Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Don't we have a lack of knowledge of our oceans to be making claims about volcanoes?
The reason I ask this is based on the debate between Ian Pilmer and George Monbiot. If you haven't seen it you can view here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/277290...
The only thing that I want to focus on in this question is the discussion about volcanoes that occurred. Basically, Ian Pilmer had claimed there are undersea volcanoes that we don't account for (according to him - 85%) and George Monbiot (along with Tony Jones) say this isn't true because the US Geological Survey has apparently accounted for every single one of them.
I find myself sceptical of this because as far as I am aware (and have heard over the years) humans have barely explored the world oceans. There are many hurdles that we are yet to overcome and one big one that comes to my mind (among others) is....water pressure. Now basically, what I am saying is if this is still true to this day then how has the US Geological Survey been able to reach their conclusion?
The ocean is a big place and I am sure that it and volcanoes are fields that would take many years of study. So I ain't very knowledgeable on this which is why I am pretty much asking what method has the US Geological Survey used? Could it be/is it flawed? If it is then this opens up some interesting questions. But these are the problems I am having. What methods do they use? Are they able to detect every single undersea volcano without actually having to go under the water and deal with the problems associated with that?
EDIT: To be honest, none of these answers so far are doing it for me and so I have extended the time limit.
EDIT 2: Whilst you did provide some interesting information from your links Dana, they didn't really answer anything I was asking. The 'carbon article' seems to focus more on CO2 (which isn't what I was asking for) and states many times a lack of incomplete and even uncertain knowledge in much of the area. There's mention of reliance on estimations, even allusions to underestimations. Lack of knowledge extends further in other areas it sounded like. None of these even addressed anything on the US Geological Survey or seemed to answer my question as to what method is used to detect underwater volcanoes.
EDIT 3: jim z, you also provided interesting info (even off of what Dana said) but with other things provided no sources. Whilst what was said may have truth in it, I wouldn't know. How they are able to detect the volcanoes? All this leads back to what I said in my question.
4 Answers
- JimZLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
As a geologist and skeptic of significant AGW, I thought I would find myself disaggreeing with Dana's first link but it was informative. I have suspected the volume of CO2 and methane emissions were vastly underestimated. I suspect that even the estimate in his link is underestimated. They can estimate that released by volcanism but it wouldn't be very accurate IMO. The volcanoes are located along a ridge called the mid-ocean ridges. They form where oceanic plates spread apart and form. I think they have a pretty good idea where they all are. It isn't like there are separate volcanoes. It is litterally a crack thousands of miles long. There are other volcanoes such as Hawaii that formed from a hot spot and are different. It is important to distinguish between emissions and volcanic emissions. If you limit yourself to volcanic emissions, human emissions certainly dwarf them. Other emissions might be more significant. I doubt that emissions from the oceanic crusts are that significant because they are clearly formed from melt. You get some CO2 from them but emssions of CO2 and methane from continental crusts are more voluminous.
I don't know what Dana is talking about regarding the new oceanic crust being a carbon sink. As new crust is formed in one place, it is subducted and lost in another. If he is referring to chemical reactions at the surface of the crust, I would expect that to be minimal. The ocean floor can act as a huge carbon sink by the accumulation of chemically precipitated carbonates and or accumulation of creatures such as corral, urchins, diatoms, foraminifers, and coccolithophores.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Underwater volcanoes are esimated to emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year (see links below). However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
Source(s): http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/gustin/ERS765/geologic%20... http://www.skepticalscience.com/Two-attempts-to-bl... - Anonymous1 decade ago
We don't even know enough about our own bodies to be making claims with absolute certainty... How long did we hear that eggs and coffee were going to kill you? And that we absolutely need to eliminate all fat from our diets? And exposure to the sun will result in certain death?
Only to find out that lack of Omega 3 fats and Vitamin D from the sunshine is in the end bad for you...
How on earth can we claim to know everything about the planet's climate? It's hubris beyond description.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
We know nothing about the Oceans explored about 10% of it . There is no Submarine
capable of diving 7 miles without crushing . and big lights to see with .