Plate Tectonics and Earth's Climate...

[john pike]

 

right lets start with the sun

 

as you can see

 

solar irradience has been high from 1950 right through to 2000 and over the last fews years has dropped quite considerably

 

now there has been link made of when the sun is high volcanoes stay low

 

and vice versa when the sun is low the volcanoes wake up

 

 Understanding of the natural climate variability is crucial for evaluating the anthropogenic contribution to global warming. In particular, external forcing factors such as solar irradiation changes and aerosol forcing from explosive volcanism need to be captured accurately in order to detect and quantify the emerging signal. The short instrumental period limits our options to estimate the magnitude of external forcing through absence of the full range in magnitudes of the forcing factors as well as by lack of their low frequency representation. Thus, we are forced to use proxies to expand our record. Reconstructions of solar irradiance have often employed sunspot observations as a measure of solar activity. A striking feature has always been the Maunder Minimum, a multi-decadal period where the sunspots almost entirely disappeared. It is generally associated with reduced solar irradiance. Unusually cold conditions in Western Europe, especially during the late Maunder Minimum from 1675-1705, have often been used synonymous for the Little Ice Age. This link between the solar irradiance and temperatures during the Maunder Minimum has been applied for estimating either the magnitude of the low frequency solar irradiance changes while assuming a particular climate sensitivity, or conversely, to estimate the climate sensitivity assuming a magnitude of solar irradiance change. In doing so, other potential causes of the cool conditions were ignored. Interestingly, the climate conditions during the Maunder Minimum don't remain cold over the entire period but exhibit a number of very cold, pulse-like episodes of a few years length. Here, the role of explosive volcanism superposed on solar irradiance changes during the late Maunder Minimum is evaluated. Using the fully coupled NCAR Climate System Model different ice core based volcanic forcing series are applied and combined with solar irradiance reconstructions. Not only temporal radiative balance impacts of the forcings are analyzed but also the spatially characteristical evolution of the signals. These fingerprints are then verified by a series of high resolution proxy reconstructions of European and Northern Hemisphere climate. Through this comparison of model with proxy data we quantify the volcanic cooling during this period and highlight the danger of estimating the climate sensitivity when omitting other factors.

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A

 

there are other papers but this post will be way to long if i use them

 

so we can see that when solar drops volcano activity increases

 

now heres a graph for volcanic activity

 

 

note the slow rise here from 1950

 

however the highest activity has been last year 77

 

this year now 79

 

so it shows we have had the highest volcanic output for 50 years

 

now the ipcc use pretty old data

 

estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach's estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts. Given the more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier & Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical significance of Gerlach's seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites.

see how far adrift these figures are ?

all obviously subject to etc etc

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?type_0=Like&query_0=&op_8=eq&v_8=&type_10=EXACT&query_10=None+Selected&le_2=&ge_3=&le_3=&ge_2=&op_5=eq&v_5=&op_6=eq&v_6=&op_7=eq&v_7=&t=102557&s=5&d=5

 

usgs list only 91 known submarine volcanoes

 

out of a list of 1571 total

 

 

Many submarine volcanoes are seamounts, typically extinct volcanoes that rise abruptly from a seafloor of 1,000 - 4,000 meters depth. They are defined by oceanographers as independent features that rise to at least 1,000 meters above the seafloor. The peaks are often found hundreds to thousands of meters below the surface, and are therefore considered to be within the deep sea.^[2] An estimated 30,000 seamounts occur across the globe, with only a few having been studied. However, some seamounts are also unusual. For example, while the summits of seamounts are normally hundreds of meters below sea level, the Bowie Seamount in Canada's Pacific waters rises from a depth of about 3,000 meters to within 24 meters of the sea surface.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano

 

now if you looks at a potential jump in volcanic activity

 

the likelyhood of a lot more submarine volcano eruptions would be highly likely

 

now this would be like undergound heating being turned up and getting caught in the

 

high pressure flow in the deep sea

 

also discoveries being made all the time

 

"We have found volcanoes at such a shallow level and they could break the surface at any time and form a new island group," Pedersen told VG newspaper.  "We have long known that Iceland has both volcanic activity and hot springs, but we thought that we did not have anything like that in Norway. But we do, it was only under water." 

http://www.thelocal.no/20130802/Volcanic-range-discovered-in-Norwegian-waters

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=20000+new+undersea+volcanoes+found&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gws_rd=cr&ei=Cz9TUoPMIpD70gXT2IHoCw

 

see link above to see for yourself how many are being discovered now

 

Wallace Broecker, using box models, has asserted that the bulk of deep upwelling occurs in the North Pacific, using as evidence the high values of silicon found in these waters. Other investigators have not found such clear evidence. Computer models of ocean circulation increasingly place most of the deep upwelling in the Southern Ocean,^[13] associated with the strong winds in the open latitudes between South America and Antarctica. While this picture is consistent with the global observational synthesis of William Schmitz at Woods Hole and with low observed values of diffusion, not all observational syntheses agree. Recent papers by Lynne Talley at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Bernadette Sloyan and Stephen Rintoul in Australia suggest that a significant amount of dense deep water must be transformed to light water somewhere north of the Southern Ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_circulation

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/o/ocean_current.htm

 

additional heat is added to the near surface by both
upward advection of heat by magmatic intrusions and
volcanism, and overall thinning of the crust. The higher
geotherm, subsidence, and typically rapid sedimentation,

 

http://www.unicamp.br/fea/ortega/extensao/Stein.pdf

 

if you want to learn about this i would recommend reading this link above

 

 

also

 

These entrapped droplets represent the state of the magma prior to eruption. As a result, Helo and fellow researchers from McGill, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, have been able to prove that explosive eruptions can indeed occur in deep-sea volcanoes. Their work also shows that the release of CO2 from the deeper mantle to the Earth's atmosphere, at least in certain parts of mid-ocean ridges, is much higher than had previously been imagined.

 

http://www.sciencecodex.com/deepsea_volcanoes_dont_just_produce_lava_flows_they_also_explode

 

and

We therefore suggest that hydrocarbon seepage triggered by earthquakes needs to be considered in local and global carbon budgets at active continental margins.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1886.html

 

 

now this in my mind would give an increase although only very low in sea temperaures and also add to co2 seepage

 

 

due to very high pressure at the bottom of the oceans the temperatures deep down would not be noticeable (this will vary subject to depth)

 

however it is questionable how reliable the deep sea temperature readings are at present

 

 

 

heres a couple of more technical links to read

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031920104001086

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X13003749

 

see how complicated this subject is??

 

however

 

the main heater of the sea at present would be these in the upper temperatures of the sea

 

Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean

"Once formed they can possibly hang around for years," Murton said. The heat from such events could have a dramatic effect on ocean circulation, which plays a role in determining Earth's climate.

An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.

The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html

and

Eventually the megaplume cools down just enough to stop rising. At that point it is about 2 degrees warmer than the water at the seafloor and three-tenths of a degree warmer than the water surrounding the plume. That difference may not seem like much, but water has tremendous heat capacity. Raising water temperature by 1 degree requires 4,000 times more heat than raising the temperature of an equal volume of air.

http://discovermagazine.com/1999/mar/megaplumes#.UmQoqBAQOQx

and

- The observed megaplumes are the spectacular result

of an instantaneous and huge release of heat flux at a

focal submarine source. The total convective heat

outflowing from the ocean is discharged in the form

of both, continuous steady state venting and mega

plumes. As a comparison, the average conductive

heat flow in the Mexican Volcanic Belt is about 0.10

W

T

/m

2

. The same submarine heat flow measured in

the Gulf of California is 0.34 W

T

/m

2

at an average

temperature of 330°C. Other researchers predicted an

average hydrothermal heat loss for the oceanic crust

of about 1.5 W

T

/m

2

. The same parameter predicted

for the ridges is between 2 and 100 MW

T

/Km (per

unit ridge length). It is estimated that submarine

hydrothermal discharges remove about 30% of the

total heat lost from oceanic crust.

- The energy of the interior of the Earth is a planetary

resource, virtually infinite and equitable distributed

all around the world, more than any other source of

energy. Due in fact to its nature, geothermal energy is

inextricably bound to the origin, evolution and

destiny of this planet. As primary energy source, the

geothermal submarine systems are an immense hope

for the future.

http://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2005/suarez.pdf

 

oh and nearly forgot hotspot volcanoes

But scientists have noticed large swaths of the seafloor that are significantly warmer than expected from this tectonic plate-cooling model. It had been suggested that the plumes responsible for hotspot volcanism could also play a role in explaining these observations, but it was not entirely clear how.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/09/05/hotspot-volcanoes/

 

so see where the sea temps have increased

above a map of plate techtonics

 

so in my eyes these symptoms above could quite easily explain the heat which is being shown in the sea-oceans at present

 

however the amount of volcanic activity over the last 4 years could explain the higher than expected so2 rise and the cooling that has been unexpected by climate scientists.

 

.a point i would like to make

An even more controversial connection involves whether or not volcanic activity on the East Pacific Rise (a mid-ocean spreading center) can cause warmer water at the surface of the East Pacific, and in that way generate an El Nino. Dr. Dan Walker here at the University of Hawai’i has noticed a strong correlation between seismic activity on the East Pacific Rise (which he presumes indicates an eruption) and El Nino cycles over the past ~25 years.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-do-volcanoes-affect-atmosphere-and-climate

as for the aguement whether volcanoes warm the planet

if they warm the sea then yes they do but they also cool the planet as well

 

these are my thoughts and i will leave you to read and make your own mind up

 

these processes have been occuring for millions of years and

i am not getting into an agw discussion over this

this is purely to give a natural process post

 

 

also a couple of more links for additional info

 

As an oceanographer, I’d been around the world, once or twice, and I was rather convinced that I knew the factors that influenced the Earth’s climate. The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat-storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and the energy that flows into and out of the oceans that basically determines the mean temperature of the global atmosphere. These interactions, plus evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of man-produced CO₂.

 

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

 

 

The large ocean currents and their driving forces have already been intensively investigated, but there are still many unanswered questions in the fine details. For example, thermohaline circulation, with the interplay of its driving factors, has not yet been completely explained. Different mathematical models have produced different conclusions. All models use the same equations, variables, and input parameters. But it is difficult to accurately estimate climate influences at scales of a few kilometers or even smaller and to apply them correctly within the large, global models.

 

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/climate-system/great-ocean-currents/3/

 

 

Glossary: Why are the deep waters from the interior Arctic Ocean warm?

The mean temperature of the deep water masses from the interior Arcic Ocean is -0.9 degrees centigrade. That is much warmer than the surface waters of the Greenland Sea, which cool down to -1.8 degrees in winter. However, where does the warmth of the deep Arctic waters come from? It is the result of a long chain reaction, happening in the shallow seas on the edge of the Arctic Ocean – right there, where in winter sea ice formation takes place. When the sea ice is formed the salt, which is present in the water, does not get enclosed. It leaves the ice instead and increases the salinity and density of the water layer below the ice. Due to their rising density these waters get heavier and start sinking. One can compare this sinking process of the water masses with a snowball falling down a freshly snow-covered slope. The longer the snowball rolls, the more snow get attached to its body. That means, while rolling down the Arctic shelf, the salty sinking water masses come across a layer of warm Atlantic water. They take part of the heat and salt in this Atlantic layer and transport it to deeper levels in the Arctic Ocean. At the bottom of the Arctic Ocean these sinking water masses form a body of warm deep water that later on streams out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea.

 

To fully understand how the world's oceans react to climate change, scientists need to investigate the Arctic Ocean in more detail. 'Due to its large volume and its thermal inertia the deep ocean is a powerful heat buffer for climate warming. Especially, the polar oceans are scarcely studied. If we want to understand the role of the deep ocean in the climate system, we need to expand the measurements to remote regions like the Arctic," AWI-scientist Schauer says. For that, she has already planned further Polarstern expeditions. In 2015, Ursula Schauer and her group will go back to the Arctic.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/awih-lsr092513.php

 

due to being very busy this post is not as informative as i would have liked

 

however this is nature

 

please do not go down the awg posts re this as i will ignore them

 

john

 

 

 

[Methuselah]

^^Thanks for that, JP...Will have a look. 

[Fergus Brown]

Hi JP,

 

not being aggressive here, honest, but it looks (from a broad sample of your posts) like you are basically just link dumping.

 

I am, honestly, much more interested in what you, personally, think. It's always nicer to feel like one is actually in conversation with another, genuine, person.

 

For example, Do you, personally, think that there is evidence that the global climate is warming in the christmas pudding?

 

[Methuselah]

I agree with Fergus, JP...I'm not saying that you're wrong; but, from what you've listed above, I can't derive what it is that you're trying to say... 

[john pike]

thats fine

 

if you cannot see how this can cause an effect thats your opinion and your entitled to it

 

i posted this as a favour as i do not try to push natural feedbacks on people

 

but to ignore nature as i keep seeing well in my mind is silly

 

anyway my last post here as i really do not have time to do these long winded posts

 

if you read again what i posted you may understand

 

to be honest without sounding nasty is not my problem

[BornFromTheVoid]

thats fine

 

if you cannot see how this can cause an effect thats your opinion and your entitled to it

 

i posted this as a favour as i do not try to push natural feedbacks on people

 

but to ignore nature as i keep seeing well in my mind is silly

 

anyway my last post here as i really do not have time to do these long winded posts

 

if you read again what i posted you may understand

 

to be honest without sounding nasty is not my problem

 

All that's being asked is that you post up your own opinion. Your mix of quotes, images and links aren't very clear in its message, and often seem contradictory and irrelevant, so the point you're trying to make gets somewhat lost.

None of this is meant to offend, but a post just from yourself, explaining the relationship you see between tectonic activity and current climate change, would help us a lot, especially to see your perspective on things

[Methuselah]

thats fine

 

if you cannot see how this can cause an effect thats your opinion and your entitled to it

 

i posted this as a favour as i do not try to push natural feedbacks on people

 

but to ignore nature as i keep seeing well in my mind is silly

 

anyway my last post here as i really do not have time to do these long winded posts

 

if you read again what i posted you may understand

 

to be honest without sounding nasty is not my problem

Maybe it is your problem, John...Try and explain what you mean, please??

[john pike]

sorry guys

 

i am really busy with other things at present so struggling to

 

do what i normally do

 

will post a different version of main post and explain in more detail

 

where it links with the climate but may take a while to re do this

 

regards

 

john

 

a question for you lot though

 

do you not see any link re nature and climate ?

[BornFromTheVoid]

sorry guys

 

i am really busy with other things at present so struggling to

 

do what i normally do

 

will post a different version of main post and explain in more detail

 

where it links with the climate but may take a while to re do this

 

regards

 

john

 

a question for you lot though

 

do you not see any link re nature and climate ?

 

I look forward to that post John.

To answer your question, I don't think you'll find a single person on here that doesn't think nature has a strong relationship with climate.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that , for me at least, the 'natural' has always been there and so kinda smooths itself out ( negative forcing and positive forcing) over time. were there some extraordinary natural forcing , above and beyond the natural scale of to-ing and fro-ing, I think we would have noticed by now ( or the 'experts' in that field would have noticed?).

 

What I see is a 'new' forcing sitting on top of the pile of naturals. It started small but has been constant and increasing in one direction over the past few hundred years.

 

Natural variation neatly balances itself to bring us the stable conditions that has allowed our society to grow, develop and flourish over the past ten thousand years. This slow 'man induced forcing is exerting ever greater impetus for change esp. when the background natural forcing is pushing in the same direction as this 'novel' forcing.

 

I'm sure that if we suddenly saw the Great African rift valley opening up and a period of flood basalt extrusion ensuing we would all worry over the GHG forcings that this massive 'extra' volcanic activity would bring with it? As it is our own 'man-made' volcano has been spewing it's GHG's and particulates out for an extended period now......just spread out around the planet..... Maybe folk would pay more attention if all of our polluting was condensed into one spot on the planet and we could then see this year on year eruption occurring and maybe accept that such an event must bring consequences with it?

[jonboy]

I believe some are again trying to push for explanations as a means of deriding the poster. I believe what JP has posted is clear and doesn't need further explanation. Rather than asking 'what do you really think' posts perhaps people should properly read the post.

I agree with John there is a lot we don't understand about the natural element of how our climate works and one of those is volcanic activity during low solar cycles. One theory is that the earths mantel is agitated and warmed during low solar cycles which leads to increased volcanic activity which includes under sea volcanoes. 

I am and continue to believe our past warming and now cooling phase is down to solar cycles and not CO2

Keep up the good work John 

[Methuselah]

How would politely asking for someone's rationale deride anyone?

[knocker]

 

I agree with John there is a lot we don't understand about the natural element of how our climate works

 

I would imagine climatologists and scientists in related disciplines would agree with you. That's the point of research. As for past climate changes you would also have to  include, changes in orbital eccentricity, changes in obliquity, precession of the equinoxes and orbital inclination but as far as I'm concerned none of that precludes billions of tons of extra carbon being pumped into the atmosphere becoming part of the equation and playing a significant role.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I believe some are again trying to push for explanations as a means of deriding the poster. I believe what JP has posted is clear and doesn't need further explanation. Rather than asking 'what do you really think' posts perhaps people should properly read the post.

I agree with John there is a lot we don't understand about the natural element of how our climate works and one of those is volcanic activity during low solar cycles. One theory is that the earths mantel is agitated and warmed during low solar cycles which leads to increased volcanic activity which includes under sea volcanoes. 

I am and continue to believe our past warming and now cooling phase is down to solar cycles and not CO2

Keep up the good work John 

 

Politely asking for an explanation is far from deriding someone. I could go through each link and statement, point by point, and ask for an explanation where things appear contradictory, but as that didn't work when I last tried it, it seems pointless to do it again. Hence, a post from John explaining his thinking in his own words would be very helpful here.

[john pike]

Hi all

Lets not bicker

Too much of that re all this

If you look at my main post i did say i did not do the post as thorough as i would

Have liked due to time restrictions

So bear with me and i will respond when i have time

As everyone knows these posts do take quite a bit of time to do

Back back when i can

John

[knocker]

Thanks John.

[Gray-Wolf]

Been rummaging around and have come across a possible mechanism that would dump the kind of quantities of GHG's we would be looking for?

 

It's the effects that a large meteor strike has on the opposite side of the planet (antipodal tectonic stresses?) causing the type of flood basalt event that dumps the kind of load of GHG's we have managed to do over a similar time period?

[Methuselah]

Been rummaging around and have come across a possible mechanism that would dump the kind of quantities of GHG's we would be looking for?

 

It's the effects that a large meteor strike has on the opposite side of the planet (antipodal tectonic stresses?) causing the type of flood basalt event that dumps the kind of load of GHG's we have managed to do over a similar time period?

Now all it needs is for someone to locate all that basaltic lava...Over and above what is normally present?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the impact event would have been the give away Pete?

 

It'd take a 6 to 10km asteroid to bring about the kind of stresses that lead to the antipodal disruption......

 

I think it does highlight the type of event , above and beyond current 'natural background' emmisions, that we would need to be seeing though? 

[Methuselah]

I think the impact event would have been the give away Pete?

 

It'd take a 6 to 10km asteroid to bring about the kind of stresses that lead to the antipodal disruption......

 

I think it does highlight the type of event , above and beyond current 'natural background' emmisions, that we would need to be seeing though? 

Even something on the scale of the Deccan Traps would be rather hard to miss!

[Crepuscular Ray]

Been rummaging around and have come across a possible mechanism that would dump the kind of quantities of GHG's we would be looking for?

 

It's the effects that a large meteor strike has on the opposite side of the planet (antipodal tectonic stresses?) causing the type of flood basalt event that dumps the kind of load of GHG's we have managed to do over a similar time period?

Isn't one theory for some of the surface features of Mercury that the after-effects of the impact that caused Caloris Basin created the "weird terrain" on the opposite side of the planet, although they are thoght to be the result of fractured surface terrain rather than flood basalts? Is there any evidence of such flood basalts - as a direct result of the Chicxulub (sp?) and opposite to it rather than the Deccan traps' prior, contemporary and later eruptions?

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't really know C.R.? The positioning of the antipode also relies upon the angle the impact came in at so the 90 degree strike would be directly opposite but lesser angles kinda skew the position on the far side of the planet. I think it would be somewhere off Australia's N coast ( or that area would have been in the area 65 million years ago)? but then maybe that was the impact region for the trapps impactor???? Better have another rummage......

Edited November 15, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/05-12-2013/126313-antarctica-0/

 

I'm surprised that we have had to wait for me to post this?

 

If we were looking for Volcanoes bringing about change then this seems to tick a few boxes? West Antarctic Ice sheet consigned to the ocean over the period of a Year ( 1m Sea Level Rise) and ash over widely across the rest of the continent ( and the enhanced melt via reduced albedo ).........

 

Why is it the russians always appear 'out there' in some of their scientific proclamations? Be it ' ice age now', 'no global warming or this 'waterworld next year'?

Maybe like some of our media's favourite 'worst winter in a hundred years....' forecasters....they're gonna be right one day?

[knocker]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/05-12-2013/126313-antarctica-0/

 

I'm surprised that we have had to wait for me to post this?

 

 

I did post this in the Anarctartic thread a couple of weeks ago GW. Just a taster.

 

http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=129660&org=NSF&from=news

[Gray-Wolf]

I suppose there is a case for the impacts that losing the overburden of an ice sheet could place on the magma chamber below? So future losses in ice mass over the East Antarctic land's might lead to an upswing in activity there?

 

Sorry I missed your posting Knock's, I'm normally one to read all the new posts! 

 

I did find the conclusions the report posted a little far fetched though? You could imagine local disruption to the ice cover any new eruption would bring but the loss of the whole ice sheet?? I think not!