Fire under the Arctic ice

Science Daily reported last week that scientists have found evidence a volcano may be erupting far below the Arctic ice surface and that melting polar caps may not be due to our selfish, hedonistic American style of living after all. Noted the report:

"These are the first pyroclastic deposits we've ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible," said WHOI geophysicist Rob Reves-Sohn, lead author and chief scientist for the Arctic Gakkel Vents Expedition (AGAVE) of July 2007. "This means that a tremendous blast of CO₂ was released into the water column during the explosive eruption."

Maybe global warming isn't the problem?

The findings from the Gakkel Ridge expedition appear to show that deep-sea pyroclastic eruptions can and do happen. "The circulation and plumbing of the Gakkel Ridge might be different," said Reves-Sohn. "There must be a lot more volatiles in the system than we thought." The research team hypothesizes that excess gas may be building up like foam or froth near the ceiling of the magma chambers beneath the crust, waiting to pop like champagne beneath a cork.

H/T Joyce Morrison

Comments

[spintreebob]

"many people thought this was not possible"

You mean scientists dont already know everything there is to know about science?

First we find out that we humans aren't really very important on earth. Then we find out that we don't even know what's happening here.

How humbling.

[Ken Vanko]

Fran:

This is not a helpful issue for so-called conservatives to perpetuate. The logical flaw is that it does nothing to address conduct which is in fact harmful to the environment and which is at odds with the importance of conservation.

Dependence on oil - which cannot be cured by even the most aggressive domestic exploration program - not only exacerbates an environmental problem but also poses economic and security risks for us.

I have written before how the framing of this debate has alienated many moderates and independents (not to mention young voters). They see our depletion of natural resources as an inherited problem that is going to rear its head some day (if not now), and they are aware that our energy supply is too dependent on those resources that release harmful heat-trapping gases.

Republicans, and in particular the far right faction, have been too casual and dismissive of an issue that is important to an ever-growing number of mainstream Americans. To keep picking fights on this is counterproductive.

Ken

[Matt Gauntt]

Ken,

I couldn't disagree more. Mind you, I'm the guy that just talked about environmentalism.

The issue here is what is the truth? In my never to be humble opinion, the overwraught hysteria about global warming is just that, hysteria. There is more evidence that the warming that the planet is experiencing has far more to do with solar activity than it has with carbon dioxide, and we could be entering a cooling period instead of more of a warming.

That being said, what is our impact on outreach to moderates and young people. Very good point, and one that should not be overlooked. If global warming is just that, misguided paranoia, if we trumpet global warming and passionately pursue it for the purpose of attracting young people and moderates, what happens when they figure out that we were wrong?

I am all for reaching out on issues of the environment, and I believe passionately that we should. However, we have to do so within the framework of truth, and we have to demand good, thoughtful, and thorough science.

A good example of global warming is Britain. Rush talked about this today. Britain has been much more aggressive than we about implementing carbon caps, higher gas prices, taxes, etc. Polls are showing that young people especially are getting fed up with all of the taxes. Why? Because they are trying hard to make a difference, and they are showing no affect, but their lives are being impacted greatly by increased taxes.

The notion that we have to do something on global warming just because there are some that think we have to is just bad policy. Much of what Al Gore has postulated in his recent movie "An Inconvenient Truth", has been proved to be completely erroneous.

We HAVE to demand good science. On the issue of global warming, there is far too much hysteria and far too little science.

[Fran]

Mr. Vanko:
I'm not sure why mentioning this new scientific information is counterproductive. Asking whether polar caps are shrinking because of global warming or arctic volcanoes is fair.

No one disputes the need for conservation of fossil fuels and a need to develop new energy resources. I'm concerned about the world I leave my grandkids. There's no question we need to develop renewable fuels and alternative sources.

With all that, the world would like America to be ashamed of all its prosperity and giftedness. We've more than our fair share, and need to spread around the wealth, we're told. The old adage its better to teach one to fish than to give him a fish still holds true. We have a responsibility to lead, not to carry the whole world's energy challenges. We have our own to carry, and can provide ideas and ingenuity to help others learn to carry their load as well.
The biggest beef I have on the conservation issue is its global attempt to force American guilt upon us. We give more to the world than any other country, but we're to blame for others' ills. Just ask any dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist who's to blame for global warming.
And we're back to the premise of this discussion -- it may not be Americans' fault after all. ..