Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by StuM

"...But a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, using computer models to test Darwin's theory, found he underestimated the complexity and variety of atoll formations around the world."

Never let the facts get in the way of a good model, eh!

Is that the same type of model that grossly over estimated the last 20 years temperature change?

I remember reading somewhere last month that underwater active volcanoes may be contributing to warmer waters in various parts of the oceans. The paper also stated that such temperature variations due to underwater seismic events have not been factored into GW calculations. Go figure.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I remember reading somewhere last month that underwater active volcanoes may be contributing to warmer waters in various parts of the oceans. The paper also stated that such temperature variations due to underwater seismic events have not been factored into GW calculations. Go figure.

For you edification - from Oregon State.

On Deep Sea Volcanoes and Ocean Warming: Reprint


Since we regularly get questions about this type of thing, I wanted to repost this excellent post from Erik Klemetti's blog 'Eruptions.'

"I recently read a post about how humans couldn't be to blame for the warming of the oceans.
The "logic" of their post was this:

We see water getting warmed by magma at volcanoes worldwide, like Taal andRuapehu.

The bottom of the ocean is covered in volcanoes, whether it be seamounts or the mid-ocean ridge system.

Volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean must heat up the ocean water (like in crater lakes), so humans aren't to blame.

There are a number of ways to attack this poor reasoning, but I'll try to go with the ones I think are most convincing.

This argument suggests that volcanic activity (not just volcanoes) on the ocean floor must be increasing over the last few hundred years. We see no evidence of this - and the author of the post only uses evidence that we have discovered more volcanoes (up to 3.4 million) on the seafloor.

The author claims "that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas." Sure, there might be a lot of volcanoes but he makes no mention of how many might be active enough to heat the ocean water. We can see at surface volcanoes that not all of them are erupting or puffing away simultaneously - why would undersea volcanoes be different? Additionally, of those 3.4 million 'volcanoes' he cites from a 2007 study, how many were considered active?

Finally, you would expect in this situation that ocean water would warm from the bottom (near the volcanoes) upwards, but it is actually the surface waters that are warming, not the deep ocean. This suggests that heating is coming from exchange with the atmosphere, not from some deep source on the ocean floor.

It is very easy to try to throw around some partially baked ideas about volcanism to try to explain the changing in the ocean temperature worldwide, but they would require extraordinary circumstances where ocean volcanic activity was increasing exactly when human carbon dioxide production was also increasing. Sorry, the subsurface volcanoes are no source for your ocean heating (and if I had the time, I'd calculate how much energy would take to heat all the oceans by 0.5C - it is bound to be more than you can get out of a few hundred thousand Ruapehus)."

On Deep Sea Volcanoes and Ocean Warming: Reprint | Volcano World | Oregon State University

[GoingWalkabout]

Nice. But I'm not convinced. More rhetoric than actual scientific testing. Theoretical dialectic without fact based deduction. Has he tested the waters off the coast of Hawaii? Has he done hot water float analysis to see if hot water from the depths can cause a higher temperature at surface level? He admits he has no research data on the events of active submarine volcanoes out of the known 3.4 million volcanoes under the iceans. You do know the huge particle numbers thrown into the atmosphere from just one land volcano. It makes combustion engine emissions look mild in comparison. But these are never spoken about by the AGW types.

This shallow unscientific response is why I have more questions about what is thrown around as fact and settled scuence.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

This shallow unscientific response is why I have more questions about what is thrown around as fact and settled scuence.

How is a response from volcanologists unscientific?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

You do know the huge particle numbers thrown into the atmosphere from just one land volcano. It makes combustion engine emissions look mild in comparison. But these are never spoken about by the AGW types.

Really? Spoken loudly.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How is a response from volcanologists unscientific?

Well as GWA stated in her post " He admits he has no research data on the events of active submarine volcanoes " and that is my issue with the report as well.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well as WA stated in her post " He admits he has no research data on the events of active submarine volcanoes " and that is my issue with the report as well.

Please quote that admission.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please quote that admission.

Its not my statement it was GWA that stated that sumerization of the source material you yourself provided perhaps you might reread the material and see if you don't come to the same conclusion that GWA and I have.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Its not my statement it was GWA that stated that sumerization of the source material you yourself provided perhaps you might reread the material and see if you don't come to the same conclusion that GWA and I have.

I do not draw that conclusion.

Perhaps you and GWA can show me the logic behind your inference..

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not draw that conclusion.

Perhaps you and GWA can show me the logic behind your inference..

He is actually an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University.
Here is a point from the per you cited. This argument suggests that volcanic activity (not just volcanoes) on the ocean floor must be increasing over the last few hundred years. We see no evidence of this - and the author of the post only uses evidence that we have discovered more volcanoes (up to 3.4 million) on the seafloor.
The author claims "that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas." Sure, there might be a lot of volcanoes but he makes no mention of how many might be active enough to heat the ocean water. We can see at surface volcanoes that not all of them are erupting or puffing away simultaneously - why would undersea volcanoes be different? Additionally, of those 3.4 million 'volcanoes' he cites from*a 2007 study, how many were considered active?
That to me states he used the numbers from other persons research with no actual data from him to make a'suposition concerning volcanoes that just keeps clouding the waters so to speak.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

He is actually an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University.

Who is he?

[edit]

OK - he is Erik Klemetti.

Finally, I write a blog called Eruptions for Wired on volcanoes and volcanism. I’ve always been a fan reading about volcanoes and how they effect human culture positively and negatively. I also get frustrated by the level of misinformation in the popular press about volcanic eruptions and magmatic process, so I try to dispel them on Eruptions.

http://personal.denison.edu/~klemettie/Welcome.html


Here his original post in which he dispells the ocean volcano heating misconception.

http://www.wired.com/2011/05/dont-be...me-earthquake/

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How is a response from volcanologists unscientific?

Because his vacuous view is not supported by one scientific fact. Not surprising since the decades long decline in the United States education system to the point we now have PHD's who are so intellectual challenged that so many are an embarrassment.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really? Spoken loudly.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Deafening by silence IMHO

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Who is he?

DR. ERIK W. KLEMETTI the man you quoted in the cut and paste you did from the OSU web page

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Because his vacuous view is not supported by one scientific fact. Not surprising since the decades long decline in the United States education system to the point we now have PHD's who are so intellectual challenged that so many are an embarrassment.

Check him out here.

Finally, I write a blog called Eruptions for Wired on volcanoes and volcanism. I’ve always been a fan reading about volcanoes and how they effect human culture positively and negatively. I also get frustrated by the level of misinformation in the popular press about volcanic eruptions and magmatic process, so I try to dispel them on Eruptions.

Dr. Erik W. Klemetti - Denison university