Tremors Mean Antarctic Volcanism May Be Heating Up 132
The L.A. Times reports on the discovery of seismic events (nearly 1400 tremors were recorded by researchers in 2010-2011) which seem to indicate the presence of volcanic activity 15 to 20 miles beneath the surface of western Antarctica. According to the article, "The area of activity lies close to the youngest in a chain of volcanoes that formed over several million years, and the characteristics and depth of the seismic events are consistent with those found in volcanic areas of Alaska’a Aleutian Islands, the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii and Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, the study concludes." Volcanism isn't a new discovery (Mt. Waesche, a volcanic mountain, is the believed origin of some ash mentioned in the article), but the newly detected seismic activity may be a harbinger for local melting from below of the Antarctic ice sheet, and possibly have long-term effects on the flow patterns of the overlying ice.
It will be ok. (Score:4, Funny)
We are getting rid of that ice as fast as we can.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn straight, how else can we clean the streets of New York, London, Paris, Tokyo plus many more all at the same time?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Something that gets left out when the media reports about the Antarctic caps melting are the fact that Volcano's are contributing to the melting however scientists have yet to determine how much melting is going on. There was a show on the History Channel some years ago (I believe 15-20 years ago) that showed the volcanic activity helping to melt the caps. So before you just jump to conclusions you should try and hold out, or take it into consideration, instead of knee jerk reactions when scientists and the
Re:It will be ok. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, we know CO2 emissions are causing significant climate change, there may be other factors but waiting around until we have perfect knowledge of the entire universe is ignorant at best and criminally negligent at worst.Also I assume that you don't think volcanoes in Antarctica aren't causing melting in the Artic as well, that's a pretty big clue that they're not the main cause.
Re: (Score:2)
When the fixes do not cost more, I will agree we could save money. But until then, that is all happy talk about savings I will never enjoy. Most of us will not be around when the dire catastrophes happen and time will have allowed those who are to make significant changes to mitigate the damages.
To be somewhat blunt, I really don't care if part of NYC is under water as it is all over priced land owned by rich fat cats who can more than afford putting up a retaining wall or losing a piece of property. As for
Re:It will be ok. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Add paranoid and insulting to the list as well. Talk about thin skinned.
My point is why the hell are people denying (or even bringing up) climate science just because a place where a lot of that science is has been done for a century plus is mentioned?
Re: (Score:2)
They're not denying climate science, they're criticising a recent manifestation of creationism masquerading as climate science.
All of that measured warming in the Antarctic continent occurs where there are volcanoes while the rest hasn't warmed up at all.
So STFU and learn something.
When all you have is a hammer ... (Score:2)
Another one from the quiver of the science deniers - was that from Ian Plimer's pile of crap from a decade back - pretend an entire field of science is really a religion and then attack religion in general? Another bullshit comparison from the "when all you have is a hammer everything looks like nails" school of blinkered thinking.
Meanwhile reality as recorded with some incredibly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, they most definitely did not. Back in antiquity a Greek philosopher (so a proto-scientist) did some measurements at two points in Egypt that gave a reasonable approximation of the diameter of the Earth.
So pick a less obvious lie next time you want to attack the people that have given you the modern society you enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Any reputable source can provide you with information about the warming trend. (I suspect you might not know what a trend is so feel free to google it)
Re: (Score:2)
So what about the third world countries that will be almost completely under water, the ones were people are too poor to leave. I am sure they're rich fat cats living in an unsuitable area to you,
Re: (Score:1)
I think you might need to see a psychiatrist... I for one will be alive when the major changes take effect (within the next ten years
If you think the worst from climate change is going to be in the next 10 years, I think you are the one who should consider help. Not that I'm saying we should do nothing. But even if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere tomorrow, it would take more than ten years for the full effect of what has been done to be realized.
Re: (Score:2)
And if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere tomorrow it will be a century before we see the last effect, as it will take that long for Earth to process it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might need to see a psychiatrist... I for one will be alive when the major changes take effect (within the next ten years
If you think the worst from climate change is going to be in the next 10 years, I think you are the one who should consider help. Not that I'm saying we should do nothing. But even if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere tomorrow, it would take more than ten years for the full effect of what has been done to be realized.
I said nothing about the full effect, we may not see that for a century or more. I said major changes, as in changes that will realistically effect peoples lives in a major way. Models indicate that these will increasingly occur during the next ten years (and longer).
Re: (Score:2)
While you might be okay if you live in Australia (unless you live in the entrance or around Newcastle) people in the Netherlands, southern Vietnam or the Shanghai and Macau areas won't be too happy about a 1 - 2m rise (see http://flood.firetree.net/ [firetree.net])
The problem is that all of our coastal infrastructure is built around existing sea levels. Including many of the worlds major cities. Change that sea level and there are going to be consequences.
And of course if we get into a positive feedback loop and the sea r
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that all of our coastal infrastructure is built around existing sea levels.
Not exactly true... a huge chunk of San Francisco was built up *out* of the water via landfill and similar means; same with parts of Manhattan, Hong Kong, Tokyo's waterfront (and a whole airport), and as you partially mention - huge swaths of Holland.
Overall, all this prediction of doom&gloom over a 2m rise in sea levels just means that those low-lying areas will build up by 2m. Well, that is, if things actually get to that point. Extrapolating from previous measurements [wikipedia.org], I strongly suspect that you'd b
Re: (Score:2)
Living in cities under sea level? That went well for New Orleans didn't it?
I hope you are right on the sea level rises. Because us warming the planet up is likely to have other implications that we will have to deal with. Our biggest problem with all of this is that any major change in an ecosystem will create unexpected change that we haven't modeled, which could prove catastrophic.
As it happens I am an optimist about the human race, so I think that we will overcome whatever gets thrown at us, although the
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it has. New Orleans [wikipedia.org] was founded in 1718, almost three centuries ago, and it's mostly recovered by now from the worst civil engineering disaster in US history.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia never had fires before global warming? I must inform all the uni-professors about this as they seem to think there have been. Or you mean there haven't been as many in your life time and you are just now noticing them?
Have a look at this list." I want to point two interesting things out to you, the first is that the recent fires are the only major fires to have occurred October, which is very early in (or before) the bushfire season. Only two occurred in November, the rest occurring in December or latter, to me that would suggest that the climate is changing. The second thing I'd point out is the frequency of major bushfires has increased. I also take it that you are turning a blind eye to the number of weather records broken this year.
And those pesky third world countries that could have never survived this long without you caring over them. What will they ever do? I mean it isn't like Venice or Holland has any insight into this situation. It isn't like making buildings and islands is out of the question. Most worst case scenarios place the sea level rises at 2 to 5 feet over the next 90 or so years. It will be unpossible for anyone to do anything about it. Well, you can relax, most of them will be knocked off by typhoons and hurricanes that have never happened before global warming too. Or are you thinking of the Maldives who are not too poor to purchase another set of islands-
Yes because third world countries can afford to build dikes and islands in place far less suitable to them as Venice or Holland. I don't think anyone's saying there was no typhoons or hurricanes before global warming (unless you are?). No, what people are saying (with data to back it up) is that the frequency of typhoons and hurricanes are increasing. Sea level rises are predicted to increase the
Re: (Score:2)
This year in Sydney, Australia we are oncourse for the hottest year of record, we had the second hottest October on record, the most days over 30 degrees in winter, we had the driest October or record and then a very wet November. This year we've had usual amount of flooding, and higher than usual storm activity.
Perhaps it is you that shoul
Re:It will be ok. (Score:5, Insightful)
To be somewhat blunt, I really don't care if part of NYC is under water as it is all over priced land owned by rich fat cats who can more than afford putting up a retaining wall or losing a piece of property.
Have you ever been to NYC? Yes, there are some insanely rich people living there. There are also a hell of a lot more poor. Contrary to what you seem to think, the streets are not paved with gold. In fact, they are closer to the surface of the moon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Typical global warming 'reasoning.'
Re: (Score:2)
"Also I assume that you don't think volcanoes in Antarctica aren't causing melting in the Artic as well, that's a pretty big clue that they're not the main cause. Typical global warming 'reasoning.'
Typical baseless and unsupported denial.
Re: (Score:2)
When it is fully understood, it will be on the History channel. That is the nature of difficult problems. As it stands, the IR absorption by CO2 seems pretty well understood. The amount we have released is very well understood. Shy of one of the other variables changing dramatically, the course is pretty well set.
Other variables will change. There may be more volcanoes, throwing more co2 into the atmosphere. But there is nothing we can do to stop that, so all we have done then is to worsen the p
Re: (Score:2)
To Judgment Day, for we're on the Highway to Hell!
Aaaannnnndddd you've got yourself an exit strategy in case a
Re: (Score:3)
If, by this, you are referring to the blocking of IR heat radiation into space by CO2 molecules, then no, it (the atmospheric heat transfer process) is not well understood, or even understood. CO2 absorbs only a very narrow and specific wavelength. THAT is understood. Moreover, a CO2 molecule that has absorbed a photon, immediately either re-radiates the heat or loses it via a collision with one of its neighboring molecules which, in
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the peak at 700 reciproke centimeter in figure 2 on this webpage:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm [skepticalscience.com]
It is the broadest peak in the spectrum!
Don't believe me, google images CO2 IR absorption spectrum (N.B. often the scale is right to left)
google it yourself ffs [google.com]
One article I found that shows the very broad peak at around 675 cm-1 is a PDF from a US milit
Re:ain't nothing gonna be ok (Score:2)
As for myself? I would like to see falsifiable predictions.
How moderate and scientific of you to say, well spoken. But that would completely upset the most popular 'canard' (great word) of devastating sea rise that is being sold and re-told. It's the most effective way to terrify small children [youtube.com] who are instinctively afraid of being drowned.
The data is there but gets lost in the noise. Sea level rise is 4-8 in/century, no evidence of acceleration [blogspot.com] but some land subsidence (land height changes) accounting for regional difference.
Now there is a gentleman in the Philipp
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This is an old climate canard that goes back at least a decade, but if you're trying to find if there's a link between volcanos and melting ice caps then then you may want to start by considering the relevant sizes of the Antartic continent and the region of volcanic activity.
Oh, is it a canard [wikipedia.org]?
Regarding the size: why did you choose to ignore the time factor? After all, the post-glacial rebound [wikipedia.org] is still in progress after 12000 years [wikipedia.org].
If it can have an effect on the Earth shape [wikipedia.org] (making it less oblate), why are you so quick to dismiss the link between volcanoes and ice-caps [wikipedia.org]?
Except being a canard, you are right: knowledge about the complex relation of Earth's dynamics (volcanism included) and ice-caps thickness goes back longer than the last decade: around 2 centuries [wikipedia.org] to be more p
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the hottie from the original A-Team [google.com], you realize?
Re:So what you're telling me (Score:5, Insightful)
I would not be surprised if the loss of the weight of the ice that has already melted [nasa.gov] is itself contributing to the emergence of the volcanoes. Less weight pressing down might make it easier for them to come to the surface.
Disclaimer: I am not a geologist.
Prepare not to be surprised (Score:5, Informative)
There's a great book covering some of the science on this topic; reviewed here on NewScientist [newscientist.com]; very much worth the read. Actually what happens is that the crust "rebounds" [wikipedia.org] in two phases. You can use the first phase to weigh the ice sheet as they are doing in Greenland [thinkprogress.org]. Then, the athenosphere (the molten layer, 15-150km deep which the crust/lithosphere sits atop) slowly slops in there and supplies extra heat and magma; generally quite a slow process, with some rebound from the last ice age still occurring.
Upshot: it's certainly possible that the events are related.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You sure are an insightful boy. Do all your comment come with this kind of all knowing comfort?
So I thought they were talking about the volcanic activity around the arctic in the pacific and didn't realize it was on the other side of the world. DO you never make mistakes? Or do you always rush to be as insightful on your own? I mean seriously, you added nothing to the discussion, including pointing out where I was wrong. Even with me being wrong, I think /. is collectively dumber now that you posted with al
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't find my reply humorous? Maybe you should get a funny bone.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Insightful (No modpoints today...)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, yes. 100ml of water plus 10ml of water frozen as ice weighs more than 100ml of water without the 10ml of ice.
Re:Prepare not to be surprised (Score:5, Informative)
...You do realize that Antarctica is a continent, not an ocean, right?
Nope, I guess you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, i got the poles mixed up and was thinking arctic sea ice. There are a large string of volcanoes involved in the arctic too.
Btw, thanks for pointing my mistake out without being a frothing idiot like others. Especially when i screwed up and prpbably deserved it.
speaking of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's groundi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Antarctic ice is growing due to increased precipitation from global warming.
So on the balance you could say GW postponed the volcanoes and bought us time.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, the Antarctic sea ice, the ice that forms on the ocean when it gets cold enough has increased some lately. But it melts nearly completely out every Antarctic summer so there is no "memory" of it from one year to the next. The Antarctic ice sheet, the ice that is sitting on land is still shrinking, particularly in West Antarctica. Volcanism can melt some of the ice but the area of volcanism is so small compared to the total area of ice it's really insignificant for ice melt. If you thin
Re:So what you're telling me (Score:5, Informative)
In some ways you are correct. Depressurization is one of the 3 big ways to generate a melt (magma). Just in case you wonder, the other two ways are 1:simply add heat, and 2: add volatiles such as H2O or CO2.
But the isostatic rebound being fast enough for us to see it in our lifetime is highly doubtful, same with the resulting melt travel time to possible eruption. What they are seeing now most likely is melt from more than just a few years ago.
Disclaimer: Undergrad Geologist, not PhD yet.
Re: (Score:1)
That's fine as far as it goes, but it seems like there has been a lot of volcanic activity over the last couple of years, and little of that can be explained by changes in the thickness of ice. In some cases it involves volcanos that have been quiet for decades or longer. There has been eruptions or activity on Mount Etna in Italy, Mount Sinabung in Sumatra, Sakurajima in Japan, Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland, Popocatepetl in Mexico, Puyehue in Chile, Fuego in Guatemala, Tungurahua in Ecuador, Shiveluc
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't understand what you are arguing for or against. Volcanic eruptions are not something new, there are hundreds to thousands every year, just as there has been since the Hadean. They range from little burps of gas to the big ones like in your second link.
Most of them that you listed are located on the arcs surrounding subduction zones, with at least one other for sure ( Eyjafjallajokull ) on a rifting zone. Rifting causes decompression, subduction causes volatiles to be added, both producing
Re: (Score:2)
But the isostatic rebound being fast enough for us to see it in our lifetime is highly doubtful
By replacing our fragile frames with sturdier robotic ones we can both mitigate our concern over climates we can't yet tolerate and witness the isostatic rebound. We could both achieve cyborgodhood and solve the climate issues if only non-Artifical intelligence wasn't illegal on this planet.
If you outlaw the future only outlaws will be future in laws.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that even if we could completely reverse the effects of global warming tomorrow, the ice around Antarctica might still melt anyway due to mother nature?
Hmm.
Yes. It appears that "climate change" nee "global warming" has mechanisms independent of humanity, of which this is just one. It sort of humbles you, doesn't it?
Saw a movie about this. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hand your movie buff card back - Tremors; that can only mean snakeoids about to pour from beneath the very dirt itself!
Re: (Score:2)
So very wrong [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty soon, dinosaurs will be pouring out of the hollow earth.
Are you kidding? This is the polar regions we're talking about. The real threat there is from the secret Nazi Antarctic Fortress [mentalfloss.com] which the US countered with its secret nuclear powered subterranean Air Force base [defensetech.org]. Hopefully the Nazis can still be thwarted so we can avoid an "Iron Sky" [imdb.com] scenario. If only ....
Re: (Score:2)
Have no fear, superman also has a Fortress of Solitude out there. He will whip those Nazi's around like he did in the 1940's.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's another Predator hunting reserve under the ice, they're warming it up for another hunting party.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, those things [wikipedia.org] can fly under the ice?
Re:Saw a movie about this. Too. (Score:2)
Pretty soon, dinosaurs will be pouring out of the hollow earth.
Or cockroaches that start fires [imdb.com] by rubbing their cerci [wikipedia.org] together.
As opposed to garden variety man eating cockroaches [youtube.com]. All cockroaches are man eaters as conditions permit, but these couldn't wait. Living in the tropics I was occasionally awakened by a large cockroach gnawing, or what ever it is they do, on a toenail. Makes you feel glad to be alive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty soon, dinosaurs will be pouring out of the hollow earth.
Ridden by the Deros.
Re: (Score:2)
Cripes that's obscure. [discovery.com] Says the author was considered insane by his colleagues...what are we up to here, 8 different fiction references? So here's a few more: Dinosaur Central: The Lost Worlds of Dinosaurs - Earth's interior [dinosaurcentral.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Meh (Score:2, Funny)
Probably just the StarGate.
Re: (Score:3)
Antarctica is not a single point on the south pole. Have a look at a globe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Antarctica [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
His point is still valid though. Pick a point on the main body of Antarctica, walk west. Eventually you will reach your starting point again. Theoretically, anyway.
It would be like walking across Tamriel, looking for a witch's coven you discovered on a later save. It only works if your angle is perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Wiki has the answer.
Its just a general term for that part that falls into what people consider the western hemisphere.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the part where your longitude has a W in front of it.
Go west from the South Pole??? (Score:1)
and just how do we get to "western Antactica"???
Re: (Score:2)
Google map it. That would have taken less time than your post.
Re: (Score:2)
You can go west from every point in Antarctica but one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Antactica != South pole
Well yes, but his point stands.
We call it Western Antarctica as it's longitude is west of an arbitrary point.
Where the west coast of europe, or america, or austrailia, or the atlantic, or the pacific, are easily spotted on a globe if you know "north" is the hemisphere with most land, choosing "West" on a continent that encircles the globe is arbitrary. If the Meridian was where the dateline is, "western" antarctica would be what we call "Eastern Antarctica"
Where's the link? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the link:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-volcano-ice-antarctica-20131115,0,6645564.story [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
About time we all just gave up on posting links, clearly no one reads them, and the Editors don't care.
If Slashdot was to sink any lower, they could help by directly measuring the volcanism 24k down below
28 comments in, and this is the only one that seems to have noticed, you should be awared the lowest abandoned ID number.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't do that. I tell all the hot ladies I meet on Slashdot that my id is my bank account balance.
If you lower my id, I'll get laid n-1 times than I have using that line.
White Man's Fault (Score:1, Troll)
Obviously this volcano activity is caused by global warming and is the fault of old white men in the first world nations. The penguins demand reparations now!
Re: (Score:2)
Ooo... I flipped out some politically correct neo-ecovist liberal who can't take a reality punch line so they call anything they don't like a Troll. Keep on denying - it won't do you any good in the real world.
They're lying... (Score:5, Funny)
beneath the surface of western Antarctica
They're lying: every part of Antarctica lies to the north.
:p
Re:They're lying... (Score:5, Informative)
More generally, the dividing line could be said to be the prime meridian. Places whose coordinates are given using west longitude are generally part of West Antarctica. Most maps of Antarctica are oriented with the prime meridian pointing up towards England. Things on the left side of the map are West Antarctica, the right side is East. Again, this is just a general convention - a way to get yourself oriented. (Even though McMurdo Station (77.8 S 166.6 E) would be in East Antarctica by this definition, it is traditionally part of West Antarctica because it lies on that side of the Transantarctic mountains.)
This is a cartographer's convention - giving names to places - and it has a particular European bias. But everyone that works in Antarctica uses the same naming convention, so there you go.
Re:They're lying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pedantically you may be correct.
In my defense, I was trying to be funny (I hardly expected to be modded insightful though I suppose I do have my moments here and there). :)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a test I had in Geography from Middle School:
"If you are standing on the North Pole and turn left, what direction are you facing? If you turn left again, what direction are you facing now?" I, of course, assumed this was a "trick" question, so I answered "South". I was marked incorrect. I argued my case, the teacher/coach couldn't follow the argument, and I made less of an A than I usually got, because the Coach said "well, no one else had problems with the question. You're so smart you ain
Famous Last Words (Score:2)
“It’s not something that’s going to cause major issues. You’d have to have a huge, huge eruption.”
Which leads me to say:
There was supposed to be an earth-shattering KABOOM!
Re: (Score:2)
“It’s not something that’s going to cause major issues. You’d have to have a huge, huge eruption.”
Which leads me to say:
There was supposed to be an earth-shattering KABOOM!
It leads me to say
"That's what your mom said"
fracking frackers (Score:1)
Antarctic mountains (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Your SSL cert expired two years ago, BTW.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this + Metallica is a bad idea (Score:2)
BOC intro? (Score:2)
Spock! (Score:3)
Volcanism May Be Heating Up
If the Vulcans are heating up, it must be their every-seven-years pon farr [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, it's just a random drawing of the 34,547 posts by twits on