Image: U.S. Geological Survey Hawaii Volcano Observatory
The rapid rise in sea levels could cause a dramatic increase in volcanic eruptions, according to a new study.
The study, published in the journal Geology, found that during periods of rapid climate change over the last million years, the rapid melting of continental glaciers and the resulting sea-level rise eventually increased volcanic eruptions as much as fold.
"Everybody knows that volcanoes have an impact on climate," said study co-author Marion Jegen, a geophysicist at Geomar in Germany. "What we found was just the opposite."
The findings were based only on natural changes in climate, so it's not clear whether human-caused climate change would have the same impact, Jegen said. And if it did, she added, the effect wouldn't be seen for centuries.
Volcanic changes
It's long been known that volcanism can dramatically alter the climate, often in cataclysmic ways. For instance, mass extinctions such as the one at the end of the Permian period may have been caused by continuous volcanic eruptions that cooled the climate and poisoned the atmosphere and the seas. [50 Amazing Volcano Facts]
But few people thought climate change could fuel volcanic eruptions before Jegen and her colleagues began looking at cores drilled from the oceans off of South and Central America. The sediments showed the last 1 million years of Earth's climatic history.
Every so often, shifts in Earth's orbit lead to rapid warming of the planet, massive melting of glaciers and a quick rise in sea levels. The team found that much more tephra, or layers of volcanic ash, appeared in the sediment cores after those periods. Some places, such as Costa Rica, saw five to 10 times as much volcanic activity during periods of glacial melting as at other times, Jegen told LiveScience.
To understand why that would be, the research team used a computer model and captured how those changes affected the pressures experienced at different places on the Earth's crust. The team found that when glaciers melt, they reduce the pressure on continents, while sea-level rise increases pressures on the ocean floor crust. In the computer model, the change in pressures on the Earth's crust seem to cause increases in volcanism.
In general, the speed of the transition from ice age to melting, rather than the total amount of melting, predicted how intensely the volcanic eruptions increased, she said.
The study doesn't address whether modern-day climate change would have any impact on the frequency of volcanic eruptions, though in theory it's possible, Jegen said.
But even if anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change impacts volcanic eruptions, people wouldn't see the effect in this lifetime, because the volcanic activity doesn't occur immediately after the climate change, Jegen said.
"We predict there's a time lag of about 2,500 years," Jegen said. "So even if we change the climate, you wouldn't really expect anything to happen in the next few thousand years."
- 50 Interesting Facts About The Earth
- The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted
- Countdown: History's Most Destructive Volcanoes
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add CommentSome scientists were quite aware of it and made predictions involving the naming of a specific volcano that did in fact erupt two and a half years after the prediction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2010/04/global-warming-volcanic-eruptions.html
More Alarmist garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about this paper? It demonstrates that AGW is a statistical illusion.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012.html
A quote:
From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as “An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union” comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn’t statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.
“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”
This is a most interesting paper, and potentially a bombshell, because they have taken virtually all of the significant observational datasets (including GISS and BEST) along with solar irradiance from Lean and Rind, and CO2, CH4, N2O, aerosols, and even water vapor data and put them all to statistical tests (including Lucia’s favorite, the unit root test) against forcing equations. Amazingly, it seems that they have almost entirely ruled out anthropogenic forcing in the observational data, but allowing for the possibility they could be wrong, say:
“…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”
Shoshin says: Have at it stats nerds. But be aware that the research industry taboo against investigating the veracity of AGW dogma has been well and truly violated. No more sacred cows. Let the chips fall where they may.
Oh, and as to more eruptions due to a rise in sea level? Yeah, right.... volcanism begins with changes many km below the surface. A couple of meters of water is less than irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd having a theory that needs hundreds or thousands of years to play out is untestable.
This article is a waste of words, unless of course you are an Alarmist, then the words fall from God's lips.
There appears to be an important word or number missing in the 2nd paragraph:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... as much as fold."
How many fold?
We were told in the 80's that Mt St Helens released more green house gases than automobiles ever have or ever will as long as the world exist! What's up with this new story, I remember when I was in school learning that a vast majority of the planets surface was covered with water a few million years ago. The weather has been changing for 4.5 Billion years, from extreme hot to extreme cold, and back again, nothing has changed, thats still how thing's work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only difference these day's is mass hysteria evoked by those with an agenda and a need for grant money from the Government, get your tinfoil hat's out people we are going to be here a few million more years, like it or not!
Every scientific institution of national and international standing says you are wrong, at what point do you remove your tinfoil hat and acknowledge their is no evil conspiracy afoot?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI paid attention quite well in geology class. The researchers apparently did not. This article has so many holes in it it is an embarrassment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVolcanism along coastal margins is caused by subduction of lithospheric plates. The subduction zones are typically 5000 to 10,000 meters underwater, with the actual lithospheric plates extending another 10 to 15 km below that. So explain to me again how a seal level rise of say, 1 m (going from 15,000 m of rock and water to 15,001) makes a massive difference? Makes no sense
It looks more likely that the researchers have confused correlation and cause and effect. It makes more sense that a massive volcanic episode, such as the eruption of the active volcano underlying the Greenland ice sheet would cause melting and a subsequent sea-level rise.
The miniscule change of hydrostatic pressure due to sea-level rise is irrelevant compared the lithostatic pressures of tens of km of rock.
This article makes no sense, even if you consider that water trapped in the subductive plate is responsible for most types of explosive volcanism. Virtually all rocks more than a few meters deep are fully saturated with water, so adding a meter or so is again irrelevant.
Poor research, poor journalism. SCIAM maintains it's usual standards.
Then quit your endless whining, stop living here and go to whatever denialist propaganda mill you get your fantasies out of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rapid rise in sea levels....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHAT rapid rise in sea levels? Quite apart from the volcanic garbage. It seems this publication has to reach for more & more far fetched trash to feed the alarmist chooks. Neither the magazine nor the chooks seem in the least perturbed by the junk they are swallowing.
This site gives a good primer on vulcanism. Back in 2004 it was endorsed by Scientific American. They may disendorse it now.http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't believe the sediment cores, believe the three people with no credentials that climate change isn't real and mankind isn't involved. All seven billion of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLol, great more warmists and their insane theories proven but yet another computer model programmed to what? produce the belief they want.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe previous warmist theory SA reported a couple years ago of a NASA scientist speculating extra terrestrial aliens would genocide all evil humans because we dont care about our planet and therefore are a danger to the universe has more credibility than this ridiculous claim about volcanoes somehow becoming more active because of melting ice and rising sea levels.
Typical warmist biblical theory at work. They want so bad to have yet another ridiculous claim to prove global warming is so horrible a scientist finds something like periods of time where more volcanic activity occurred and instead of doing the research for a cause, instead creates yet a new line in the warmist bible called it must have been global warming that caused more volcanism and then writes a computer model to "prove" it.
Warmists, really you people need to get a clue, it is insanity like this that takes away any credibility you may have to your theory. There are legitimate reasons to reduce pollution and look always for alternatives to how humans produce energy. BUT your insane and outlandish claims that sound as ridiculous as claims the world was going to end last month. This isnt the 7th century anymore. We all know the earth is round, is not the center of the universe and beating a drum to some computer models on the top of a temple is not going to actually make it rain.
Its called science and facts, stick to what is real, likely and provable and you might actually get somewhere with your message.
Your comments are nothing more than a rant. What I pointed out was that some people make statements without any credibility and without any data. Nobody takes you seriously but most of the civilized world takes scientists with a pedigree seriously. You have not change that at all and you never will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy all means, continue scribbling. It's always good for a laugh. I wouldn't think of offering you any other advise. Except insults reveal your depth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’m a fan of climatic change action and clean energy development, and do I believe oil fortunes and Big Oil should pay for climatic change caused damage such as Sandy’s, but I do not believe global warming is the cause of the increase in volcanism we see today.
I believe it is more reasonable to associate the increase in volcanism we see today to the shift in poles that has occurred several, in fact 171 times, in geologic history and is nowadays quite overdue. It may already be in its early stages, showing an early sign in the South Atlantic Anomaly, which causes satellites to be inoperative or not used when over it, such as the Hubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly).
One possible effect if this is correct and tectonic activity and volcanism continue to rise (or, regardless of cause, the increase in volcanism we see today continues to increase) is the cyclic eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano, which seems to coincide with polar shifts - and is also overdue. This could cause an event analogous to an impact winter and really jeopardize agriculture.
The last time this happened was prior to agriculture, but our ancestor’s solution may still prove sound advice. They seem to have survived as a small population on South African beaches – on seafood. Recall fish are perfectly happy in cold water, which holds more oxygen for them.
If Yellowstone does go off and we do have an event analogous to an impact winter, perhaps marine fish farms may partially replace lost crops and herds.
In the meantime, letting off some steam from the pressure cooker might prove a way of circumventing the cycle. Yellowstone could supply over half of the power required by the US via an EGS (Enhanced Geothermal System), which pumps cool water into hot rock.
In this case, we would use a tailored EGS procedure considering the delicate balance of the site and that we don’t want to set it off. A slow intake of the rising hot water and a very slow and gentle pumping of cool water into the system (we don’t want to open any cracks - so it’s like an anti-fracking) and only very slowly increase the rate, this would effectively start cooling safely a given spot. This could be done over several dozen spots.
Effectively cooling Yellowstone by harvesting its geothermal potential would require a hundred thousand conventional geothermal wells, hardly a practical approach. But the gradual (and safe) development of a several dozen major sites could allow about a hundred massive geothermal plants to be installed (all of which may be underground with a lawn on top, local beauty and wholesomeness not affected: Clean Energy, after all).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe MIT advocates geothermal as the best power option for the US: http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
I would complement geothermal with thorium, which is far more abundant than uranium and fossil fuels combined, is better against proliferation if used in one of its two possible cycles, and is suitable for use in mini-plants the size of a house which could be put in every neighborhood.
A second democrat term is not something that happens every day; the moment should be seized.
Once again the pathological deniers come to spread their tired lies. Three sociopaths with nothing better to do than spread fear, uncertainty and doubt for the Koch bros. Of course none of them have done any science but delusions of grandeur are normal for psychopaths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, how hard did you have to study to become a sycophant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least you are thinking & learning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould tectonic plates be affected by water pressure changes due to a warmer climate increasing the ocean depths, thereby generating volcanic activity? Naaaa, I'm holding out for the zombie apocalypse. Wife is concerned about space aliens reseeding the planet and daughter is 'team Edward' for the vampires. They're obviously not as informed as us smart guys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you able to disagree with another and at the same time retain a civil discourse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at the actual record of sea level rise,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.google.com/imgres?q=exxon+sea+level+curve&hl=en&safe=images&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=998&bih=560&tbm=isch&tbnid=0I4WcalAl1L57M:&
it shows that sea level has been rising at a pretty steady rate for about 5 thousand years. Does anyone see evidence of some significant increase? Answer NO.
This article is yet another example of scientific american publishing pure unscientific propaganda
@Carlyle, "sycophant - A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people." which influential people did I flatter? What favor was I trying to win? It seems your ignorance isn't limited to climate science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are so certain about your position why not publish a paper? Is that because you know your lies won't get you anywhere? Is this really the best thing you can do with your life?
Schmidt--Do not worry. You continue to write nothing of any value to any discussion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko, you are an established liar. You have no credibility here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Schmidt- Do you read what you post?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you did you would notice that the margin of error of the estimated rate of increase in that post would be consistant with the current rate of rise. That is why the article and associated papers stated that the rate of rise MAY have increased from 2 MM per year prior to 1992 to the current roughly 3 MM per year.
In no sense is there ANY evidence of a dramatic increase in the rate of sea level rise now is there???
@Sisko, it takes a very delusional person to think that every margin of error works in their favor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years."
Schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMargin of error means you do not know. Any figure within the range might well have occured.
Can you please reference which paper you believe has definately stated that sea level was rising at a rate of 1.7 mm per year +/- .5mm between 1892 and 1992?
@Sisko, I find it very revealing that you read an article with the following quotes;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century."
"While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century."
"This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."
...but then took the following quote;
"This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year."
to mean there is "no sense is there ANY evidence".
That is some cherry picking. Again, you clearly show that you will grasp any straw that you think you can spin to your cause. What we see is a very delusional individual with an agenda who will gladly lie and distort the facts to advance his ideology. That is classic psychopathic behavior.
Schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found one supporting what you wrote here.
http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalResources/ClimateChange/Documents/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
@Sisko, "Margin of error means you do not know. Any figure within the range might well have occured." no it does not mean that. Here is a definition;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe margin of error for a particular statistic of interest is usually defined as the radius (or half the width) of the confidence interval for that statistic." What you deniers like to do is take the lowest value of that margin and claim it is the actual value. That is invalid. The value could just as likely be the higher value. The indicated value is the most probable. Again, you are cherry picking and showing that you are fundamentally irrational.
Schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it that I am denying?
I agree that I am skeptical that a study concluded in 2005 that conflicts with many other papers, that concludes that from 1870 to 2004 sea level was rising at an average rate of 1.75 mm per year is valid. Please look and read a bit more about the reliability of sea level measurements from 1870 to 1992. There is not very reliable data. The most reliable data is from the satellite era of post 1992 which clearly shows the rate of sea level rise.
Has sea level shown any significant rate of increase during that period? NO. Is that reliable data a problem for those predicting future disasters for humans? YES
When you look at the trend over the last 5000 years does a .5 mm per year seem significant even in the unlikely event that Church and White were correct? Is there any evidence to support the notion that sea level is rising at an alarming rate or that humans can do anything to stop the trend? NO
Get back to me if sea level shows an increase in the rate of rise to over 10MM per year. When is that going to happen to make the guesses of people like Hansen and Mann and you correct?
You flatter your AGW priests by believing their every pronouncement. A faithful parishioner in the AGW church. Perhaps you would prefer acolyte? Better still sycophantic acolyte.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you do not wish to have insightful comments passed about you, you might learn to refrain from insulting those with whom you disagree, particularly those who may have command of a better vocabulary than yourself. Your insults are so amateurish.
The sheer number of trolls here is incredible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe denialists will never see sense. Therefore, why don't all rational people boycott these threads? With nobody posting except complete idiots (pardon my French), SciAm should eventually be pushed to stricter comment policing. Plus, "debating" rabid denialists who repeatedly return to their PRATTs without logical thought is demeaning and beneath the intellectual caliber of any and all rational people/scientists.
The grandeur of your self delusion is only exceeded by the lack of self awareness of your intellectual shortcomings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre rapidly rising sea levels.................I have been living beside the southern Pacific Ocean for the last 70 odd years and am becoming quite sick of holding my breath whie waiting for the tides to bring me a little more water. Please advise me when I should start breathing normaly as I am becoming sick and tired of all the bullshit being bandied around
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe SA should restrict access to the forums. Granted there are a lot of NON science people here. Many of them demonstrate Dunning-Kruger effect and also exibit the strong effect of ignoring any evidence that challenges their beliefs. This is why they are not science people. As a scientist I have to belive what science proves to me. I actually enjoy reading the deniers dribble and it allows me the freedom to have a little fun challenging them. Their funny comments and links to obscure website to 'back' their views are always entertaining. It is sad that the topic itself is a serious issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPathetic comment and a clear demonstration of ignoring evidence that challenges your beliefs. Yes as a trained scientist I believe in the power of evidence gained through controlled experimentation. Newton made some mistakes, as does any human,but much of contemporary science is built upon his foundations. To denigrate his memory is a sad indictment of your lack of belief in the scientific method. That is what science is about, building on the work of others. There is no right or wrong, just facts and evidence. You guys are just out shooting the messenger because you don't like the message. How silly is that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for visiting our site and for being part of scientific conversations in the new year. We especially thank those of you who have posted constructive comments that have advanced the dialogue on topics directly related to the content posted. We remove name-calling comments, hostile comments, ad hominem comments, and comments that gratuitously mention politics, as you might have noticed on this story. Overall, if you are consistently making the comments section a less enjoyable place to be, your account and your comments may be removed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this