jump to navigation

Evidence of explosive volcanism discovered beneath the Arctic Ocean 27 June 2008

Posted by volcanism in current research, geoscience, submarine volcanism, volcanology.
Tags: ,
trackback

A team of researchers has discovered evidence of explosive volcanism 4km down on the Arctic Ocean seabed, challenging established notions of the nature of volcanic activity at great ocean depths.

The research team, led by scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, found jagged, glassy rock fragments spread out across a 10km2 area around a series of small volcanic cones along the Gakkel Ridge, part of the spreading mid-ocean ridge system beneath the Arctic ice. ‘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 Woods Hole geophysicist Rob Reves-Sohn.

A paper detailing the findings of the Arctic Gakkel Vents Expedition is published in the 26 June 2008 issue of Nature.

Information
Global Volcanism Program: East Gakkel Ridge volcanoes – summary information for the Gakkel Ridge volcanoes, excitingly dubbed ‘unnamed’ by the GVP

News
Under iceScience News, 25 June 2008
Deep-sea volcanism on the Gakkel RidgeNature, 26 June 2008 (editor’s summary)
Geologists discover signs of volcanoes blowing their tops in the deep ocean – Innovations Report, 27 June 2008
Fire under the ice – EurekAlert, 27 June 2008

The Volcanism Blog

Comments

1. OilIsMastery - 28 June 2008

Any idea what the volatiles are in explosive eruptions?

Hydrocarbons perhaps?

2. volcanism - 28 June 2008

The researchers’ suggestion is carbon dioxide, according to the Science News report.

3. OilIsMastery - 28 June 2008

Carbon dioxide isn’t volatile or explosive.

4. Salvatore - 29 June 2008

In volcanism, volatiles are the gases dissolved in magma. CO2 is one of the most important magmatic volatiles. The degassing of volatiles fragments the magma – that is the explosive part, depending the rate of degassing. I guess that is what they are talking about. I can’t access the Nature paper so can’t say for sure. It would take a lot of CO2 though, to do it on this scale.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry