|
Post by jimg on Mar 23, 2009 7:54:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by byz on Mar 23, 2009 8:40:14 GMT
This volcano emits SO2 so it'll cool the climate if it erupts for sometime. I can see the AGW crowd using this as an excuse Mind you the sea ice in the arctic may hold up this summer if it does
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 23, 2009 12:44:15 GMT
This volcano emits SO2 so it'll cool the climate if it erupts for sometime. I can see the AGW crowd using this as an excuse Mind you the sea ice in the arctic may hold up this summer if it does Updated story (4 explosions so far): www.adn.com/volcano/story/732796.htmlThe ash was being sent north by winds and could lead to at least some atypical ice melt after it falls from the atmosphere. I fully concur, too, that atmospheric temperatures could be lowered somewhat, so who knows how the competing forces will operate in the end? www.essays.se/essay/6f2da6285a/Increased melt rate due to wood ash on snow University essay from Luleå tekniska universitet/Samhällsbyggnad/Vattenteknik AUTHOR: Helena Beyerl; [1999] KEYWORDS: snowmelt; albedo; melt rate; wood ash; spring flood; snösmältning; aska; översvämning; ABSTRACT: Years with a large amount of snow in combination with a late spring, constitute a risk for flooding. Dirty snow reflects less of the solar radiation than white snow, the albedo of the snow is lowered. If ash is spread on south facing slopes the melt rate can be increased and runoff distributed over a longer time. For a horizontal snow cover, blackened with 0.03 kg ash/square meter, there was a 35% decrease in albedo compared to natural snow. The increase in melt rate, expressed in water column, was 70%. A snow cover with a slope of 30 degrees and blackened with 0.15 kg ash/square meter, had an increase of 105% in melt rate, compared to naturally sloped snow. The horizontal snow cover, with 0.03 kg ash/square meter, showed an increase in degree-day factor from 3.3 to 5.7 mm/degree Celsius,day. On cold days the degree-day method did not simulate snowmelt well for the blackened snow. The influence of solar radiation was very strong and snow melted regardless of the air temperature.
|
|
|
Post by madman2001 on Mar 23, 2009 17:48:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 24, 2009 4:51:15 GMT
That particular paper, Wagner & Zurita, doesn't impress me. First, the title of: "The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830): a model study" This is not 'a model study' in the sense of an ideal study, but one in which models are used to create data where none (almost) exists. A quote from the paper: "At the turn of the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 start rising above their background levels of the previous centuries, about 280 ppm and 700 ppb, respectively (cf. lower panels of Fig. 1). This increase is attributed to growing industrial activities. In the course of the DM the CO2 concentrations increased by 10 ppm from 1790 to 1810." Wagner & Zurita is not only model-dependent, their data, like the above, have the credibility of fairies in my garden, and have less factual basis than, oh, say, * Beck's. Does vulcanism correlate with solar minima? Perhaps. There are some striking cherries to pick, there. I've seen a paper that seemed to show strong correlation (with actual r² numbers.) I'm willing to be convinced, but I have reservations. Ron? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 24, 2009 14:00:47 GMT
I've never looked at it, but you know we are a planet of molten iron spinning on its axis whilst cirling around a strong gravitational and magnetic force. Seems completely plausible to me that changes in the magnetic field could lead to some amount of shifting or pressure changes.
It also occurs to me that these events (solar cycles and volcanic eruptions) are so rare in terms of human life it would be awfully difficult to make a concrete case anytime soon.
I am saddened by the prospect of temperature interference by a sizeable eruption right now -- both sides will just start arguing about whether or not the volcano is having this or that effect. I was hoping for a further sustained period of quiet from our global vents. I fear we won't know the truth behind AGW for a long long time now.
Why did you think I'd have any special insight?
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Mar 24, 2009 19:28:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Mar 25, 2009 0:34:23 GMT
Is this likely to have any measurable effect on temperatures?
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Mar 25, 2009 3:01:11 GMT
Is this likely to have any measurable effect on temperatures? Probably not. Cooling is maximal for an eruption that... - sends up several cubic miles (e.g. the whole mountaintop). A few puffs of abrasive ash can badly screw up jet engines when sucked in, and are harmfull if breathed in, but not sufficient to cool the world
- sends up the debris several miles up into the stratosphere. 50,000 feet is minor league
- takes place near the equator, so that atmospheric mixing will distribute debris over the whole planet
Pinatubo in the early 1990s met these criteria. Mt Redoubt has spit out a few puffs of ash, only up to 50,000 feet, and it's way up north in Alaska.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 25, 2009 7:55:06 GMT
Is this likely to have any measurable effect on temperatures? Probably not. Cooling is maximal for an eruption that...
- sends up several cubic miles (e.g. the whole mountaintop). A few puffs of abrasive ash can badly screw up jet engines when sucked in, and are harmfull if breathed in, but not sufficient to cool the world
- sends up the debris several miles up into the stratosphere. 50,000 feet is minor league
- takes place near the equator, so that atmospheric mixing will distribute debris over the whole planet
Pinatubo in the early 1990s met these criteria. Mt Redoubt has spit out a few puffs of ash, only up to 50,000 feet, and it's way up north in Alaska.[/size] On the other hand, we shall surely read that past and present cooling is due to vulcanism. Since the warm-ongers are convinced by their incontrovertible models that CO 2 is responsible for "global warming", no evidence that the sun's recent stupor is cooling the planet is acceptable. Therefore, any cooling must be due to something else, like Mt. Redoubt.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 27, 2009 6:39:55 GMT
It's still belching. This time at least 65,000 ft.
Pinatubo had several eruptions up to ~70-75,000ft and the big one to 111,000 ft.
This impressed me:
Vast quantities of minerals and metals were brought to the surface. Overall, introduced to the surface environment, was an estimated 800,000 tons of zinc, 600,000 tons of copper, 550,000 tons of chromium, 300,000 tons of nickel, 100,000 tons of lead, 10,000 tons of arsenic, 1000 tons of cadmium, & 800 tons of mercury.[9]
That's alot of metal.
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Mar 27, 2009 11:27:17 GMT
....But its next to the North pole not close to equator
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 27, 2009 15:07:03 GMT
I'm going out on a limb and guessing that Redoubt is about 2,000 miles from the North Pole and about 4,000 miles from the equator.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 27, 2009 16:54:14 GMT
So you would make a cold place even colder.
So would the ice melt faster, or slower?
|
|
|
Post by cyberzombie on Mar 27, 2009 18:12:08 GMT
So you would make a cold place even colder. So would the ice melt faster, or slower? Yes. Or not...
|
|