CO2…….right? (since CO2 and H2O are both GHGs)

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 11, 2015 3:46 pm

All bodies above Absolute Zero (0 Kelvin, or 0 K) emit electromagnetic radiation (light) according to their temperature, primarily in the infrared until the temperature gets to around 2000 K or so, which is why incandescent light bulbs work. The exact nature of the emission varies with the object’s surface, but is generally in accordance with the Planck curve (you can search on that and get a lot of references).
At night, with a clear sky, you’re essentially looking up directly into the 4K (i.e. liquid helium) background temperature of the universe, and most of the heat radiated by you and the ground upwards just keeps going. If there are clouds the water (droplets, not vapor) absorbs the IR radiation and re-radiates much of it back downwards, serving – more or less – as insulation.
The actual mechanism of the “greenhouse effect” gets a little complicated, but it boils down to how much of the heat near the Earth’s surface is radiated into space, and how much is absorbed by various gasses and vapors in the atmosphere, and at what altitudes.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Paul of Alexandria
July 11, 2015 5:21 pm

I suspect that 4K background temperature is neither constant nor uniform when measured through the thermosphere.

Mick In The Hills
July 11, 2015 1:17 am

Willis, I would appreciate your take on the articles published about coral on the Great Barrier Reef dying off if water temp increases 2C. I read a comment in one of these articles (Guardian Australia I think) from a retired diving guide who said that temps in the Solomons, Bougainville, East PNG, etc are always 3 – 5C warmer than GBR waters, and the same species of coral thrive in the warmer locations.

Mick In The Hills
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 2:40 am

Thanks Willis. Next time I see the claim that the GBR has lost ~50% of its coral cover over the past 30 years or so, I’ll respond with “hang about – as Arnie said “I’ll be baaaaack”

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 4:17 am

When the temperature exceeds whatever the current symbionts can stand, they die out leaving just the white coral skeleton. This is called “bleaching”.

According to NOAA coral bleaching can be caused also by coral sweeper tentacles (detect and damage adjacent coral colonies), mesenterial filaments (enabling external digestion of neighboring colonies), and terpenoid compounds (coral chemical warfare).
http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/coral101/turfwars/

robin evans
Reply to  Mick In The Hills
July 11, 2015 1:35 am

It is a fact (GBRMPA) that the average water temperature difference between the north and south extremities of the healthy GBR is 8-9 degrees Celcius. One would expect that the the isotherms are continually migrating. The GBR is resilient enough to survive any temperature increases hypothesised by CAGW alarmists.

Hugh
Reply to  robin evans
July 11, 2015 2:10 am

Surely you are joking, Mr Evans! The habitat loss is a huge problem[1][2][3] and happening in an ever increasing, unprecedented speed[4][5][6] at all major reefs[7][8][9][10].
I’m sure I could find sources for those claims in a few minutes, but this is still just sarcasm. There is an upper limit for intake of panicky messages from various advocacy groups. I’ve reached that.

Reply to  robin evans
July 11, 2015 8:40 am

It reaches all the way to NSW. If warming really killed coral then of course the Philippines would die off first and Australia would have a monopoly on reefs. Until they start growing in Antarctica.

Latitude
Reply to  Mick In The Hills
July 11, 2015 6:50 am

the Great Barrier Reef dying off if water temp increases 2C….
….but over a hundred in hot sun and bone dry does not hurt it one bit
http://www.danintranet.org/media/adimg/13641.jpg

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
July 11, 2015 6:51 am
george e. smith
Reply to  Latitude
July 11, 2015 1:54 pm

Ah ! I can see it changing before my eyes .

Ted G
Reply to  Latitude
July 11, 2015 8:44 pm

Latitude.
Thanks for the info and pictures, I’ve never thought of exposed coral heads and temperature, this is shocking. does this mean the sea level is rising and the coral is growing to compensate or the sea level is dropping and exposing the poor dehydrated coral. We need a grant to run a model THAT will show just how harmful this travesty is!

michael hart
July 11, 2015 1:42 am

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in green philosophy.
Every time I see Japanese Knot Weed forcing its way through concrete I feel like stopping to applaud.

July 11, 2015 1:50 am

And then there are extremophiles that live in underwater volcano vents
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/extremophile.html

July 11, 2015 1:56 am

The main acidity in this case is from SO2, not CO2, as that forms a stronger acid (H2SO3, sulfurous acid) than CO2 (H2CO3). Even may be oxidized to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) which is a very strong acid. With CO2 the pH can only go down to around 4 at a saturated solution (all ocean buffer used up), with SO2 it may go down to pH 1.1, depending of the concentration, even if it is called a “weak” acid. I didn’t find any information about pH measurements in the plume, but to attack the human skin, it should be pretty low…
Anyway, interesting to see that fish has far more resistance to acidity than human skin, even when there is far more close contact between water and their bloodstream via the gills. Or do they close their gills when diving in the plume (as there is probably less/no oxygen too)…

urederra
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 11, 2015 2:44 am

Right.
A 1 molar solution of CO2 in water gives a pH of 3.2
A 1 molar solution of SO2 in water gives a pH of 0.9, that without dealing with SO2 oxidation, as you said.
Willis won the internet, again.

Rbabcock
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 11, 2015 6:34 am

Little Willie was a chemist
Little Willie is no more
What he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4

george e. smith
Reply to  Rbabcock
July 11, 2015 1:55 pm

I can attest to that; having swum in H2SO4.
g

MarkW
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 11, 2015 7:53 am

They didn’t seem to be diving in the plume, they seemed to be living there.

Reply to  MarkW
July 11, 2015 11:32 am

Makes it even stranger, as there should be a lack of oxygen there… It is a pity no pH and temperature (or composition, including SOx, oxygen,…) measurements were made…

GregK
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 12, 2015 8:09 am

Suggested here that gills in hagfish developed to deal with pH variations [then later for breathing] ….
http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150609/srep11182/full/srep11182.html
So possibly a lot of other fish can put up with acidic conditions as well…….especially as SO2 rich plumes would not be rare……all that volcanism associated with both subduction zones and spreading at mid-ocean ridges

Sturgis Hooper
July 11, 2015 2:46 am

Paper on coral heat tolerance from Science last month:
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1460.abstract

Mick In The Hills
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
July 11, 2015 3:51 am

Thanks for this. Quite enlightening.

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
July 11, 2015 7:32 am

In that Science article I liked “…..as our climate warms.”
I wish they had been in eastern North America last winter.
Ian M

Don K
July 11, 2015 3:00 am

From the descriptions in the article, it sounds like Kavachi actually erupts at times. I should think that a serious eruption is going to wipe out all life in and near the crater no matter how well it is adapted to heat and acidity. And that suggests that either there are nearby environments that can restock the crater with volcano adapted organisms, or that the current population are just normal organisms — genetically identical to those in nearby less stressful environments — who have blundered into the crater and find it a suitable place to set up housekeeping.
Interesting.

Reply to  Don K
July 11, 2015 11:42 am

Mick,
You’re welcome. As noted elsewhere, CACA advocates ignore the tremendous adaptability of organisms.
Ian,
An obeisance needed for the funding, no doubt. Should have been easy for the authors to get funding for such a study.
Locations of the six authors:
1Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, 205 W. 24th Street C0990, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
2Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, 3106 Cordley Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
3Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Townsville MC, Queensland 4810, Australia.
Those at UTA would have experienced a bit of the Arctic blast last winter. The PNW was mild in Jan & Feb, but unusually cold in Nov and Dec.

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 11, 2015 11:43 am

Reply should be up one comment. Sorry.

johnmarshall
July 11, 2015 3:49 am

The sharks are cold blooded creatures so perhaps that makes a difference.
Solomon Island geology is complex. Your map actually shows what looks like teo subduction zones, one to the NE, one to the SW. Solomon Island earthquakes are severe but they all are near subduction zones. The only info I have found is dated 1975 so may be too old for up to date sea floor geological information.

Greg Roane
Reply to  johnmarshall
July 13, 2015 6:48 am

John, not all sharks are cold-blooded (Short and Longfin Mako, Great White, and Thresher are classic examples) although the ones listed in the article are. Maybe there is an electrical connection drawing the hammerheads to the crater or an audible component drawing in the Silkys? Who knows.
As for the geology, it reminds me a bit of the geology around Tokyo or the Pacific Northwest (USA) with a triple conjunction of subducting plates – and that makes for an interesting and hazardous area to live and study.

patrick k
July 11, 2015 4:11 am

I wonder if the passing sharks view it as a cleansing steam bath much the same way humans do.

ozspeaksup
July 11, 2015 4:15 am

golly, can someone send this to the howling so called marine biologist? or whatever she thinks she is.. featured on another article?

July 11, 2015 5:09 am

I saw this video too, and wondered exactly how hot the water was at the camera’s location (and what the pH was at that location too) As far as I can tell, there was no thermometer or pH tester included with the camera.

MarkW
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 11, 2015 7:56 am

It’s possible that the temperatures are hotter at the edges than at the center of the crater, but I doubt it. In any case, sensors on the camera would have been nice.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 11, 2015 6:19 pm

Without the temperature and the pH etc., how do we know that the camera was actually inside the volcano?
This is National Geo after all…Maybe they missed and were outside the volcano…
Just sayin…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 11, 2015 6:22 pm

They should have more data.

JimS
July 11, 2015 5:09 am

Yes, but what if the oceans boil, eh? Or, is James Hansen that much of a kook?

Menicholas
Reply to  JimS
July 11, 2015 7:27 am

Hey, I want you to apologize to the kooks right now!

Geoff
July 11, 2015 5:11 am

Could it be the sharks and rays are using the plumes as an easy way to dislodge parasites?

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Geoff
July 11, 2015 3:53 pm

Yes.

johnmarshall
Reply to  Geoff
July 12, 2015 3:42 am

Sounds like a good idea Geoff. Parasites are used to blood temperature between certain values and cold blooded animals will heat up beyond normal values so the parasites hop off.

July 11, 2015 5:18 am

Here we have Gaia just kvitching and kvetching at Kavachi. What is a mother to do with all this C02 and global warming and global warming and C02. It is enough to just have to sit down and drink a double shot of Manischewitz.

katherine009
Reply to  stormy223
July 11, 2015 5:31 am

… while gazing at your kovachii orchid!

July 11, 2015 5:22 am

We need more data to judge and conclude anything. What’s the pH and temperature in the specific location where they see marine life. How long does the fish and others stay there. It may be just that they find this interesting and go there to get a “good feeling” for a short while, the same way we humans can walk on fire for a while but cannot live there!

katherine009
July 11, 2015 5:28 am

Very interesting! I’ve heard that sharks will swim into fresh water to get rid of parasites. I wonder if something similar is going on here. Or, perhaps there is something in the area to eat, which is also adapted to the environment?

Paul Coppin
Reply to  katherine009
July 11, 2015 9:48 am

Perhaps they’ve developed a taste for their seafood poached…

David L. Hagen
July 11, 2015 5:44 am

Amazing. To think that sea life also loves luxurating in hot springs!

July 11, 2015 6:08 am

To an actual scientist, new observation and experiment leads to new and better questions, while to religious believers in the God CAGW, the science is “settled” which is equivalent to dogma, which cannot be questioned.
These observations are interesting to science and point to areas for future exploration and experiment, while to the CAGW cult, they are inconvenient truths to be suppressed. Somebody better tell the marine biologists we see in the video that they risk career death if they continue this line of inquiry.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Gersh
July 11, 2015 7:58 am

THERE IS NO C IN AGW!!!!
Sorry, I was channeling Joel for a minute.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  MarkW
July 11, 2015 8:49 am

There is no F in AGW either!

Glenn999
Reply to  MarkW
July 11, 2015 11:43 am

That’s it!!
Let’s call it FAGW from now on.
I’m not responsible for whatever you want F to mean.

Reply to  MarkW
July 11, 2015 11:46 am

Fallacious might be too close to fellatio for comfort, given that formulation.
Can I say that here?

Just Steve
Reply to  Michael Gersh
July 11, 2015 10:12 am

In 1972, Sir John Maddox, editor of the British journal Nature, noted that though it had once been usual to see maniacs wearing sandwich boards that proclaimed the imminent end of the Earth, they had been replaced by a growing number of frenzied activists and politicized scientists making precisely the same claim. They rightfully figured out that crisis is where the money’s at…no crisis, no money. As with everything in life, follow the money. Not to mention that being on the “right” side gets you fawning press and invitations to the really cool parties.
CAGW is nothing more than the usual Progressive cause du jour. They want you to live as they see fit, because whether its fracking, global warming/cooling/climate change or any of a number of other perceived crises, Progressives argue that the threat of catastrophe can be averted only through drastic actions in which the ordinary political mechanisms of democracy are suspended and power is turned over to a body of experts.

R. Shearer
July 11, 2015 6:19 am

Sulfur is non-ionic and does not form sulfuric acid directly with water. It has to become oxidized to sulfur dioxide and trioxide, which are also emitted by volcanoes.

Latitude
July 11, 2015 6:47 am

Not just sharks…there’s a female red parrotfish, (Scarus Xanthopleura) in one shot too.

PaulH
July 11, 2015 7:18 am

I’m chuckling at the researchers cheering when they see the unexpected aquatic creatures via the underwater camera. “Woo-hoo! Nature is cool!” 🙂

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  PaulH
July 11, 2015 7:24 am

PaulH

I’m chuckling at the researchers cheering when they see the unexpected aquatic creatures via the underwater camera. “Woo-hoo! Nature is cool!” 🙂

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/apr/17/sperm-whale-underwater-stream-video
Yes, that’s about what they say. With several comments about being the first watch to see whales on the robot underwater camera .. competitive, aren’t they?

auto
Reply to  RACookPE1978
July 11, 2015 2:30 pm

Grauniad – even under its present management – does get some decent shots.
I believe they’ve even got their typography and spelling under tolerable control – unlike the Seventies when the Garudina was – (more-or-less) justly – caricatured as unable to their masthead spelled the same way two days running! Grandiau!
Auto – a Daily Telegraph reader . . . .

Gamecock
July 11, 2015 7:28 am

Willis, was Honiara established after WWII? I thought that when the Japanese invaded, and the subsequent American invasion, there was nothing on the island except some scattered coconut farms.
Current population over 50,000 (!).

Gamecock
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 12:59 pm

Thanks!

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 11, 2015 7:28 am

There was a magnitude 7 earthquake in that area yesterday.

Menicholas
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 11, 2015 7:38 am

I bet every creature in the ocean survived that earthquake.
Dollars to donuts.
(Although this is not the long odds it once was…what with a single glazed cruller going for close to a buck anyway.)

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Menicholas
July 11, 2015 6:13 pm

Wagering “dollars to donuts” goes back to when a donut and coffee were 10¢. Circa 1920 and earlier.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 11, 2015 3:57 pm

Magnitude, I presume you mean one of the Richter magnitudes, is pretty meaningless. What was the MMI like or perhaps the local accelerations? One of those would give a far better indication of the strength of the earthquake as it affected the region.
The reason I ask is that having been through a relatively small (6.3 or 6.8 depending on the Richter scale used) earthquake but high (9.0) MMI I think I understand the difference. Small earthquakes can be terrifying if near and shallow enough whereas large deep distant ones are insignificant to people and property.

Reply to  Richard of NZ
July 12, 2015 10:38 am

Right. The Richter scale is a lot like the Celsius scale – valuable to scientists but not so relevant for humans without some interpretation. There are a couple of human-based scales for seismic activity, but since they vary by location they are little used. I used to stay at Palos Verde near Los Angeles, and we had little earthquakes every day, but our neighbors twenty miles away never felt a thing, and the papers never reported them, but get a 4 pointer in Santa Monica and it was news.

Menicholas
July 11, 2015 7:35 am

So once again, it turns out that when nervous Nellie Warmistas sit in their little labs and offices and make scary predictions, and sky-is-falling pronouncements of impending doom and disaster, and in general just do their best Panicky Guy act, they get everything just about 100% wrong.
And anyone going out and looking at what is happening in the actual world finds out with little effort exactly what the truth is…life adapts.
Life is not fragile at all.
Warmistas are always going on about how minor and barely measurable alterations are going to wreak havoc and have catastrophic consequences for life on earth.
The truth is far different.
Life is adaptable, and it is tenacious, and it survives and thrives…everywhere people look.
Whether it is the coral reefs around the nuclear test sites in the Pacific, or this…a active underwater volcano…everywhere that actual investigations are performed, rather than “models” and nervous Nellie speculation and fear-mongering, it turns out the bedwetters and Chicken Littles have it all wrong.
Life is not in trouble when it gets warmer. Or if CO2 increases.
The exact opposite is true.
Life is not fragile, about to disappear at any perturbation of an ecosystem…it is robust and endlessly adaptable.
Thank you Willis.
And Latitude…great photo of the coral thriving whilst high and dry in the littoral zone.

Latitude
Reply to  Menicholas
July 11, 2015 9:13 am

It’s only confirmation bias….
Even the authors of this paper….they went in with a certain bias…and totally took their eye off the ball
…either that, or they are total dumb asses and don’t know squat about corals
The higher nutrient levels allowed the corals to grow faster…..they will all do that in bays, lagoons, inlets, etc
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/10/astonishing-finding-coral-reef-thriving-amid-ocean-acidification/

Jim G1
July 11, 2015 7:44 am

” Life is amazingly adaptive”, and what might be found in the oceans of Europa? Just a thought.

Reply to  Jim G1
July 11, 2015 11:34 am

If the bottom of the water is in contact with rock, the odds of life there are IMO high.

Vanguard
July 11, 2015 8:05 am

Now this is how science is suppose to work.
Hypothesis: Due to the increased heat, C02, and acidifications of the ocean within the underwater volcano we do not expect to find any sea life.
Real world observation: Much to the scientist surprise they actually find large sea creatures cruising around within the volcano.
Conclusion: Sea life is far more adept at living in a variety of underwater conditions than previously thought. We should do more research to understand how these animals are able to live in such conditions so we have a better understanding of our world.
___________________________________________________
This is how pseudo science works with regards to AGW.
Hypothesis: C02 is the primary driver of global temperature.
Real world observation: Despite an increase in C02 levels there has been no appreciable warming for almost 20 years. Dire predictions from scientists have not come true. Climate models have all been wrong.
Conclusion: Continue to make dire predictions using emotion if at all possible. Continue to making adjustments to the adjusted data you already used to make failed predictions and climate models. (clearly our data was wrong and not our hypothesis) Tell the world 97% of scientist agree that climate science is settled while continuing to ask governments for more funding to do more research on climate change. Continue to try and discredit any science and scientist who do not support your hypothesis.

KuhnKat
July 11, 2015 8:10 am

“This fault is actually the line where the Indo-Pacific plate (lower left) dives under the Pacific plate (upper right), and has been diving there since forever.”
You may want to read this paper and the papers it references before making declarations of fact about tectonics again:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_3_pratt.pdf

KuhnKat
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 8:02 pm

Mr. Eschenbach,
You, of course, are correct. The link is dead. 2 months is forever on the net and I should have checked it. Try this one I checked:
http://www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm
Now, as to what you should look for, I will repeat, you should read the whole damn thing and check the papers he references because when someone goes against the Consensus he damn well better have some real evidence.
As far as what YOU want to shortcut to, I would suggest you reread the quote you demand of everyone. In it you mention subduction. One of the chapters in the paper is on ocean bed spreading and subduction.
You are a testy genius aren’t you!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 8:25 pm

Willis,
Please educate yourself as to undersea volcanic activity:
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138
Why would anyone aspiring to citizen scientist status remain so willfully ignorant of observed reality?

just a blog reader
Reply to  KuhnKat
July 11, 2015 12:30 pm

The requested page could not be found.

Reply to  KuhnKat
July 11, 2015 6:35 pm

KuhnKat,
I didn’t want to raise this issue, but since you have, let me simply point out that the Solomon Islands region is tectonically complex, with small remnant plates interacting. Wiki actually has a good graphic on the situation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Sea_Plate

kuhnkat
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 11, 2015 8:05 pm

sturgishooper,
read the Pratt link, this one works…
http://www.davidpratt.info/bauer.htm

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 11, 2015 8:10 pm

Sorry, but plate tectonics can’t be under threat because it has been directly observed.
The continental plates have been measured actually moving. That is a fact.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  KuhnKat
July 11, 2015 8:33 pm

On Planet Willis, actual scientific facts, that is observations, don’t matter. Only the great and good genius’ opinions matter. No difference between Michael Mann and Willis Eschenbach, then. Except that Mann actually has an advanced degree in a scientific subject.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Gloria Swansong
July 13, 2015 10:47 am

As I thought was plain, it’s your assertion without basis other than your sailing around that there couldn’t be a million undersea volcanoes. You have not sailed along the length of ridges and subduction zones where most volcanoes are located, so your “sample” from the surface is meaningless, indeed worse than worthless.
Those actual scientists who study those parts of the ocean have, by contrast, counted the number of volcanoes in their areas of research. Your uninformed opinion doesn’t matter.

July 11, 2015 8:33 am

Seriously, how did “acidification” even become a thing? The atmosphere has 1/10000 more CO2 and the ocean is what, 1 million times heavier with massive chemical buffering.

Menicholas
Reply to  Andrew
July 11, 2015 3:38 pm

I want to know how it is that “more neutral” or “less alkaline” is morphed into “acidification” by warmistas, and hardly anyone ever calls them on it?
These are supposedly scientists, talking about chemistry in unscientific ways and in language an actual chemist would never use to describe what is being measured.
One article that was referenced on a posting yesterday had a discussion in which the word “acid” was used to describe sea water which had been “acidified”.
Sloppy language and inaccurate description lead to bad conclusions and inaccurate discussions…and people wind up being badly misled.
Horrendous corruption of science going on, everyday all over the place…on account of the CAGW meme and associated lines of “research”.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Menicholas
July 11, 2015 6:30 pm

Anytime someone monkeys with the language, they’re preparing to pull a fast one on you. Academics learn this in Pedantry 101.

July 11, 2015 8:37 am

Whenever I hear about our fragile ecosystems I think about the house wren …
The house wren (Troglodytes aedon) is a very small songbird of the wren family, Troglodytidae. It occurs from Canada to southernmost South America, and is thus the most widely distributed bird in the Americas. It occurs in most suburban areas in its range and it is the single most common wren. Its taxonomy is highly complex and some subspecies groups are often considered separate species.
Wikipedia
Life evolves to fill the available niches. And today Willis has shown us a most interesting and unusual niche.

David Riser
July 11, 2015 9:17 am

Willis,
Very cool!
v/r,
Dave Riser

July 11, 2015 9:24 am

The greater the change, the greater the opportunities created.

Aphan
July 11, 2015 9:39 am

“If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes.”
ttp://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

Jim G1
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 3:33 pm

Willis,
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine There is a citation for you and quotes exactly what Aphan says, no particular methodology quoted at the site though. I find it hard to buy but do feel that under sea volcanism is under estimated as a potential source of heat on our 70% water covered world. Only really two actual sources of heat here, sun and geothermal.

Menicholas
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 3:49 pm

I wonder if they are counting each place where magma periodically intrudes along the spreading center ridges? If each separate upwelling is called a “volcano”, and are counted…it could add up to a lot.
Do not know, just sayin’.
I agree that sort of extrapolation is likely far from being the case, but there are a lot of seamounts that are presumably of volcanic origin.
http://www.mappery.com/maps/Atlantic-Ocean-Floor-Map.jpg
http://www.mappery.com/maps/Pacific-Ocean-Floor-Map.jpg

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 5:22 pm

Menicholas,
You are correct.
Submarine volcanoes aren’t randomly distributed over the sea floor, but are concentrated along subduction zones and spreading centers. These narrow ridges and valleys cover tens of thousands of linear miles.
For ease of calculation assume 25,000 miles of mid-oceanic ridge and a similar length of subduction zone, as in the Pacific Ring of Fire, for a total of 50,000 miles of volcanic activity area. If there indeed be a million submarine volcanoes, then this would work to one lava or ash vent per 20 miles on average. In fact, there are liable to be more miles of volcanism than this, but I don’t know the actual figure.
This calculation wouldn’t include the hot spots that exist away from these rings and ridges, some of which are enormous.
On land, a volcanic arc range like the Cascades has active major cones about every 54 miles (13 in ~700 miles). But in the volcanic stretches of the Andes, active volcanoes are much closer together on average and more numerous. They are closer to the subduction zone than the Cascades.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 5:44 pm

This is kind of funny.
I did the calculation for the central and southern (Patagonian) Chilean-Argentine Andean volcanic arc, which starts about six degrees of latitude (c. 33 to 55 S) south of the northern Chilean-Bolivian-Argentine arc.
On an air line, this volcanic stretch runs 1500 statute miles, but a little more on the ground because, umm, it’s an arc. I also had to decide what counts as an active volcano, so went with an eruption in the Holocene. This produces over 70 volcanoes, but many of the “volcanoes” are actually groups, comparable to the Three Sisters in Oregon, but with even more vents. But even counting those multiples as singletons, the volcanoes in this arc occur on average about every 20 miles (but in reality less).

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 6:21 pm

Willis,
I showed you that that is indeed the average distribution of volcanoes in the southern Andes. At seafloor spreading sites on mid-ocean ridges, it would be even more volcanic.
And, as I noted, my guess at 50,000 miles is sure to be low. Could well be 100,000 miles. Just the Ring of Fire must be around 25,000, or the total I allocated for subduction zones, leaving the Indian, Atlantic, Arctic and Southern Oceans with nothing. And the mid-ocean ridges circle the globe more than the once I assumed.
There are probably more than a million undersea volcanoes, with similar problems as to what counts as active, of course. My colleagues at Oregon State have the data to back up their claims.
Oceanic crust, as you may know, is a lot thinner than continental, as well. Which indeed should be obvious. Plus younger and different in composition.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 6:44 pm

Relevant, almost breaking news:
Volcanic activity among the numerous undersea volcanoes off the Oregon and Washington coast.
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/news/north-america/three-volcanoes-on-the-west-coast-show-earthquake-activity/
My favorite fishing spot on the central Oregon coast is a seamount off Newport, which may or may not be extinct.
The Juan de Fuca Plate harbors dozens of volcanoes.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 7:36 pm

Willis,
They’re geologists, and you’re not. You’re an undergrad psych major.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine
I’m going with the scientists on this one. Sorry.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 8:06 pm

Willis,
We know for a fact that there are 4000 volcanoes in a very small segment of the plate boundaries off the coast of the Pacific Northwest.
Regardless of my arithmetic, my colleagues at OSU are sure to be right and you to be wrong.
Besides which, as noted, there are untold volcanoes off the ridges and subduction zones.
In science what matters are the observations, not wishful thinking.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 8:19 pm

To Whom It May Concern:
May I remind all here of the discussion of Dr. Tolstoy’s paper on the cyclic nature of undersea volcanoes?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2942510/Are-underwater-volcanoes-causing-global-warming-Oceanic-eruptions-greater-effect-climate-thought.html
Sorry to cite the Daily Mail when WUWT itself discussed the paper at length.
But IMO the case is, at least under Scottish law, well proven.
There are many more underwater volcanoes than under air, and they produce huge amounts of carbon dioxide in a cyclic fashion.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 8:44 pm

Re arithmetic:
An order of magnitude error.
If the observations of the OSU oceanographers and geologists are correct, as they are, then along the active volcanic zones, eruptions occur at less than four mile intervals, not 20 (4000 in less than 1000 miles).
No reason to imagine that isn’t the norm globally. As noted, oceanic crust must be a lot more vulnerable to magmatic intrusions than heavy, thick continental crust.
Good of you to acknowledge that anyone can make order of magnitude, decimal place errors, though.
Now if you can just acknowledge being wrong about the distribution of volcanoes, based upon observation by scientists rather than your wishes.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 11, 2015 8:54 pm

Let us consider the Solomon Island volcanoes.
There are eight, of which four are active, including underair Savo Island of WWII fame:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_the_Solomon_Islands
This number in such a small area alone should convince Willis of the reality of a million underwater volcanoes. Were he ruled by reason rather than ego and emotion.

Jim G1
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 12, 2015 7:47 am

On PHD’s: I once was in charge of setting up a new department to administer a congressionally funded environmental department. While interviewing candidates to run the new department, one lady who had sent in a resume indicating a PHD in “environmental science” finally admitted she had no real science or math background or courses. Her environmental credentials included tree planting, horse back riding and such. For these she had been awarded a PHD in environmental sciences! Believe me when I say that anyone can obtain a degree in any subject if they have the time and money.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2015 11:39 am

There are 37,000 miles of ocean ridge, not the assumed 25,000.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/undersea-volcanoes-erupt-with-gravity-shifting-earth-s-climate/
The article is on Maya Tolstoy’s work on cycles of submarine volcanism, previously discussed on this blog.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2015 11:51 am

Why the surface of Mars and the Moon are so much better known that the seafloor:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-thousands-of-undersea-volanoes-revealed-in-new-ocean-map-20141003-story.html
Satellites are too low-res and ships too expensive.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2015 11:52 am

For the money wasted on “climate science” models, the US could have mapped the ocean beds by now.

Jimmy
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 14, 2015 11:58 am

Hi Willis,
I’m a little late to this conversation, but hopefully you guys still see my comments. I wonder if part of the discrepancy between some of the estimates and what Willis has observed is due to varying opinions about what constitutes a “volcano”. If you only count the really big guys that regularly erupt, you’ll get a very different number than if you count every single little place where lava has extruded over the last 50,000 years or so. For example, the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network is responsible for monitoring seismic activity around Washington State’s volcanoes. To this end, their website lists the volcanoes in the state: all 5 of them (Mt Baker, Glacier Peak, Mt Rainier, Mt St Helens, and Mt Adams). So there’s 5 volcanoes in all the state, which you can verify by flying over in a plane and counting them. On the other hand, near Mt St Helens and Mt Adams is a region known as Indian Heaven. Indian Heaven occupies an area of approximate 600 sq km, and, according to wikipedia at least, is home to 60 “eruptive centers”, but each of which only erupted once about 10,000 years ago. I’ve never counted 60, but I do know that you can look really closely at the area on Google Earth and find quite a few little mini cinder cones in that region. So do they count as volcanoes? They’re distinct eruption centers, and have been active VERY recently (from a geological standpoint). I’m guessing that when people estimate there’s a million underwater volcanoes, they include that sort of volcano. And I’m guessing Willis doesn’t find it appropriate to lump each of those little guys in the same category as Mt St Helens.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 15, 2015 12:28 am

Jimmy:
I suspect you may be right that the dispute over numbers of undersea volcano numbers derives from lack of an agreed definition.
I very strongly suspect Willis is right if “volcano” means ‘active volcano’.
But the “geologists” cited and linked by Gloria Swansong may also be right if “volcano” means ‘active, dormant or extinct volcano’.
What I think can be agreed is that nobody knows the true number of active and dormant volcanoes under the oceans, the total magnitude of their emissions, how those emissions vary, where those emissions occur, and where those emissions are transported. Importantly, those emissions, their magnitudes, their geographical distributions, and their variations are what we need to know.
Richard

Paul Coppin
July 11, 2015 9:53 am

You are all interpreting these findings wrong. The critters are not there of their free will. Because climate change they are being forced to attempt to adapt, as part of their mandatory climate change agenda. They too, like us, will be made to care about climate change…

July 11, 2015 9:56 am

Adaptation by Australian fish to acidic water:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/11/2841714.htm

Scarface
July 11, 2015 10:04 am

Love the quote at the end of that video:
“That’s the best project: to go out with one question and to come back with many.”
How refreshing after all the settled science.

Curt
July 11, 2015 10:11 am

Come on Willis! Get with the program!
You have to describe the conditions in the crater as being something like “10,000 times more acidic” or “an increase in acidity of 1,000,000%”, which is true in climatespeak for a pH of 4 versus a standard oceanic pH of 8.

Curious George
July 11, 2015 10:51 am

Willis, an excellent article as usual, thank you. Contrary to Prof. Lewandowsky’s “research”, clearly alarmists are creationists, not believing in evolution. Fearmongering pays.

Reply to  Curious George
July 11, 2015 11:00 am

Yes, somehow sea creatures managed to survive the mid-Cretaceous, when SSTs might have reached hot tub temperatures and CO2 possibly 2000 ppm.

July 11, 2015 1:29 pm

As T. E. Lawrence said to his friend who wondered what the trick was for putting out matches with his fingers, when it burned so; “The trick is to not mind the pain.”
Maybe the sharks just “don’t mind the pain” like the divers did. Shark skin ain’t like human skin, you know.

FrankKarrvv
Reply to  James Schrumpf
July 11, 2015 3:00 pm

Lawrence: “The trick William Potter is not minding that it hurts”

Gary Hladik
Reply to  James Schrumpf
July 11, 2015 3:09 pm

One would think their gills are much more tender than their skin.

Reply to  Gary Hladik
July 11, 2015 3:38 pm

Why would one think that without evidence? The fact they were in there and breathing that water indicates that they can tolerate it for as long as necessary to hunt.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
July 11, 2015 5:00 pm

That shark skin isn’t like human skin is putting it mildly:
http://www.sharkwatchsa.com/en/blog/category/482/post/1149/shark-skin-white-shark/
And as in my reference above, bony fish scales and mucous would provide them protection, too.

July 11, 2015 2:34 pm

Reblogged this on Louis Hissink's Crazy World and commented:
The take-home message here is that life adapts to changing environmental circumstances. Except some sectors of humanity who seem quite unable to change when the environment does. These people are effectively dead from the neck up but sadly, and perhaps tragically, these neck-readers are in charge of our governments and policies.

July 11, 2015 6:27 pm

Fish and octopi live off the worms and other creatures of hot undersea vents, so why not bony fish and sharks in volcanic craters?

July 11, 2015 8:14 pm

Thanks, Willis. Excellent article!

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Andres Valencia
July 11, 2015 8:20 pm

I agree, but multiply this volcano by a million.

papiertigre
July 11, 2015 8:46 pm


This is video of Kavachi volcano erupting.

This is showing the pumice ash plume, floating in the water, video taken from a yacht to show the scale.

GregK
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 12, 2015 8:19 am

Volcanoes are not evenly distributed across ocean basins,they are concentrated along spreading ridge and subduction zones [ e.g. “the ring of fire”]
The few that are not, such as the Hawaiian Islands/volcanoes are associated with mantle plumes/hot spots.
There may be a patch off Oregon that has a volcano for every 250sq km but it would not be a large area.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 12, 2015 1:36 am

Without getting into the chemical math to heavily…even if ALL the CO₂ emitted by man were mixed into the ocean and formed H₂CO₃, it wiould lower the pH by a 0.03 of a pH degree, assuming the originating solution was neutral 7.0 to 6.97. That is if ALL of it was mixed in. But the sea isn’t neutral. Once it buffered ALL the CO₂, the pH change (lawdy lawdy, like everything else coughed up over climate science) would be inside that of natural variation (+/- 0.15 or more). Damn. Doesn’t sound nearly as alarming as some of the ‘acidification’ bellowing.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 12, 2015 5:31 am

Mike Bromley the Kurd:
You say

if ALL the CO₂ emitted by man were mixed into the ocean and formed H₂CO₃, it wiould lower the pH by a 0.03 of a pH degree

Perhaps, but that is not the point.
A rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration alters the equilbrium condition between CO₂ in the atmosphere and CO₂ in the ocean surface layer. If all the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution has been caused by “CO₂ emitted by man” then this would have changed the equilibrium pH of the ocean surface layer by 0.1.
A change to the pH of the ocean surface layer of 0.1 would not be measurable because its natural variation is much larger.
Of more interest in the context of this thread is the change to pH of the ocean surface layer from volcanic sulphur. Altering the pH of the ocean surface layer alters the equilbrium condition between CO₂ in the atmosphere and CO₂ in the ocean surface layer. A change to the pH of the ocean surface layer of only 0.1 would have caused ALL the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 12, 2015 8:03 am

Richard:
A change to the pH of the ocean surface layer of only 0.1 would have caused ALL the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution.
Except that such a change in pH caused by SO2 would lower the total C (DIC: CO2 + bicarbonates + carbonates) in the ocean surface, while at all repeated samplings of the same areas DIC increased over time. That shows that the (hardly measurable) pH decrease is caused by CO2 entering from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse… See:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_bates.pdf

richardscourtney
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 12, 2015 8:34 am

Ferdinand:
You assert

That shows that the (hardly measurable) pH decrease is caused by CO2 entering from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse…

Of course CO2 is “entering from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse”. An amount of CO2 equivalent to about half the anthropogenic CO2 is increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Therefore, an amount of CO2 equivalent to about half the anthropogenic CO2 is moving from the atmosphere to the biosphere and ocean surface layer.
This says NOTHING about the cause of the increase to the atmospheric CO2 concentration; e.g. it could be a result of altered pH of the ocean surface layer.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 12, 2015 11:01 am

Richard,
What you say makes as much sense as assuming that people who eat several hamburgers a day that their weight gain is not from all the fat in the hamburgers and the sugar in the Cokes they drink, but from doing no exercise, without any real measurement of how much calories they burn a day…
Translated to this case:
If you have a (saturated) solution of soda (carbonate) and you add vinegar, CO2 will bubble up and the total carbon amount in the solution will drop while the pH drops. If you have the same solution and add CO2, the total carbon amount in the solution will increase (as bicarbonate is formed) and the pH drops. The latter case is what is measured in all oceans where repeated measurements over time were done: the pH drops because extra CO2 enters the oceans, not reverse.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 12, 2015 12:42 pm

Ferdinand:
Please try to think before posting.
I wrote

Of more interest in the context of this thread is the change to pH of the ocean surface layer from volcanic sulphur. Altering the pH of the ocean surface layer alters the equilbrium condition between CO₂ in the atmosphere and CO₂ in the ocean surface layer. A change to the pH of the ocean surface layer of only 0.1 would have caused ALL the rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration since the industrial revolution.

That is true. And it would be true whether or not there were an anthropogenic emission of CO₂.
But you jumped in to claim

Except that such a change in pH caused by SO2 would lower the total C (DIC: CO2 + bicarbonates + carbonates) in the ocean surface, while at all repeated samplings of the same areas DIC increased over time. That shows that the (hardly measurable) pH decrease is caused by CO2 entering from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse…

I pointed out that your assertion is irrelevant so you have now thrown in another untrue assertion; i.e.

What you say makes as much sense as assuming that people who eat several hamburgers a day that their weight gain is not from all the fat in the hamburgers and the sugar in the Cokes they drink, but from doing no exercise, without any real measurement of how much calories they burn a day…

That is complete twaddle!
Your analogy is not relevant to discussion of the effect of altered ocean surface layer pH on atmospheric CO₂ concentration.
During each year the oceans take in and emit much more CO₂ than the anthropogenic emission of CO₂ each year. A change to the pH of the ocean surface layer would alter the equilibrium condition between CO₂ in the atmosphere and CO₂ in the ocean surface layer. The result would be an alteration to the atmospheric CO₂ concentration whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed. And the only inhibiting factor would be the rate of CO2 exchange between the ocean surface layer and deeper ocean, and the limit to that rate is not known.
Ferdinand, your fervent belief that the anthropogenic emission has caused the rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration may be right. But your refusal to consider other possible causes does not make it right.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 12, 2015 1:38 pm

Richard,
During each year the oceans take in and emit much more CO₂ than the anthropogenic emission of CO₂ each year.
That is completely irrelevant to the question if the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by a lower pH or the lower pH is caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: the (huge) seasonal CO2 changes are caused by seasonal changes in temperature and largely level out over a year.
You simply can’t have both ways: either the lowering pH was caused by an internal factor like a few thousands undersea volcanoes all spewing extra SO2 completely synchronous with human emissions (for which is not the slightest indication), thus reducing DIC in the ocean surface layer, or it is caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and then DIC increases too.
If both occurred in the same period, it is simply looking at DIC to see which of the two was dominant. If DIC increased, there was no CO2 increase in the atmosphere caused by a lower pH of the oceans.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 13, 2015 12:01 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
You seem to have abandoned all logic. Not content with having provided an irrelevant fact as an argument followed by providing an irrelevant and untrue analogy, you now provide a false dichotomy by saying

You simply can’t have both ways: either the lowering pH was caused by an internal factor like a few thousands undersea volcanoes all spewing extra SO2 completely synchronous with human emissions (for which is not the slightest indication), thus reducing DIC in the ocean surface layer, or it is caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and then DIC increases too.
If both occurred in the same period, it is simply looking at DIC to see which of the two was dominant. If DIC increased, there was no CO2 increase in the atmosphere caused by a lower pH of the oceans.

I CAN “have it both ways” because the effect of altered pH of the ocean surface layer on the equilibrium would occur whether or not the anthropogenicCO₂ emission existed.
This is true because, as I said,
(a) “the oceans take in and emit much more CO₂ than the anthropogenic emission of CO₂ each year”
and
(b) “an amount of CO2 equivalent to about half the anthropogenic CO2 is moving from the atmosphere to the biosphere and ocean surface layer” on its way TO the deep ocean. (The anthropogenic emission is increasing – so half the anthropogenic emission is increasing – with time.)
And you are plain wrong when you assert, “If DIC increased, there was no CO2 increase in the atmosphere caused by a lower pH of the oceans.”
A change to the surface layer pH alters the equilibrium between CO₂ dissolved in the ocean and present in the atmosphere. This would alter the CO₂ in the air AND alter the flow rate of CO₂ through the surface layer (from atmosphere to deep ocean). Therefore, the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in the surface layer would increase as the atmospheric CO₂ concentration increased (because the anthropogenic flow is into the air – so through the surface layer – is increasing). If there were no anthropogenic emission to the air then the CO₂ flow through the surface layer would be FROM deep ocean to the atmosphere in response to reduced surface layer pH. (Almost all the carbon flowing through the carbon cycle is in the deep ocean).
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 13, 2015 3:16 am

Richard,
If the pH is altered by some excess SO2 – for which is not the slightest indication – that surely will alter the CO2 equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere, but as the observations show that DIC increases, the net CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the ocean surface, not reverse.
All what the imaginary extra SO2 does is that less (human) CO2 enters into the oceans and more is left in the atmosphere. Still the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is 100% human and 0% from the increased ocean acidity…
What you try to prove is that a less negative is in fact a positive, which is rather strange arithmetic…

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 13, 2015 10:15 am

Ferdinand:
You very wrongly assert to me

What you try to prove is …

NO! I am NOT trying to prove anything but you are.
I replied to Mike Bromley the Kurd by saying to him

You say

if ALL the CO₂ emitted by man were mixed into the ocean and formed H₂CO₃, it wiould lower the pH by a 0.03 of a pH degree

Perhaps, but that is not the point.
A rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration alters the equilbrium condition between CO₂ in the atmosphere and CO₂ in the ocean surface layer. If all the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution has been caused by “CO₂ emitted by man” then this would have changed the equilibrium pH of the ocean surface layer by 0.1.
A change to the pH of the ocean surface layer of 0.1 would not be measurable because its natural variation is much larger.

And I pointed out

Of more interest in the context of this thread is the change to pH of the ocean surface layer from volcanic sulphur. Altering the pH of the ocean surface layer alters the equilbrium condition between CO₂ in the atmosphere and CO₂ in the ocean surface layer. A change to the pH of the ocean surface layer of only 0.1 would have caused ALL the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution.

All of those statements are true and require no “proof” unless you can show there is some effect that would prevent altered pH of the ocean surface layer changing the equilibrium condition between CO₂ in the atmosphere and CO₂ in the ocean surface layer.
You are trying to prove those statements are not true but you have yet to show there is some effect that would prevent altered pH of the ocean surface layer changing the equilibrium condition.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 13, 2015 10:45 am

Richard,
As usual, you are diverting the attention from the essence. You said:
This says NOTHING about the cause of the increase to the atmospheric CO2 concentration; e.g. it could be a result of altered pH of the ocean surface layer.
Which is simply impossible if DIC increased, as is measured everywhere in all open ocean surfaces where repeated measurements over time were made. That is decisive about the main cause of the decrease in pH (which with modern pH meters is measurable or can be calculated from other variables): the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
All other arguments you used are true (IF they happened), but irrelevant.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 13, 2015 11:07 am

Ferdinand:
Don’t be silly. I reminded you what this discussion is about and I quoted in full what I had said which you jumped-in to dispute. You say that is “diverting the attention from the essence”!
Everything I have written is true and you have failed to refute any of it. You now attempt to repeat your erroneous assertion concerning DIC increase that I have already refuted with explanation of how and why it is wrong.
I have had enough of your time-wasting! Your posts in this sub-thread are merely desperate attempts to shout “Lah, lah, lah” instead of considering one of the several possible natural causes of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. I simply cannot be bothered to explain the matter to you again when you ignore the explanation.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 13, 2015 12:31 pm

Richard,
I know, you are inconvincible, whatever arguments are against what you say. I still do respond, because others may be looking at the evidence…
You now attempt to repeat your erroneous assertion concerning DIC increase that I have already refuted with explanation of how and why it is wrong.
If you don’t understand that the DIC increase shows that there is zero contribution from the lower pH in the oceans to the CO2 increase in the atmosphere (because DIC proves that it is reverse), then I can’t help you further. Maybe you know some smart chemistry guy, who can explain it to you in every necessary detail, I have done my best, to no avail…

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
July 13, 2015 11:21 pm

Ferdinand:
At last you got something right: you say

I have done my best, to no avail…

Yes. And I will continue to be convinced that altering an equilibrium state alters the effect of that equilibrium state.
Maybe someone other than me can explain it for you despite your desire that nothing – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – may be mentioned if it does not support your belief that only – yes, ONLY – the anthropogenic emissions can be thought to be contributing to the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
July 14, 2015 2:11 am

Richard,
You know, I am as critical towards claims used by skeptics as from CAGW people. I will only react if what is said by anyone on any side of the discussion after carefully looking at all evidence.
In this case, all evidence points to humans as source of the increase. Every single observation points to humans. Not one observation contradicts humans as source.
Like DIC in the ocean surface. That contradicts the oceans as source (besides the higher 13C/12C ratio, another contradiction). Thus whatever your belief, I am guided by the observations which show that the oceans can’t be the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
Even if there was a shift in equilibrium due to a pH shift in the ocean surface (for which is not the slightest indication), that only changes the equilibrium, which for the current average ocean temperature, DIC, pH, salt content,… is in (area weighted) average 7 μatm less than in the atmosphere. See:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
That means that despite the huge seasonal and continuous (from equator to poles) CO2 fluxes between oceans and atmosphere, the temperature increase or any internal pH shift, the net contribution from the oceans to the atmospheric increase is zero (at least over the past 55 years)…
Your zeal to continuous look for “maybe’s” and “if’s” that point to “possible” alternatives (which all fail one or more observations) for the human cause is one of the worst arguments any skeptic can use in a debate with the other side. That humans are the cause of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 (and ocean surface and vegetation carbon) is rock solid. Such an argument only diverts the attention from far better arguments: the lack of warming, the diversion of all models from reality and the much lower sensitivity of the climate to the CO2 increase.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 12, 2015 1:50 am

Oh, and hey, Gloria Swansong, I’m a Geologist. You want to know anything, just ask me, instead of swarming all of us with your authority-worshipping thread-bombing. I have it on good authority (the kind that you like) that Mr. Eschenbach is ten times the researcher of some tenured, hog-trough-funded person that you’d prefer to quote because YOU think he knows better.
Please, 2015 is half over, and you’re trying very hard to convince people who aren’t easily convinced, nor willing to snatch up the mantra you are droning on about. The kinds of folks you seek, bless them, are congregating in Paris, and soon.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 13, 2015 10:52 am

The fact is, Mike, that the actual researchers, unlike a number crunching megalomaniac amateur like Willis, have observed the number of volcanoes in their study areas. Other real scientists have similarly counted the undersea volcanoes in their regions. When you combine these observations and extrapolate to all such volcanically active areas of the seafloor, the conclusion is that there are about a million such volcanoes.
That Willis doesn’t believe it, based upon his years cruising the surface of some saltwater, doesn’t count.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Gloria Swansong
July 13, 2015 11:09 am

Gigantic undersea volcanoes discovered accidentally off Sydney, Australia:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/13/huge-and-ancient-underwater-volcanoes-discovered-off-coast-of-sydney
Meanwhile, newly discovered ones are erupting off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, and the great, omniscient sage Willis imagines he knows how many undersea volcanoes there are, and it can’t possibly be a million.
Yeah, right!

Reply to  Gloria Swansong
July 13, 2015 1:35 pm

Gloria,
You don’t need to be a “scientist” to make a simple calculation for a rough estimate of how many (underwater) volcanoes there are. One million is not based on any reasonable estimate it is orders of magnitude overblown.
Iceland lies on a volcanic hot spot and represents one of the most dense volcanic areas on earth (together with Hawaii and other hot spots), as many of these areas are where tectonic plates are drifting against each other or drifting away from each other (as is the case of the mid-Atlantic rift for Iceland).
Iceland has an area of 103,000 km2 and has 30 volcanic systems. That is 1 volcanic system per 3,300 km2.
The earth is 150 million km2 and should have 1 million volcanoes, that is one per 150 km2.
If even one of the most active hotspots on earth has an order of magnitude less volcanoes than the scientific (?) estimate, I am pretty sure that the estimate is far beyond reality…

rah
July 12, 2015 5:31 am

About 73 years ago starting in August 1942 through November 1942 the southern Solomon chain was a hot spot of a different kind. (The campaign on Guadalcanal didn’t end until Feb. 1943 but the outcome was determined and the major actions were fought during that 4 month period of intense combat.)Proportionally it was the toughest and most sustained fight the US Navy ever fought involving surface actions. Seven major actions and five of those being surface actions fought primarily at night. Each side lost 24 warships ranging in size from Destroyers to Battleships. US KIA on Guadalcanal was 1,592. Japanese loses were over 20,000 on the island. But the toll at sea for the USN was over 5,000 while the Japanese lost about 4,000.
Much has been made of the tough fight the Marines and later the Army and their airmen had on and in the skies above Guadalcanal and the surrounding waters but in the end, for the US to begin the long fight towards the Japanese home islands the highest price was paid by the USN.
In all the Island invasions carried out by the US and allies during the war in the Pacific only during the first one at Guadalcanal and the last one at Okinawa would the USN suffer more KIA than the US/allied land forces involved.

Tim
July 12, 2015 6:58 am

Life is amazingly adaptive – even within a Hydrothermal Vent:
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/hydrothermal-vent-creatures

co2islife
July 12, 2015 7:22 am

“My conclusion? I gotta say, when I see life going on at a rate of knots in hot ocean water that is not just slightly less alkaline but instead is actually acidic, it merely reinforces my belief that the slight neutralization that will likely come with increasing CO2 will have little measurable effect on the ocean.”
Once again the conclusion of the Climate “Science” alarmists is demonstrated to be epically wrong.
1) Sea life formed during a time when CO2 and Ocean Acidification were much higher than today. CO2 used to be 7000 PPM.
2) Coral reefs were formed when CO2 was much higher, and in fact coral needs CO2 to form, calcium carbonate is their backbone.
3) The atmosphere has been degassing for millions of years, that atmospheric CO2 has been what was used to form the reefs in the ocean, 7000 PPM to now 400 PPM.
Has anyone ever bothered to calculate out how much CO2 would be required to alter the pH of the oceans? The oceans are extremely vast, and pH is a logarithmic scale. While I haven’t taken the time to do the calculation, I’m pretty sure the oceans can absorb 100% of the atmospheric CO2 and there won’t be a measurable change in the Ocean’s pH, and that is assuming that the natural buffering and sequestration processed halt.
Someone in a chemistry dept please do that calculation, and put it is context of year of fossil fuels consumption.

joel
July 12, 2015 2:11 pm

Hey. Did we ever agree on how many volcanos can dance on the head of a pin, I mean, how many volcanos there are active on the ocean floor?
BTW, this post was about the adaptation of sea life to an acidic environment. Why all the argument about the number of volcanos.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  joel
July 13, 2015 1:01 pm

IMO it’s relevant for a lot of reasons, besides the baselessness of Willis’ blanket assertion d*nial of science.
Man-made global warming advocates always attack skeptics who hypothesize that increased volcanic activity could be partly responsible for any actual rise in CO2 over the past 300 years or so. To make a reasonable estimate, you need to know how many volcanic vents there are on the planet and whether they are more or less active than in the recent past.
There is a variety of ways of making such estimates.

Gloria Swansong
July 13, 2015 1:08 pm
July 14, 2015 10:17 am

One of the main claims about the danger of acidification of the oceans is the effect it has on shellfish, corals, etc.. These beasties definitely don’t like any move from alkaline toward neutral, because they have evolved to use alkalinity to manufacture shells.

%d bloggers like this: