PDA

View Full Version : eruption caused global warming?



subroc
04-16-2010, 04:42 PM
Has anyone read any eruption caused global warming data? What can we expect? What has the eruption done to the co2 numbers? How will these eruptions affect all reflective gasses?

Any info?

Terry Britton
04-16-2010, 04:55 PM
Yes. And a lot of eruptions under the Caribbean created a lot of Hurricanes a few years ago. There is a lot of data compiled from various sources at www.iceagenow.com .

Blackstone
04-16-2010, 05:02 PM
I heard this morning that we might expect a cooler, wetter summer as a result of the eruption. That's fine with me. I'll save on AC and watering the grass. :)

Koolaid
04-16-2010, 05:17 PM
Volcano eruptions would cause cooling, not warming. I'm no expert in the area, but I would assume it has to do with the dark soot filled clouds absorbing heat from the sun before it has the chance to reach the surface.

Buzz
04-16-2010, 08:16 PM
While the particulates are floating around it may cause cooling. Then once they settle out, the CO2 is still there to do it's thing, or not...

bfosmark
04-16-2010, 08:54 PM
Has anyone read any eruption caused global warming data? What can we expect? What has the eruption done to the co2 numbers? How will these eruptions affect all reflective gasses?

Any info?

I am no expert but I think volcanic eruptions actually causes cooling.
The sulfur that is emitted into the atmosphere in a volcanic eruption has the opposite effect of the "greenhouse" gases.

subroc
04-17-2010, 08:04 AM
well, here is an article that claims global warming has caused the eruptions.

Using logic, man is responsible for global warming therefore man is responsible for the eruptions as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100416/wl_nm/us_iceland_volcano_climate

Koolaid
04-17-2010, 09:57 AM
"They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming"

"We believe the reduction of ice has not been important in triggering this latest eruption," he said of Eyjafjallajokull. "The eruption is happening under a relatively small ice cap."

So yeah the article doesn't make the claim at all....selective reading or just poor comprehension?

The article says maybe in the future...for bigger ice caps...which are melting...which is a fact, whether you believe in man-made warming or not.

badbullgator
04-17-2010, 11:02 AM
"They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming"

"We believe the reduction of ice has not been important in triggering this latest eruption," he said of Eyjafjallajokull. "The eruption is happening under a relatively small ice cap."

So yeah the article doesn't make the claim at all....selective reading or just poor comprehension?

The article says maybe in the future...for bigger ice caps...which are melting...which is a fact, whether you believe in man-made warming or not.


I am no scientist, well not this kind anyway, but if a volcano is UNDER an ice cap and that volcano is active (prior to the eruption for years I would guess) would that not cause heat to rise and uh......melt the ice??? I would have to believe that the earth above the volcano core is hotter than earth not above a volcano core and that on top of that earth is probably not the best place to be if your an ice cap????

subroc
04-17-2010, 11:20 AM
A thaw of Iceland's ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.


I don't know whether I have a reading comprehension problem or not. But, the implication is pretty clear.

Koolaid
04-17-2010, 11:25 AM
I am no scientist, well not this kind anyway, but if a volcano is UNDER an ice cap and that volcano is active (prior to the eruption for years I would guess) would that not cause heat to rise and uh......melt the ice??? I would have to believe that the earth above the volcano core is hotter than earth not above a volcano core and that on top of that earth is probably not the best place to be if your an ice cap????

The article says

At high pressures such as under an ice cap, they reckon that rocks cannot expand to turn into liquid magma even if they are hot enough. "As the ice melts the rock can melt because the pressure decreases,"

Also Subroc there's a big difference between "may trigger" and "has caused"

subroc
04-17-2010, 11:38 AM
This is an implication. If they are not claiming it, it is a gratuitous link without anything supporting it, which in reality is what the whole man caused global warming movement is all about anyway.

If you don't see it, you are choosing to ignore it.

Koolaid
04-17-2010, 11:43 AM
So when scientists have a hypothesis about the natural world they should keep it to themselves?

subroc
04-17-2010, 11:54 AM
Everything is linked to man caused global warming. All weather/geological/ hypothesis eventually come back to this.

It has become a reflexive action to blame or "hypothesize" that man caused global warming is responsible for everything. Kind of silly really.

Koolaid
04-17-2010, 11:57 AM
That's just gonna have to be something we don't agree on then.

subroc
04-17-2010, 12:02 PM
really? we don't agree on this? I am surprised!

luvmylabs23139
04-17-2010, 01:12 PM
Of course they don't want us to know that Iceland was actually created from a volcanic eruption!

dnf777
04-17-2010, 02:44 PM
Everything is linked to man caused global warming. All weather/geological/ hypothesis eventually come back to this.

It has become a reflexive action to blame or "hypothesize" that man caused global warming is responsible for everything. Kind of silly really.


That't not true at all. Both sides of this debate will use every opportunity to discredit the other, and that's what that statement belongs to.

Very few things in life have a simple answer. Digging for the truth takes lots of effort. Its easier to engage in shallow debate and emotional chatter, than really doing to work to seek answers.

road kill
04-17-2010, 03:10 PM
That't not true at all. Both sides of this debate will use every opportunity to discredit the other, and that's what that statement belongs to.

Very few things in life have a simple answer. Digging for the truth takes lots of effort. Its easier to engage in shallow debate and emotional chatter, than really doing to work to seek answers.

You ever see Al Gore with a shovel??:confused:




rk

badbullgator
04-17-2010, 03:47 PM
The article says

At high pressures such as under an ice cap, they reckon that rocks cannot expand to turn into liquid magma even if they are hot enough. "As the ice melts the rock can melt because the pressure decreases,"

Also Subroc there's a big difference between "may trigger" and "has caused"

that is not what I was getting at. The rock below the ice cap is HOT, turning to liquid magma or not. Last I checked HEAT MELTS ICE. The volcano is melting the ice cap not global warming.

Koolaid
04-17-2010, 09:26 PM
that is not what I was getting at. The rock below the ice cap is HOT, turning to liquid magma or not. Last I checked HEAT MELTS ICE. The volcano is melting the ice cap not global warming.

That's not how it works though. A couple km down it would not be significantly hotter than a couple km below were you are sitting now. When you have high pressures such as the ones created by the earths crust, there is no magma. It order for it to form you need a lowering of pressure. That lowering of pressure is what allows the magma to form and flow. This is why volcanoes are so prevalent along tectonic plate edges, where there are many area of next to no pressure.

It is true that other geological means could create these lowered pressure conditions allowing magma to form. It is also true that melting glacial ice could create or accelerate these conditions. From the sounds of that one non-scientific article, the scientists aren't certain yet, but are doing research. It's not until the end of the article that the writer throws in "The U.N. climate panel says that global warming will cause more floods, droughts and rising seas."

Terry Britton
04-17-2010, 09:30 PM
While the particulates are floating around it may cause cooling. Then once they settle out, the CO2 is still there to do it's thing, or not...

CO2 is not a problem. THe problem comes from under ocean volcanoes causing a lot of H2O to vaporize. H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and is a prime igrediant along with the heat from those volcanoes in huricanes.

The volcanoe kicking up a lot of ash may send us towards an Ice Age.

Koolaid
04-17-2010, 09:38 PM
CO2 is not a problem. THe problem comes from under ocean volcanoes causing a lot of H2O to vaporize. H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and is a prime igrediant along with the heat from those volcanoes in huricanes.

The volcanoe kicking up a lot of ash may send us towards an Ice Age.

Years back one of my chemistry professors showed us some math on CO2 vs H2O and I believe it was something to the effect of water having 3-4 times the (can't think of the term right now I'll edit) of CO2.

I've never fully believed the hype on CO2, but I certainly wouldn't say it has zero effect. I was thinking about it though and just as hurricanes spread heat from the equators to the poles, it wouldn't surprise me if volcanoes were the main feedback source for a cooling a warming planet.

Terry Britton
04-18-2010, 10:46 AM
Actually it is much worse. H2O accounts for over 95% of the greenhouse effects. Many studies ignore the effect of H2O because if you want to get funding for your projects when other gasses like CO2 is politically easier to get massive funds to study. If you take H2O out of the models, then it magnifies the percieved problem of the other minor gasses such as CO2 and Methane.

What increases the atmospheric H2O? Solar cycles with the oceans evaporating the H2O into a greenhouse gas. Underwater volcanoes also create a lot of heat in the oceans which creates more vaporized H2O, especially in the Caribean which results in worse hurricanes. The third major sourse of greenhouse gasses is comes out of Washington DC where politicians breath out 100% humidity at 98.6 degrees along with CO2. :)

Henry V
04-18-2010, 11:38 AM
Actually it is much worse. H2O accounts for over 95% of the greenhouse effects. Many studies ignore the effect of H2O because if you want to get funding for your projects when other gasses like CO2 is politically easier to get massive funds to study. If you take H2O out of the models, then it magnifies the percieved problem of the other minor gasses such as CO2 and Methane.

What increases the atmospheric H2O? Solar cycles with the oceans evaporating the H2O into a greenhouse gas. Underwater volcanoes also create a lot of heat in the oceans which creates more vaporized H2O, especially in the Caribean which results in worse hurricanes. The third major sourse of greenhouse gasses is comes out of Washington DC where politicians breath out 100% humidity at 98.6 degrees along with CO2. :)
Terry in the interest of gaining a better understanding of climate science I wonder if you could provide evidence for a few of the theories you bring up in your post.

Please cite a reference for the 95% claim. I'd love to read it.

Can you help me understand why the basis for a chief climate change denier's theory (Dr. Litzen) is that 1) observed CO2 levels will warm the planet, 2) this will cause an increase in water vapor, 3) this will result in negative feedback through more clouds which have a known cooling effect (kinda like ice caps).

Please cite some of the studies (assuming you are talking about global climate models) where water vapor has been ignored.

Please also cite some studies that present evidence for your theories on the factors that increases global atmospheric water vapor.

As long as you are at it, could you enlighten the rest of the folks on the atmospheric residence time of water vapor compared to other greenhouse gases and the implications of this information.

Koolaid, here is a nice link about the water vapor red herring in this debate. http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor

Gerry Clinchy
04-18-2010, 12:42 PM
The volcanoe kicking up a lot of ash may send us towards an Ice Age.

Problem solved! Scrap the cap and trade legislation :-)

Koolaid
04-18-2010, 04:00 PM
Actually it is much worse. H2O accounts for over 95% of the greenhouse effects. Many studies ignore the effect of H2O because if you want to get funding for your projects when other gasses like CO2 is politically easier to get massive funds to study. If you take H2O out of the models, then it magnifies the percieved problem of the other minor gasses such as CO2 and Methane.

What increases the atmospheric H2O? Solar cycles with the oceans evaporating the H2O into a greenhouse gas. Underwater volcanoes also create a lot of heat in the oceans which creates more vaporized H2O, especially in the Caribean which results in worse hurricanes. The third major sourse of greenhouse gasses is comes out of Washington DC where politicians breath out 100% humidity at 98.6 degrees along with CO2. :)

Yeah a source on that 95% would be nice. All numbers I have seen put it around 40% with CO2 around 25%.


Henry your link doesn't work. I've read the journals though (journals, not news articles) and I do believe CO2 has it's affects. Going back 500,000 years the world has been going through it's cycles of CO2 rising and the termperature with it (according to ice cores). Along with that, once the temp rises, dust particles start to rise and the temperature drops dramatically. I'm still on the fence as to the outcome of the obvious effects we are having. An ice age seems to be on it's way, but I haven't read anything to say how soon, or how quickly we are advancing it

Terry Britton
04-18-2010, 09:00 PM
Yeah a source on that 95% would be nice. All numbers I have seen put it around 40% with CO2 around 25%.


Henry your link doesn't work. I've read the journals though (journals, not news articles) and I do believe CO2 has it's affects. Going back 500,000 years the world has been going through it's cycles of CO2 rising and the termperature with it (according to ice cores). Along with that, once the temp rises, dust particles start to rise and the temperature drops dramatically. I'm still on the fence as to the outcome of the obvious effects we are having. An ice age seems to be on it's way, but I haven't read anything to say how soon, or how quickly we are advancing it

That 40% number may be right if you factor out clouds, but factoring in clouds which is another form of water vapor, and it is 85% to 95% which compares to CO2 effecting greenhouse affect at a much less ammount from less than 5% and a high of 27% depending on water vapor levels (including clouds).

You might want to check and compare those CO2 / Temp charts, and compare to verify that the CO2 may be actually lagging the temperatures probably due to less gas will be disolved in the oceans at the higher temperatures.

I am not too worried about global warming or cooling. Economics will take care of things any which way when real events (even energy or water shortage) happen which will push new technologies and solutions to the front.

WRL
04-18-2010, 09:30 PM
Volcano eruptions would cause cooling, not warming. I'm no expert in the area, but I would assume it has to do with the dark soot filled clouds absorbing heat from the sun before it has the chance to reach the surface.

Not necessarily true.

Depends on the temperature.

If its HOT out, it may cool it down. If its COLD out, it warms it up.

WRL

JDogger
04-18-2010, 09:59 PM
Not necessarily true.

Depends on the temperature.

If its HOT out, it may cool it down. If its COLD out, it warms it up.

WRL

I love it when dog folks get all scientific and technical n' stuff...Yeah... damn...some times its hot...and sometimes its cold...well, there ya go...Point proved.

JD

Henry V
04-18-2010, 11:10 PM
Yeah a source on that 95% would be nice. All numbers I have seen put it around 40% with CO2 around 25%.


Henry your link doesn't work. I've read the journals though (journals, not news articles) and I do believe CO2 has it's affects. Going back 500,000 years the world has been going through it's cycles of CO2 rising and the termperature with it (according to ice cores). Along with that, once the temp rises, dust particles start to rise and the temperature drops dramatically. I'm still on the fence as to the outcome of the obvious effects we are having. An ice age seems to be on it's way, but I haven't read anything to say how soon, or how quickly we are advancing it

Try the link again. I reposted it and it works. Wikipedia has a good summary on water vapor and other greenhouse gases. Funny thing about clouds, they reflect a whole lot of solar radiation during the day. This is why MIT professor Lindzen is a skeptic about CO2 driving things (see http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm) New scientist, real climate, etc. also have lots of good information. e.g http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18457-water-vapour-worse-climate-change-villain-than-thought.html. They even present reasons why CO2 may lag in the ice cores.

Now, maybe we shall see if we ever get a source for the theory that "H2O accounts for over 95% of the greenhouse effects". I also would like to know how anyone would not factor in clouds when discussing water vapor.

WRL
04-18-2010, 11:20 PM
I love it when dog folks get all scientific and technical n' stuff...Yeah... damn...some times its hot...and sometimes its cold...well, there ya go...Point proved.

JD

Unlike most of the people on this forum, I have actually experienced volcanic eruptions and how they affect the weather conditions.

WRL

Eastern Shoreman
04-21-2010, 01:38 PM
A major eruption in the 1980's spewed more tonnage of CO2 and carbon into the atmosphere than the history of all mankind's air pollution. One single eruption. Yet we continue to handicap industry at an alarming rate. Tax carbon when we are a carbon based lifeform....that's about as genius as it gets when you are looking to slowly gobble up all the world's wealth.

Terry Britton
04-25-2010, 11:13 AM
You guys can google as good as I can to find references to water vapor (including clouds) contributing 85 to 95% of greenhouse gas effect. Also, as temperature increases, the amount of H2O that air can hold increases therfore the 100% humidity mark where precepitation will happen is a moving target that increases as the greenhouse effect of additional H2O is added to the atmosphere. Hardly any of those scientists are licensed to use psychometric charts for any design work, or even properly licensed to put a stamp on a model. I won't trust any of the models to change public policy until they are inspected by a qualified licensed engineer and stamped just as a design of a bridge will be stamped by an engineer qualified to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics

dnf777
04-25-2010, 11:19 AM
Unlike most of the people on this forum, I have actually experienced volcanic eruptions and how they affect the weather conditions.

WRL

If you don't get Nat Geo, you might want to pick up a copy at the newsstand. Absolutely stunning photography and commentary on the 1980 eruption!

Buzz
04-25-2010, 12:07 PM
I won't trust any of the models to change public policy until they are inspected by a qualified licensed engineer and stamped just as a design of a bridge will be stamped by an engineer qualified to do so.




Are you serious?

Henry V
04-25-2010, 09:16 PM
You guys can google as good as I can to find references to water vapor (including clouds) contributing 85 to 95% of greenhouse gas effect. ....[/url]

Yes, Terry, I did. I can't seem to find the 95% that you posted as fact. You also do not seem able to answer other questions about water vapor like why it's 9 day residence time has much different implications than other greenhouse gasses and the fact that clouds (e.g. water vapor) also reflect substantial amounts of solar radiation and the net effect of water vapor.

Buzz, I would bet he is completely serious. PE's never make mistakes ;)

WRL
04-25-2010, 09:22 PM
If you don't get Nat Geo, you might want to pick up a copy at the newsstand. Absolutely stunning photography and commentary on the 1980 eruption!

No I don't. And I wasn't in WA during Mt St Helens eruption. However, I did live in AK through Mt St Augustine's multiple eruptions along with Mt Redoubt's many eruptions.

Last day of hunting season in AK many moons ago, temp was 20 deg below zero and my then boyfriend had managed to convince me that on Dec 16th (15th was the last day) we'd go get a Christmas Tree.

Morning of Dec 16th and it was 40 deg and RAINING SLUDGE. Ended up with about 1 inch of what was essentially a very horrible and nasty muck all over everything.

We got a fake Christmas tree.

WRL

dnf777
04-26-2010, 05:11 AM
I've experienced similar "muck" living near the Exxon refinery in Baytown. One day, our town woke up to a residue all over everything after they had been burning flares all night. The paid a bundle to repaint many cars, as the worst hit had paint pitted. Glad it spewed whatever that was at night, and not when people were out and about. (breathing air)

Nat Geo shows what MSH is like now. Being left untouched, its amazing how nature can recover. 20" trout in the lake already.

achiro
04-26-2010, 03:55 PM
I can't believe that nobody has posted this pic yet. BTW, this political "retriever" forum cracks me up, pisses me off, and scares me all at the same time. :D
http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/planes_volcanos.png

TN_LAB
04-26-2010, 03:58 PM
I misread the title at first. I thought I read it saying that:

global warming CAUSED the volcano eruption

:p

menmon
04-27-2010, 11:28 AM
I'm not smart enough to have a scientific opinion on either side, but I do know this much. Business is always going to oppose anything that increases its cost. That's just good business!

On the other hand, my personal experience with environmental regulation has been positive for me, not necessarily for business though. Example: I grew up in an area of Texas dominated by oil refineries and chemical plants, and I remember the objection from these companies and the people that lived around them when it came out in the news that they had to put something on their smoke stacks to limit the polution. Everyone opposed it, but after they forced them to do it, no one lost their jobs, (probably made jobs) it improved the environment largely.

Kind of like the coal mines. Business puts out propoganda that they will have to close the mines if they are forced to make them safe, and the people support them because of fear of losing their jobs.

Global Warming? I don't know the real reallity here, but I don't want to leave the faith of my planet to EXXON.