The 40,000-Mile Volcano (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times reports on one of the wonders of the underwater world: the extensive web of volcanoes and hydrothermal vents present where tectonic plates meet and grind against one another. "Welcome to one of the planet's most obscure but important features, known rather prosaically as the midocean ridges. Though long enough to circle the moon more than six times, they receive little notice because they lie hidden in pitch darkness." The magma seeping through these cracks generate massive amounts of heat — enough to sustain incredible ecosystems.

But as scientists have gained a deeper understanding of this geological phenomenon, they realize it's more chaotic than they had imagined. "The old idea was that the eruptions of oozing lava and related activity occurred at fairly steady rates. Now, studies hint at the existence of outbursts large enough to influence not only the character of the global sea but the planet's temperature. Experts believe the activity may carry major repercussions because the oceanic ridges account for some 70 percent of the planet's volcanic eruptions. By definition, that makes them enormous sources of heat and exotic minerals as well as such everyday gases as carbon dioxide, which all volcanoes emit."

Comments

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[Smiddi]

Perhaps your right? I still think cutting pollution is good thing regardless of the motives.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[phantomfive]

The evidence that humans are making a difference in the CO2 levels is found by checking the ratios of different CO2 isotopes. Plants have a different ratio of isotopes than fossil fuels. See this link for more info.

Not about AGW

[phantomfive]

The summary makes it seem like it's an issue about global warming, but it's really not - the article briefly touches on that point. The exciting thing here is that scientists have spent years building up a new sensor network, monitoring the underwater ridges. Now, the network is about to go live, and they are about to get tons of data. Before that, they mainly were able to investigate by dropping expensive subs down there (and by using data from the Navy's submarine detectors).

Also, check out this picture. If there is anything related to AGW, it's probably just a little nudge to open the door to more funding.

Re:Not about AGW

[Rei]

Note that "midoceanic ridges" doesn't entirely mean "underwater ridges". I happen to live in a place where the ridge breaks the surface - by several kilometers in places. You can investigate the mid-Atlantic ridge (at least a small part of it) right here on the surface, no subs needed. You can also check out part of the ridge in freshwater.

One of the common misconceptions is that there's a single fissure that makes up the "ridge". The reality is that there's a whole chain of meandering but largely parallel grabens (sharp-sided tectonic valleys), fissure-volcanic ridges, and individual volcanoes. It doesn't always break at the same place, it breaks over dozens to hundreds of kilometers on either side of the "average" centerline of the ridge. Also, the volcanism can be quite diverse. Here we have everything from basalt to rhyolite, deep-sourced and shallow-sourced magma, gas-rich and gas-poor magmas, widely varying levels of sulfur and fluorine emissions, etc.

Re:Not about AGW

[Rei]

It's drysuit diving. It would be stupid to do it any other way. ;)

There was a guy that on a dare from his family jumped into one of those flooded rift canyons last year, naked. He had no clue what water that cold does to your body, he's lucky he didn't drown. He quickly lost all energy, and combined with there being no easy way out was stuck half in the the water trying to get out, unable to climb any further. He was lucky that the rescue services got to him in time.

FIle that under "stupid things tourists do", along with "go hiking alone on a glacier with no prior experience and without telling anyone" and "walking up to the edge of a mud pot, not giving half a thought to the fact that they're standing at the edge of a boiling cauldron of liquid water that's actively eroding the clay around it." There's never any shortage of people to rescue. There's one team that's been hiking across Iceland this winter that's already had to be rescued three times ;)

Re:Not about AGW

[Rei]

Oh, and don't be anywhere near the flat tops when there's volcanic activity going on, because they often overlay volcanoes. And when there's even a small "burp" of heat, you get what's called a sigketill forming, and that would be very bad news for you ;) And in case those little "ripples" on the edge of the bowl-shaped ones (as opposed to the "sheer drop" ones and the "boiling lake" ones) don't look so bad, here's what they look like close up. Think video game-style bottomless pits. Into a volcano. ;)

Know where your calderas are and what they're doing! ;)

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[Namarrgon]

News: Check out these undersea volcanoes you hadn't heard of. Studies are hinting that their eruptions may be more sporadic than regular.
Assumption: Scientists hadn't heard of these volcanoes either.
Postulate: This must mean any effect they have is new & unaccounted for.
Factoid: A volcano puts out lots of smoke & hot stuff.
Assumption: Volcanoes put out more smoke & hot stuff than people.
Preconception: My lifestyle couldn't possibly be bad in any way, therefore humans couldn't negatively affect the environment.
Oblig. Politicisation: Anyone who says otherwise is a "leftist"
Supposal: All these new volcanoes are increasing temperatures far beyond what people could do.
Conclusion: THAT must be the real reason for global warming! I KNEW it couldn't be us! This explains EVERYTHING!

Congratulations on your data-free chain of reasoning. Wrong from the beginning, of course - as the summary says, these volcanoes are already known to account for 70% of eruptions, so their thermal & CO2 output is already factored in. Plus of course, the data already showed that average volcanic CO2 output is under 1% that of humans, and their thermal output is far smaller again. New studies "hinting" that these eruptions might happen in bursts rather than continuously doesn't change that.

About /. clickbait

[tomhath]

The summary is designed to generate page hits and replies.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[MightyMartian]

Translation: Oh look, there's another source of CO2, so quickly let's blame it for everything and we can go on burning fossil fuels unimpeded!

I love deniers. On the one hand, they deny that CO2 has the physical properties every fucking physicist has understood for over a century, and then, on the other hand, every time some other source of CO2 is found, they declare "You see, that's why there's AGW!" The fact that they, like all other pseudo-scientific proponents can hold mutually exclusive views doesn't seem to bother them. All they care about is removing any responsibility human civilization might have for negative impacts on global climate, presumably so they can just carry on as usual, or in some cases, continue profiting from climate and environmental destruction.

Perhaps, good poster, you can point out where exactly in any of the material surrounding this research that it says "AGW is caused by the mid-ocean ridges." Go on, I openly challenge you to provide these citations.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[amicusNYCL]

A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.

When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.

Goddamnit, do I really have to go digging through my post history to find that data again?

Here, from all the way back in October, the last time I saw someone pull some stupid assertion out of their ass like you just did:

Throughout the world, in a year all volcanoes combined (above and below water) emit around 145 to 255 million tons of CO2. In the US, forest fires release around 290 million tons every year. That's great. Maybe people have contributed to worse fires in recent decades, maybe overall not so much. Either way, it's in the range of several hundred million tons of CO2 every year.

The largest coal power plant, in Taiwan, releases 40 million tons per year. That means that, at the low range of estimates for volcanoes, only 4 of those power plants would emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on the planet. China alone emits over 10 billion tons per year. That is far more than all forest fires. The US is about half that, about 5.3 billion tons. Overall, people emit over 30 billion tons in CO2 through burning of fossil fuels (power plants, cars, etc), and that level has nearly tripled in the past 15 years.

So, Mr. Fucking Genius, if you think that volcanoes would "of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do", tell me, is 255 million tons more or less than 30 billion tons? Because, and I'm not a math major or anything, but it sounds to me like we would need 117 times as many active volcanoes on the planet to reach the level of CO2 that is output by human activity. I'll post your assertion here again, just to highlight how goddamn stupid and completely uneducated it is:

A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.

When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.

At 30 billion tons per year, it takes an average of FOUR DAYS for us to emit more CO2 than all volcanoes do in a year.

As soon as I read the summary I knew that some idiot was going to post something about global warming, I didn't expect that the very first post would be some idiot saying "therefore, this explains everything."

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[riverat1]

This sounds like a very plausible source for the extra heat that's causing what environmentalists/leftists like to call "Global Warming".

These environmentalists/leftists have been blaming humans the whole time, yet now it turns out that it's undersea volcanoes that are responsible, and not people.

It actually makes a lot of sense that volcanoes would be responsible.

A single volcano can have a greater environmental impact in a single day than millions of people have over their entire lives.

When there are many of these volcanoes, and they have ongoing eruptions day after day, they'd of course have an absolutely massive impact, far beyond even what billions of humans could ever do.

Undersea volcanoes heat the water. The water melts the polar caps. The polar caps add more liquid water to the oceans, which is heated by these volcanoes. The water heats the air.

This explains all of the "Global Warming" that has been blamed on humans by environmentalists/leftists. It explains the sea level changes. It explains it all.

The question you need to ask is has the rate of eruptions on the mid ocean ridges changed significantly over the past century. The mid ocean ridge in the Atlantic has existed since the breakup of Pangaea 150-175 million years ago. There have undoubtedly been times of greater and lesser activity over that time period but to postulate that all of a sudden 100 years ago or so the activity increased enough to force the changes we're seeing is pushing it. You will definitely need some scientific evidence to back that up.

The thing about volcanoes is yes, they are spectacular from a human perspective but the amount of CO2 they emit and heat they release is relatively insignificant compared to human emissions and the amount of heat pouring on to the Earth daily from the Sun. Even a 40,000 mile long volcano is not going to release much heat compared to daily insolation.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[riverat1]

You're on the right track but actually plants and fossil fuels (which after all are largely derived from plants) have similar isotopic ratios. This is because organic processes prefer the lighter 12C to 13C isotope. But in the non-organic area there is no such preference so the 13C/12C ratio is higher than in organic sources. The dropping 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere is an indication that much of the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning. Sources of non-organic CO2 include volcanoes and making cement.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[ArmoredDragon]

Issues like polluting and deforestation are separate from carbon.

On a slight tangent: I think it's worth saying though that those who are against GMO food and/or those in favor of organic food (which it seems a lot on the left are) are inadvertently proponents of deforestation. The reason why is because making way for farm land is the biggest cause of deforestation. Modern farming techniques are the reason why food yield is up 300% since the 1950's, while farm land used for food has only increased by 12%. Organic farming basically mandates that we go back to 1950's style agriculture, which means that if we do that, we have to choose between more destruction of natural landmass OR starvation. And to feed the growing world population, GMO food will be required to squeeze even higher yield out of existing landmass.

And by the way, paper and lumber are produced on tree farms these days; that is, they come from trees bread specifically for that purpose because you get better paper and better lumber from them, and we aren't going to run out of those trees any sooner than eating potatoes will make us run out of potatoes. Also by the way, the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Academy of Sciences, and American Medical Association have all spoken in favor of GMO food.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[ArmoredDragon]

Umm...I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think I wouldn't be wrong if I suggested that volcanic CO2 is neither plant nor fossil fuel based.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[PPH]

Plants have a different ratio of isotopes than fossil fuels.

But that difference is due to the age of the carbon released. Plants absorb carbon isotopes (CO2) from the atmosphere in ratios similar to its recent creation by cosmic rays. Animals that eat those plants release the same spectrum of carbon isotopes. Geological carbon that which has aged, changing isotope ratios (see carbon dating) and emitted by volcanic sources may be indiscernible from carbon which has aged in geological formations, pumped to the surface, processed and burned in internal combustion engines.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[ArmoredDragon]

While development does play a role, it uses considerably less landmass than farmland.

Toilet paper and mansions (or even mcdonalds stores) are created from trees that are selectively bread like these:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-6yvLBQRO...

Notice how they're perfectly straight with no branches? Guess what, normal trees don't grow that way. They grow these trees like this because it results in a better product. Nobody is cutting down forests to make that kind of stuff. If they are, then it's of such a small amount to be insignificant.

Also I'm not a republican, but you can take your greenpeace anti-science propaganda and shove it up your hippie ass.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[Pallas Athena]

Alas, research reveals that some 30% of 'canadian' FSC-labeled wood is actually illegally cut tropical hardwood. That's cheaper than growing perfectly straight trees in a tree-farm. I'd guess that everything that has no such label would do even worse.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[Eunuchswear]

Sorry, but I'm going to put my faith in chemists, physicists and meteorologists

What exactly do you think "climate scientists" are if not "chemists, physicists and meteorologists"?

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[dywolf]

Rest easy good sir.
Volcanoes are already a known factor.
And they are not significant.

Average yearly CO2 output from all volcanoes worldwide: ~300 million tons.
Average yearly CO2 output from all of humanity: 40+ billion tons.

In fact, because the overwhelming majority of what volcanoes release is ash and other particulate matter, in far greater quantities than the CO2 they release or cause to be releases through combustion, the effect of volcanoes on climate is actually a cooling effect rather than a warming one.

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[mrchaotica]

Organic farming basically mandates that we go back to 1950's style agriculture

Not even slightly. Organic farming is perfectly compatible with all sorts of intensive farming techniques, such as hydro- and aero-ponics, permaculture, etc. as well as conventional row-cropping. I could even achieve 100% subsistence, organically, using only what I grow on my 0.2 acre (including buildings) urban lot, if I wanted to put in the effort.

In other words, land is not the barrier to sustainable agriculture. The problem is that unsustainable agriculture is too cheap (in the short term) because its negative externalities aren't being properly accounted for.

And by the way, paper and lumber are produced on tree farms these days; that is, they come from trees bread specifically for that purpose because you get better paper and better lumber from them

You don't get "better lumber," you get more lumber, faster and therefore cheaper. Most people in the construction industry agree that the lumber used in houses a century ago was stronger than the stuff we use today (mostly because slower-growing trees tend to have denser wood).

Re:So they're likely the cause of "Global Warming"

[phantomfive]

Or it could be that 90% of the stuff we are emitting is getting absorbed, but that natural emissions had increased so much, that the absorption process has gotten overwhelmed (as has happened many times in history).

The reason no one sane disputes it is because we can look at the ratios.