Melting Arctic ice NOT the fault of man?

[statdoc]

Hmmm, Arctic ice melting significantly over the past few years. Now, we find that tons of lava are spewing underneath the ice, obviously causing this melting. But wait, I thought evil mankind was to blame for the melting of the Arctic ice? You mean it is actually a natural situation? Maybe we should outlaw underwater volcanoes?

---------------------------
From Yahoo News

Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study

Wed Jun 25, 4:13 PM ET



Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.

The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.

But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.

What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.

Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.

"On land, explosive volcanic eruptions are nothing exceptional, although they present a major threat," said Vera Schlindwein, a geologist with Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Sea and Polar Research, which took part in the study.

But the new findings, published in Nature, showed that "large-scale pyroclastic activity is possible along even the deepest portions of the global mid-ocean ridge volcanic system."

The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometres (52,000 miles) beneath all the world's major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.

When continental plates collide into each other, they can thrust up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas.

But along most of the mid-ocean ridge -- including the Gakkal Ridge -- the plates are pulling apart, allowing molten magna and gases trapped beneath the crust to escape.

Sohn and his colleagues gathered their data in July last year aboard the
ice breaker Oden, using state-of-the-art instruments including a mutlibeam echo sounder, two autonomous underwater vehicles and a sub-ice camera designed for the mission.

Both sonar and visual images showed an ocean valley filled with flat-topped volcanos up to two kilometres (1.2 miles) wide and several hundred metres high.

[JCL]

Did you read the part about the volcanoes being in 1999? And if these volcanoes are obviously melting the Artic (sic) ice, what is melting the Antarctic ice?

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by JCL

Did you read the part about the volcanoes being in 1999? And if these volcanoes are obviously melting the Artic (sic) ice, what is melting the Antarctic ice?

You're right the Antarctic ice melt can't be caused by nature. Just forget nature has been cycling the ice caps for millions of years.

I also hear the Phoenix lander is melting ice on Mars. That fact can now be used to explain the melting of the polar caps on Mars as man made.

You're on to something.

[MauiKat]

Yer Killin' Me, Mr. Lab !! ~ Funniest thing I've heard all nite !!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

You're right the Antarctic ice melt can't be caused by nature. Just forget nature has been cycling the ice caps for millions of years.

You must have missed the first post, which blamed all ice melt on a volcano 9 years ago.

You are confusing the existence of climatic cycles (no dispute there) with the rate of change in those cycles (which some suspect may have accelerated slightly). But maybe they are all wrong. Let's go with that one.

[Wagner]

Man kind needs to stop making volcanos.

[noncom23]

Interglacial period...

[Meiac09]

Whats that, Al Gore? I thought so...

[AzX5]

Originally Posted by JCL

You are confusing the existence of climatic cycles (no dispute there) with the rate of change in those cycles (which some suspect may have accelerated slightly). But maybe they are all wrong. Let's go with that one.

Are you suggesting that Gore and/or many of his followers suspect that all prior climatic cycles lasted for exactly equal time periods and that mankind has now increased the frequency (reduced the time period) of the present climatic cycle? Gnarly!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by AzX5

Are you suggesting that Gore and/or many of his followers suspect that all prior climatic cycles lasted for exactly equal time periods and that mankind has now increased the frequency (reduced the time period) of the present climatic cycle? Gnarly!

Not sure what Al Gore has to do with anything, he wasn't mentioned in the article that started the thread. It is an easy shot however. Wasn't he some sort of elected official? Those are the ones you should trust

I am suggesting that the rate of temperature change appears to have accelerated, and that we will very likely see negative impacts on humanity from those changes. I was referring more to the temperature change itself than the period of the cycle. However, I think that the effects are likely linked, so more rapid temperature change is likely to impact the frequency as well. Not sure that the mathematical definition matters here. There has always been climate change, no debate there. Some of us believe that mankind has accelerated those changes. To suggest that because there is a natural cycle, that everything else is just fate and we should just sit back and watch, seems to me to be a poor choice. No, I am not an Al Gore follower. Try reading things by people like Dr. David Suzuki. You can call me an ecomentalist if you like. I think we are committing ecocide. Not sure if labels help much here.

I looked up 'Gnarly' to see if I understood the meaning correctly. Apparently it can mean beyond extreme, whether good or bad. So yes, I guess I agree with you, it is gnarly. Pick your definition.