
The 40,000-Mile Volcano - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/midocean-ridges-volcano-underwater.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
======
cmsmith
>It turned out that all of those eruptions, from the Pacific, Atlantic and
Arctic Oceans, took place from January to June. The cause, she proposed, is
Earth’s slightly elliptical orbit around the sun. That changes the strength of
the sun’s gravitational pull on Earth during the year and, as a result, the
magnitude of the tides that squeeze the planet.

I felt fairly informed amount about underwater geology, but the idea that the
crust down there is so delicate that solar tides can cause eruptions was new
to me.

~~~
guelo
If the cycle is that the melting glaciers cause the volcanoes to stop which
causes an ice age, then human global warming melting should cause the
volcanoes to cool down even more. So there's a chance the planet will rescue
us from ourselves.

~~~
wdmeldon
Oh thank god. I was worried I'd have to change my consumption habits.

------
clarkmoody
_> Though long enough to circle the moon more than six times_

Why do journalists do this?

Also, why is everyone missing this?

 _Ocean levels fall sharply in such bitterly cold periods as water is tied up
in massive continental ice sheets. In a paper, she proposed that the reduced
pressure on the ridges might let them erupt far more frequently. As a result,
more carbon dioxide would spew into the ocean and, eventually, into the
atmosphere, trapping more heat and warming the planet.

In short, according to this hypothesis, the ice sheets would eventually grow
large enough to initiate their own destruction, refilling the oceans. It was a
radical idea that has stirred debate._

~~~
cvarjas
> _Why do journalists do this?_

I agree, this doesn't really help convey the size of the number. It assumes
readers know the circumference of the Moon, when the size relative to Earth
would be more useful.

~~~
slavik81
The number 40,000 stood out to me because the Earth is roughly 40,000
kilometres in circumference. Of course, this is 40,000 _miles_ , so it's
roughly 1.6x the circumference of the Earth.

I don't really know what the circumference of the moon is. Or, at least I
didn't. Combine the facts above with the ones in the article, and you discover
the circumference of the moon is roughly 1/4 that of the Earth.

~~~
cvarjas
Nice, same thought process here.

------
andrewtbham
One interesting aspect of the article.. for HN crowd.

>Now, scientists have inaugurated a major new effort. Off the West Coast, they
have wired up a highly active ridge with hundreds of sensors and cameras, as
well as cables that flash the readings to shore. The ocean observatory is to
operate for at least a quarter century, replacing sporadic glimpses with
continuous scrutiny. This month, the surge of data is hitting the Internet.

------
gambiting
" With extreme care, humans and robots have measured temperatures as high as
780 degrees."

Degrees of what?? The article is read worldwide and it could be using
literally any temperature scale. Anyone has any idea?

~~~
nl
Lava typically liquefies at ~700°C, and 780°F is only 415°C, so I guess that
is in Celsius.

------
tegansnyder
OOI has a pretty neat data portal for those interested at:
[https://ooinet.oceanobservatories.org/](https://ooinet.oceanobservatories.org/)

------
IanDrake
>“It’s a whole new perspective on how the Earth works,” said Daniel J.
Fornari, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on
Cape Cod, Mass.

It's really interesting to see a scientist say that we don't really know how
Earth works. I thought the debate was over.

~~~
jofer
No geologist would ever (or likely will ever) say that we "really know how the
Earth works". I say this as a geologist, and I can't imagine any other
geologist disagreeing.

The natural sciences are incredibly complex. You're not dealing with nice
simple interactions, and we can't run experiments on the time, spatial, or
energy scales needed to directly test hypotheses in the way you would in an
experimental science.

Instead, we observe.

We try to understand the present to understand the past and the past to
understand the present.

When you're observing an uncontrolled system, it's very tough to isolate one
variable from another. Geology is often accused of not being "quantitative
enough". What people don't realize is that the quantitative part is usually
stupidly easy. It's choosing the right physics to model that's hard. We
usually don't fully understand exactly which physical process are at work.

~~~
HCIdivision17
Nicely put. This how I always think about economics: we've got plenty of
numbers and models, but meaningfully large experiments are are to design
without risking a lot of livelihoods. Science is brutal at scale, and I'm ever
impressed with the techniques to make sense of the noise.

------
hvo
Absolutely amazing!!!

~~~
jonclayton
Way cool indeed. And this is my first comment.....

~~~
SeanDav
> _" Way cool indeed. And this is my first comment....."_

Welcome to HN.

Please read the Guidelines and FAQ:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

HN is one of the very best news forums out there and we always welcome new
people. Just a friendly tip:

In general avoid comments that do not add value to a discussion and short
replies of a few words. People here reward thoughtful replies.

Typically your type of comment would be downvoted, but since you are very new,
hopefully people will not downvote you this time!

