Are the Planet's Volcanoes Being Triggered by Global Warming?

[n2doc]

Much of the focus on global warming is always directed towards the obvious; food, water levels, potential social strife. What makes the whole subject even more interesting though is the unexpected consequences of a warming planet. And if new research is to be believed, global warming may have an impact on volcanic eruptions.

A vast cloud of volcanic ash is sweeping across northern Europe today, throwing the continent into a state of chaos as hundreds of flights are canceled due to the pulverized rock and glass from the Icelandic Eyjafjallajokull glacier volcano.

The Eyjafjallajokull volcano is located in a glacier. Last month was the first eruption in 200 years for the volcano, but this past Tuesday saw a second eruption from underneath a 200m thick piece of glacier—literally fire and ice. As the lava melted the glacier, the ice turned to water, resulting in rivers surrounding the area to rise by 3m and running the risk of flooding the nearby village, which had been evacuated by then.

The volcanic ash, while not visible from the ground, can not only prove difficulties for visibility when flying, but can also get into the engine and electrical system of planes.

Is this a sign of more intense volcanic activity to come? And why? According to Carolina Pagli of the University of Leeds, UK, and Freysteinn Sigmundsson of the University of Iceland, Vatnajökull – the largest ice cap in Iceland – is disappearing at a rate of 5 cubic kilometers per year. Together, the two have calculated the effects that this will have on the crust and magma underneath.

more

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/04/icelands-volcano-eruptions-are-they-being-triggered-by-global-warming.html

[slackmaster]

1. That would be an interesting feedback mechanism

K&R

:kick:

[The_Commonist]

2. Be careful with this line of questioning around here.

After the big earthquake in Chile, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question.
Basically - if global warming is warming up the oceans, could warmer waters cause plates to shift triggering earthquakes?
I don't know one way or the other, and I thought it was worth asking.

I was told that I am an idiot and that I don't understand plate tectonics.
And that's true, which is why I was asking.
I was then again told that I am an idiot, and presented with reams of technical information that I had no idea how to interpret.

I still don't know if warmer waters can cause rock to swell, triggering earthquakes.
People around here can be rather unhelpful with questions like this.
Of course, your mileage may vary...

[n2doc]

3. I'm sorry that people were uncivil

Those are reasonable questions to ask.

Basically, the answer to your last question is- Warmer water could cause rock to expand, but they won't in this case, because the rocks that were involved with the Chile (and Haiti, and Indonesia) earthquakes are all located deep in the earth, below kilometers of sediment and colder deep waters. There are some interesting theories about how warming could be increasing surface stresses, but they really are handwaving arguments at the moment.

[The_Commonist]

7. I wonder why nobody offered that at the time?

Seems reasonable, thanks!

Maybe those people didn't know what they were talking about?
And had to hide behind reams of technical data?

I can't answer your original question, and would be interested to find out what the answer is.
I suspect no, but then I don't know anything about these issues...

[TZ]

8. The reason why so many people were snarky is for several reasons

1) The science on this is still considered HIGHLY speculative if not down right to the edge of pseudoscience at this moment. In other words, there really has been little data that supports this hypothesis.
2) Scientists are having enough of a hard time with proving to the general public the scientifically established FACTS of global warming (its happening, and its man made) when people here outlandish theories like this it undermines the credibility of the established science in the public eyes.
3) People are linking ideas like this to left wing conspiracy theories that the Pentagon/Bush "knew" that they were causing earthquakes, which tends to be frowned upon by the general scienctific community.
I myself HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt there is little if no connection between plate tectonics and GW. Our planet is alive and active. With the internets being more globally connected we have LOTS more data on geophysical phenomena. There is no reason to believe this activity hasn't been going on undectected by many for long periods of time.

[Auggie]

6. Big-quake activity not unusual, scientists say

I asked the same question you did a few weeks ago and got the same snarky responses. Interesting to note: yesterday (4-15) the San Francisco Chronicle reported the USGS says this recent tectonic activity is not abnormal. The story is here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/15/MNCS1CUP2R.DTL#ixzz0lDgguew9

A snippet:

The six major earthquakes that have struck in the first four months of this year may be just above average, but 2010 is still "well within the normal range," USGS researchers found.

"It's slightly above average, but (earthquake activity) is not something that happens very close to an average," said Andrew Michael, a seismologist for the USGS in Menlo Park. "You can find four-month periods where there is only one magnitude 7, and then you can find even more during another period."

There is considerable variability from year to year as well. Some years have had as few as six major quakes, most recently in 1989, while there were 32 big temblors in 1943, the federal agency found.

The recent earthquakes have drawn particular attention for a variety of reasons, including that they've struck near populated areas rather than the middle of the ocean, Michael said. The tremendous loss of life in Haiti, the sheer size of the Chile quake and the U.S.-Mexico border quake's impact on both sides of the demarcation line all played roles in the amount of media attention they received, he said.

"You can go back and find very large earthquakes and essentially no one feels them anywhere," Michael said. "Those are the quakes that don't get covered."

[meeshrox]

9. I apologize for the lack of civil discourse with this topic

As someone who knows about plate tectonics, I try to be civil in my explanations...many people just want to know if their ideas have merit; and if they do not, a simple explanation as to why. If processes are not connected, it's easy for someone like me to seem condescending in my response. But, it's also easy for another poster to take a position of authority (authority of knowledge, such as when I speak about volcanology) as being condescending when it is not intended. I'll admit, that I've become short and rarely rude with posters, but they often are not asking questions. Instead, they are spewing false claims about crackpot theories that are already known to be wrong. All I really want to do is to debunk the crap and, more so, help answer thoughtful questions.

Here is my crack at civility:

There is a large difference between glaciers and ice sheets in size and weight. Smaller glaciers, like those in Chile, would not have enough mass to cause "isostatic rebound", which is a fancy tern for the uplift of tectonic plates in response to the removal of large amounts of weight. This process usually occurs very slowly (such as the northern midwest, which is still rebounding from the last ice age). In contrast, larger ice sheets have a much greater mass. Quick removal, by way of melting from climate change, could make the isostatic rebound happen much faster. It appears from the OP that this may be a slightly larger factor than previously thought. I enjoy following the OP's posts about new discoveries in science, especially astronomy-related. But, as an earth scientist, I will need to see more studies on this particular subject to be convinced as there has been little research done.

The idea that warmer waters would cause plates to shift has no evidence from what tectonists know. The temperatures and pressures at which these rocks reside are relatively constant. It would take a much larger swing in temperature for the ocean floor to swell from the heat in a measurable way (something on the order of hundreds of degrees) and by then, the oceans would have boiled off.

Earth scientists know why and how plate tectonics operates. We also have solid explanations for the locations of earthquakes and volcanoes at plate boundaries and within plate interiors. When an earthquake occurs at a prominent fault line, the cause is obvious.

I hope that this info helps and I welcome further comment and questions.

[The_Commonist]

11. Good stuff...

Thanks!

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Thermal expansion of the ocean is responsible for a lot of ...

the rise in sea level; it's not due just to ice melting.

There is a related phenomenon known as "post-glacial rebound"; wiki has some very interesting reading on that --

According to the Mohr-Coulomb Theory of rock failure, large glacial loads generally suppress earthquakes, but rapid deglaciation promotes earthquakes. According to Wu & Hasagawa, the rebound stress that is available to trigger earthquakes today is of the order of 1 MPa.<18> This stress level is not large enough to rupture intact rocks but is large enough to reactivate pre-existing faults that are close to failure. Thus, both postglacial rebound and past tectonics play important roles in today's intraplate earthquakes in eastern Canada and southeast USA. Generally postglacial rebound stress could have triggered the intraplate earthquakes in eastern Canada and may have played some role in triggering earthquakes in eastern USA including the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811.<5> The situation in northern Europe today is complicated by the active tectonic activities nearby and by coastal loading and weakening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound#State_of_Stress_and_Intraplate_Earthquakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound#State_of_Stress_and_Intraplate_Earthquakes

[MineralMan]

4. In a word: No.

Magma is not affected by changes in the surface temperature.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Unless the melting ice caps is reducing the weight on the crust to

such a degree that it allows fissures to open or re-open where the magma is already very close to the surface. Kind of like clenching your hand over a hole in a garden hose - remove your hand the and water starts spewing.

I think it is unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

[wishlist]

13. Weather channel just mentioned this possibility of reduced glacier pressure

Anchor on Weather channel this morning talked about possibility of glacier melting allowing release of volcanic activity that had been previously prevented by the extreme weight and pressure of thick glaciers.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. Has nothing to do with temperature directly; it's a question of shifting pressure ...

as ice melts and oceans rise.

[FirstLight]

10. Very interesting idea... I'll buy it

Besides, if we think about the fact that we have pushed the earth past the tipping point in *SO* many ways, I think there are MANY repurcussions that the scientists haven't even thought of. The feedback loop is still completely undetermined and complex.

at least that is my 'uneducated' opinion. I studied enough science to know that there are integrations of certain systems that we still have no idea about.

One thing is for sure: Mother Earth is NOT done moving and rumbling and bubbling....

[TZ]

12. Its kinda arrogant to assume

that humans are so strong they can effect powerful geological processes don't you think? In some ways we are like fleas to the planet itself. In the flea world yeah, we change things...but relative to other processes...we are insignificant. And if you DO understand basic science, you would understand that as well.

[eppur_se_muova]

16. Ummmm ... earthquakes are actually very minor geologic events.

From the overall POV of Earth's geologic history, individual earthquakes are as insignificant as individual storms are in the climate record. So it's not "arrogant" to think we might affect them.

Humans can, en masse and over time, affect Earth's climate, and through that, affect the distribution of ice and water -- like a small force on one end of a lever producing a large force on the other end. It's only recently that we've come to understand this.

[TZ]

19. I should say plate tectonics.

Which release the energy of what 100 nuclear weapons? You really think man made activities can do that? Even underground nuclear explosions have no effect on plate tectonics. Its pure hollywood tripe that makes man think he effects long term geological processes.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. CyanoBACTERIA changed the atmosphere of the planet

The Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), also called the oxygen catastrophe or oxygen crisis or Great Oxidation, was the appearance of free oxygen (O2) in Earth's atmosphere. This major environmental change happened around 2,400 million years ago.

The rising oxygen levels may have wiped out a huge portion of the Earth's inhabitants at the time. From their perspective it was a catastrophe. Cyanobacteria were essentially responsible for probably the largest extinction event in Earth's history.

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

So, yes, I think it's quite possible that "humans are so strong they can effect powerful geological processes."

[TZ]

20. Oh?

So tell me why setting off nuclear weapons underground hasn't done anything to shift plate tectonics then or caused more volcanic activity? And what you are citing is indirect influence at best. Humans tend to overestimate their influence on EVERYTHING.
And before you tell me that was in the desert away from everything..No...Its not that far from geologically active parts of the west.

[Ter]

18. No

n/t.

[Ganja Ninja]

21. The loss of ice caps since the last ice age has caused a rebound

in the earth's crust which was depressed by the weight of the ice. The rebound is still going on today. Whether that would cause an increase in volcanic activity is anybody's guess but going from warm to cold and back does change the shape of the planet. I expect that any effect on volcanic activity either from deformation of the crust or climate change would take much longer to show itself than a few decades.