To answer your question, the mechanism wouldn't generate any radiative forcing. Feel free to continue your search.
Seems to be plenty of it to me. Pretty much every time I hear the news, or peruse a scientifically directed article there is a new earthquake, volcano eruption, or other vulcanism-related event. Little things like the Yellowstone super-volcano showing increased activity. And since I live in Washington, there is also evidence of increased "small" events that only show up on the local news.
"Seems" is fine, and no doubt monitoring (seismic, satellite, Webcam, etc.) is much better than even a couple of decades ago. It's similar to increased detection of hurricanes far out at sea; we have better methods of detection. So I have little doubt that there are a lot more reports of volcanic activity than there used to be. But what isn't happening is any detection of effects, such as increased atmospheric aerosol loading due to volcanoes, that would indicate actual increased activity, or that would show a trend.
Here's an answer from the Smithsonian. I don't think they were on the CRU mailing list.
Has volcanic activity been increasing?
What evidence is supposed to be at your link? I see a bunch of opinions, whose GUESSES at effects range over a factor of ten. Looks like the old "argument from authority" to me. The simple fact is that the sub-Arctic discoveries are so new that the only possible SCIENTIFIC response is "we don't know the effects yet".
Here's a couple of things. One of the respondents says: "In any case, heat releases from the Arctic sea floor do not get higher up in the water column than, typically, ~500-1000 m from the ocean floor due to constantly mixing with ambient water on its way up (so-called entrainment)."
and: "I get this question too - and my usual response is to say, the average heat added from volcanoes to the ocean is of order 0.1 Watt per square meter. But the heat added (or removed) to the ocean from the sun and atmosphere is of order 100 Watt per square meter."
I've discussed the following before on FR.
Furthermore, several years ago now, when I was still thinking of being a geochemist, an eruption on the Juan de Fuca Ridge (you should like this) was detected due to its creation of a "megaplume" of "warm" water.
SCIENTISTS TRACK A MEGAPLUME RISING FROM CRACK IN SEA FLOOR
Put these two excerpts together: 1) "Megaplume was putting out a tremendous amount of heat," said Baker. "It would take the Bonneville Dam two to four years to put ount of heat into the water column that megaplume put out in a few days." 2) "Scientists understand hydrothermal vents. But megaplume was different. For one thing, it was far hotter and rose higher above the sea floor than ordinary vents. Megaplume mingled with colder sea water as it rose, and was only a quarter of a degree warmer than the surrounding water by the time Massoth and Baker measured it."
(click for 2x)
Now, you can choose not to believe me, or these references. But undersea volcanism, wondrous and amazing as it is (I'm fascinated by it) doesn't affect surface temperatures or melt sea ice.
And I've been doing it for forty. Right now, I'm finding "dueling references" with differing arguments, and I'm working through them. But the handwaving references you posted don't even begin to constitute an argument. Not a number to be seen.
References abound here: Basic Radiation Calculations. I applaud your effort.
Why should I believe ANY statements from the "warmist climate science" position, given the proven track record of "cooking the books". Frankly, at this point, ANY publication that purports to link some effect to "global warming" is suspect. One has no way of knowing how deeply the demonstrated pathology has spread to other disciplines. How many of that NAS panel were "suggested" by Hansen, Mann, and/or Jones, or those connected to them?
"Cooking the books" has not been proven; the idea that it's been done has been sold by skeptics abetted by conservative think-tanks, playing on the general public's inability to deal with details. The spread of disinformation on this issue IS a conservative vs. liberal issue. We could talk this issue to death, countering with sources and links and explanations for months. I don't want to do that; do you? I'll reply to anything you want to discuss.
NAS Panel Membership. Check 'em out.
GERALD R. NORTH (Chair),
Texas A&M University, College Station
FRANCO BIONDI,
University of Nevada, Reno
PETER BLOOMFIELD,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
JOHN R. CHRISTY,
University of Alabama, Huntsville
KURT M. CUFFEY,
University of California, Berkeley
ROBERT E. DICKINSON,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
ELLEN R.M. DRUFFEL,
University of California, Irvine
DOUGLAS NYCHKA,
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
BETTE OTTO-BLIESNER,
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
NEIL ROBERTS,
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
KARL K. TUREKIAN, (one of the world's most brilliant geochemists)
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
JOHN M. WALLACE,
University of Washington, Seattle
Biosketches of committee members
Here are just a couple of things that "just don't fit".... those graphs that show temperature "adjustments" seem to all be adjusted in only one direction---"up". And the "adjustment" gets larger in magnitude as the time gets closer to the present. Now, why would that be, given that as we get closer to present day, we have better instruments, better data, and supposedly better records, so any "adjustment" should get smaller with time rather than larger, yet it seems not to. And, given the well known "urban island" effect, at least "some" of the graphs should show a "downward" adjustment.
Hmmm... my initial reaction is that the adjustments are to make the modern data continuous with the historical data. So the baseline is... when the record begins? So the farther in time we get from the when the record begins, the more the data have to be adjusted to be comparable to when the record begins. That's my off-the-cuff idea for why the adjustments get larger. ??? Regarding the latter, I dug up this fairly large paper (6 MB) which has an entire section on adjustments:
"If a journal editor appeared to allow the publication of a poor-quality paper by selecting reviewers likely to favor publication of said paper, reviewers who might overlook its flaws because of its underlying theme, should scientists question the editor's actions, or not?"
Seen as "flawed" by whom?? A reviewer "suggested" by Hansen, Mann, Jones etc.???
Storm brews over global warming
"Mr. von Storch, however, found that some editors on the board [of Climate Research] still viewed the Harvard-Smithsonian paper as fine. "I concluded that we have different standards," he says. "Some are doing [the editing] in a rather sloppy way."
He says he suspects that "some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common." So he resigned from the board, as did three other members."