• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Icelands volcanic eruption, a good thing?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
I've been thinking about the effects of the volcanic eruption in iceland, and while it is tragic and could wreak havoc on the world economy, there are some potentially positive results from it.

For example. With the European air force grounded, that is a LOT of fuel that will not be consumed. As a result, shouldn't gas prices drop for everyone?

As well, the volcano is going to lower global temperatures (this winter is probably going to be a cold one world wide). As well, it will decrease CO2 output by a large margin (no planes = no CO2 burning).

Any thoughts to go along with my random ramblings?
Wow.... just ... wow...

Planes don't "burn CO2".

The emissions produced by a few planes for a few days is immeasureable compared to what that volcano is producing. The emissions by all planes and cars for the last year doesn't compare to what that volcano is putting out. It should put into perspective just how ridiculous people are who measure and track "carbon footprint" by the gram and think they are "saving the planet".

Funny most self proclaimed environmentalists are a bunch of dumb spoon fed teens to mid 20s who are too busy screaming about global warming and CO2 on the internet and never actually go outside and enjoy life. Want to see how much bullshit is being tossed about with regards to climage change? Just go outside. Better yet, just drive a SINGLE MILE beyond your city, and see how great nature really is.
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Uh, ok genius do tell us how the earth changes it's CO2 back into oxygen.

And no I'm not talking about your twigs in your back yard or replanted forest that is a drop in the bucket on the scale of million's of acres of OLD growth rain forest's the earth once had.

Your probably think it took the earth only a few hundred years to balance it self out? Well, got news for you. This has been happening for millions of years (pretty much for the entire life of the planet). Not just a few 100 years that man has evolved enough to fuck it up on a mass scale.

But I'm not sure if your worth the effort... Some people will never understand and possible can't understand or just don't want to face the facts.
What percentage of mature trees does the earth have on it now vs if mankind had never touched it? Don't forget there are endless numbers of hillsides packed to the hilt with vegetation and the closest mankind has ever come to them is seeing them at a great distance out of the window of a plane.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,085
189
106
  • A mature tree removes 48 pounds of carbon dioxide (C02) per year from the air (roughly 10 tons per.acre).
  • The amount of carbon stored annually by an acre of trees is approximately equal to the amount released by burning 1,000 gallons of gasoline.
  • A tree that provides shade and wind protection to buildings can indirectly cause, via energy conservation, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions equal to 15 times the amount of carbon dioxide the tree will absorb.
    (from Journal of Arboriculture V. 16(6) 1990 p. 144)
  • One acre of trees annually consumes the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to that produced by driving an average car for 26,000 miles. That same acre of trees also produces enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe for a year.
  • A deciduous tree, like the American beech, that is 80-100 years old has about 1,600 square yards of leaf surface area to which dust particles can adhere.
  • A healthy tree stores about 13 lbs. of carbon each year, and a healthy acre of trees can store 2.6 tons of carbon a year.
  • It takes the wood from a 100-foot tree to keep the average American supplied for a year with newspaper, books, magazines, tissues, paper towels, housing materials, furniture, desks, fences, boxes and other assorted wood products. On the average that use amounts to:
    1. 613 lbs. of paper products
    2. 200 square feet of 1" thick lumber
    3. 87 square feet of plywood
    4. 59 square feet of insulation board, particle board and hardboard


      Vital statistics for that 100-foot tree:
    • 18" in diameter at the base
    • 100 feet tall with a 60-70 foot crown spread 0 weighs about 4,100 lbs. at harvest
    • grew 200,000 leaves @ 120 lbs. per year or 3,600 lbs. over its lifetime
    • 1,300 lbs. of roots (an additional 2,000 lbs. were grown and discarded)
    • 100 lbs. of nutrients retained in the wood (twice that amount were returned to the soil)
    • took up over 5,000,000 gallons of water from the soil and transpired it into the air; 350 gallons of water (2,900 lbs.) were retained
    • 6,000 lbs. of oxygen given off

While true that any fast growing plant (yes even in the ocean) produce oxygen. Do you really think nature is going to kick back and let (life on this planet die) no... It's going to try balance out the ratio.

But, the question of ALL questions is... Where is that tipping point where we push it so far that it can't recover (or balance out). That will be a sad day indeed.

I guess we can all disagree with this argument ... I'm guilty of it myself. I take long HOT showers, Drive a V6 that lucky to get 20mpg. Sometimes just to drive around for the hell of it and turn on AC even tho it's not really all that hot out.

Tho... I got all fluorescent / let bulbs in my house. High efficiency gas water and heating system and washer. The point is. For my power I'm burning gas and coal. Burning lot's of dino fuel for the car and it all adds up and that is just me.


I hope that nature can continue to balance out for generations to come.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,274
121
106
Wow.... just ... wow...

Planes don't "burn CO2".

The emissions produced by a few planes for a few days is immeasureable compared to what that volcano is producing. The emissions by all planes and cars for the last year doesn't compare to what that volcano is putting out. It should put into perspective just how ridiculous people are who measure and track "carbon footprint" by the gram and think they are "saving the planet".

Funny most self proclaimed environmentalists are a bunch of dumb spoon fed teens to mid 20s who are too busy screaming about global warming and CO2 on the internet and never actually go outside and enjoy life. Want to see how much bullshit is being tossed about with regards to climage change? Just go outside. Better yet, just drive a SINGLE MILE beyond your city, and see how great nature really is.
Nice profiling. More anger and rage next time.

I misspoke when I said planes burn CO2, my intention (Which, everyone in this thread seems to understand except for yourself) was to convey the fact that planes produce CO2 as a result of fuel combustion (Or fuel burning).

As for the myth about volcano CO2 emission.
http://www.techybytes.com/volcanos-emit-far-more-co2-than-man/
http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans
http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=229
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/co2-and-the-volcanoes/

And now for the angry declaration of environmentalist. I'm not, nor ever have been, an environmentalist. I don't care how you live your life. I just wanted to discuss the possible impact of the eruption, and how it can have some positive side effects.

However, the connection between eruptions and global temperatures is a strong one that's been known for a while.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
The emissions produced by a few planes for a few days is immeasureable compared to what that volcano is producing. The emissions by all planes and cars for the last year doesn't compare to what that volcano is putting out. It should put into perspective just how ridiculous people are who measure and track "carbon footprint" by the gram and think they are "saving the planet".
This is the kind of wild nonsense claim I find so troubling.

While part of commonly distributed claims spread over the internet by climate deniers, the reality is volcanoes are not that huge a source of CO2 in general.
Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

While its true part of these CO2 emissions come from power plants and the like, the man made CO2 emissions from all aircraft and cars for a year is still FAR FAR GREATER THAN WHAT IS BEING EMITTED BY THE VOLCANO. While this is a disruptive volcanic eruption its not actually that exceptionally powerful in general, and that includes emissions of CO2 and the like. (While perhaps historical volcanic activity has contributed a significantly more CO2 emissions for a specific period from time to time, this has not occurred over the last around 300 years where man-made global warming has been the potential issue.)

If volcanoes were actually such greater emitters of CO2, that would be an argument against man made global warming, but its simply a flat out bogus claim.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,609
3,735
126
This is the kind of wild nonsense claim I find so troubling.

While part of commonly distributed claims spread over the internet by climate deniers, the reality is volcanoes are not that huge a source of CO2 in general.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

While its true part of these CO2 emissions come from power plants and the like, the man made CO2 emissions from all aircraft and cars for a year is still FAR FAR GREATER THAN WHAT IS BEING EMITTED BY THE VOLCANO. While this is a disruptive volcanic eruption its not actually that exceptionally powerful in general, and that includes emissions of CO2 and the like. (While perhaps historical volcanic activity has contributed a significantly more CO2 emissions for a specific period from time to time, this has not occurred over the last around 300 years where man-made global warming has been the potential issue.)

If volcanoes were actually such greater emitters of CO2, that would be an argument against man made global warming, but its simply a flat out bogus claim.
Such Pwnage is not Sporting Sir. You should almost feel ashamed. :awe::D
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
This is the kind of wild nonsense claim I find so troubling.

While part of commonly distributed claims spread over the internet by climate deniers, the reality is volcanoes are not that huge a source of CO2 in general.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

While its true part of these CO2 emissions come from power plants and the like, the man made CO2 emissions from all aircraft and cars for a year is still FAR FAR GREATER THAN WHAT IS BEING EMITTED BY THE VOLCANO. While this is a disruptive volcanic eruption its not actually that exceptionally powerful in general, and that includes emissions of CO2 and the like. (While perhaps historical volcanic activity has contributed a significantly more CO2 emissions for a specific period from time to time, this has not occurred over the last around 300 years where man-made global warming has been the potential issue.)

If volcanoes were actually such greater emitters of CO2, that would be an argument against man made global warming, but its simply a flat out bogus claim.
So how about all volcanoes and natural forest fires in the world daily?

And yet despite those millions and billions of tons of CO2 from whatever source, CO2 constitutes only three or four HUNDRETHS OF A SINGLE PERCENT of the Earth's atmoshphere. So the point still stands that people who nit pick every gram of CO2 are brainwashed nutcases.

If quantity is important, why aren't we picking on water vapor?
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,609
3,735
126
So how about all volcanoes and natural forest fires in the world daily?

And yet despite those millions and billions of tons of CO2 from whatever source, CO2 constitutes only three or four HUNDRETHS OF A SINGLE PERCENT of the Earth's atmoshphere. So the point still stands that people who nit pick every gram of CO2 are brainwashed nutcases.

If quanity is important, why aren't we picking on water vapor?
I think you didn't read what he posted.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
So how about all volcanoes and natural forest fires in the world daily?

And yet despite those millions and billions of tons of CO2 from whatever source, CO2 constitutes only three or four HUNDRETHS OF A SINGLE PERCENT of the Earth's atmoshphere. So the point still stands that people who nit pick every gram of CO2 are brainwashed nutcases.

If quantity is important, why aren't we picking on water vapor?
As noted, you clearly didn't read my post regarding the volcano aspect of the question.

The things about forest fires is they essentially fit into the natural CO2 cycle. When forests burn, they are replaced by new growth over time, with the growing forest absorbing the CO2 which means the overall impact on the atmosphere is quite limited over time. (This is why bio-fuels at least theoretically can deal with many CO2 issues.) By contrast, fossil fuels represent CO2 which has been out of the natural climate cycle for millions of years which is suddenly all getting emitted back into the atmosphere at once by man.

Water vapor is essentially self regulated on a global scale. (At least without drastic sudden changes to geography which basically take millions of years.) When you get a high enough humidity in relation to the current temperature, you get precipitation in some form or another. This means water vapor clearly can't be the cause of global warming in anything other than possibly reinforcing existing temperature increase trends. (The general situation might be different with a few really massive proposed geo-engineering project that have been proposed involving water vapor, but that's not really relevant to the current discussion about causes of global warming.)
 
Last edited:

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
I think you watch too much TV and listen to too many politically biased "experts".
I think you need to go back and read my posts. The issue is you're clearly making your argument from a position of clearly misinformed ignorance rather than an actual legitimate argument against man-made global warming.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
I think you need to go back and read my posts. The issue is you're clearly making your argument from a position of clearly misinformed ignorance rather than an actual legitimate argument against man-made global warming.
I think you should go back and read my last posts. The "issue" is that regardless of who is arguing what, and whether I made an erroneous assumption of a single incident, that it's still insignificant. 200 million tons, 40 billion tons, 100 years of industrialized man burning shit, and it's still not even 0.04% of the Earths total atmosphere. Meanwhile people are counting grams of C02 produced and making asses of themselves. You clearly getting an A++ in your clearly highschool debate class clearly does not clearly legitimately clearly change that. See I can word pad and sound like the "experts" on TV too.

PS your sources are also from government agencies, and we all know government is never politically biased and always trying to shape the populace. How is data posted from a leftist government instituion hell bent on implementing and agenda with things like "cap and trade" and telling people what they can buy and drive supposed to be credible?

That would be like me posting links to bradycampaign.org to support my argument that guns create violence.
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,609
3,735
126
I think you should go back and read my last posts. The "issue" is that regardless of who is arguing what, and whether I made an erroneous assumption of a single incident, that it's still insignificant. 200 million tons, 40 billion tons, 100 years of industrialized man burning shit, and it's still not even 0.04% of the Earths total atmosphere. Meanwhile people are counting grams of C02 produced and making asses of themselves. You clearly getting an A++ in your clearly highschool debate class clearly does not clearly legitimately clearly change that. See I can word pad too.
Wow, Fail. The Ocean is big too, yet Pollution is having a huge impact.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
I think you should go back and read my last posts. The "issue" is that regardless of who is arguing what, and whether I made an erroneous assumption of a single incident, that it's still insignificant. 200 million tons, 40 billion tons, 100 years of industrialized man burning shit, and it's still not even 0.04% of the Earths total atmosphere.
You're just flat acting clueless.

I you actually understood science, you would recognize there are a huge number of situations where something like .04% of some specific chemical or substance can have a huge impact. (I.E. there are plenty of substances which can kill you at a far lower density in your bloodstream than that.) The point to understand is that the atmosphere's nitrogen, (78%) and oxygen (21%) for instance have a comparatively very limited impact of global temperatures in comparable quantities to CO2. This means shifts in the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a substantial impact on global temperature. The argument as presented simply is not legitimate.

By the way, it should be noted that its not just 100 years of man burning fossil fuels, there was an increase from man burning all that coal in particular as the industrial revolution got going before then.
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
You're just flat acting clueless.

I you actually understood science, you would recognize there are a huge number of situations where something like .04% of some specific chemical or substance can have a huge impact. (I.E. there are plenty of substances which can kill you at a far lower density in your bloodstream than that.) The point to understand is that the atmosphere's nitrogen, (78%) and oxygen (21%) for instance have a comparatively very limited impact of global temperatures in comparable quantities to CO2. This means shifts in the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a substantial impact on global temperature. The argument as presented simply is not legitimate.

By the way, it should be noted that its not just 100 years of man burning fossil fuels, there was an increase from man burning all that coal in particular as the industrial revolution got going before then.

You did these studies yourself without any political bias or predispositions to find what you wanted to find, and you have a hard test to confirm or deny everyone else's "evidence" ?

Go sit back down.

Note that every study on climate is purely observational and speculation of worse case scenarios, and completely intangible for actual scientific methods. Very similar to religion in other words. "We can't prove or disprove god, but lets do what the church says and not take a chance just in case there is a hell".

Climate change is more about swaying public opinion and political power grabs than it is about science. Remember when it was all about holes in the ozone and acid rain and cars and hairspray where going to kill us? Then fuel injection all but perfected combustion engines and eliminated that, now all of the sudden CO2 and H2O were upgraded in it's place to pollutants in order to keep the hysteria alive. It's always something... always. And it's always something unproveable by either side, but trust us just in case.

What MIGHT happen would COULD happen whould SHOULD happen. Never what IS or what WILL. People only fear unknowns; knowns cannot be used to (mis)lead them.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
18,540
5,642
136
You're just flat acting clueless.

I you actually understood science, you would recognize there are a huge number of situations where something like .04% of some specific chemical or substance can have a huge impact. (I.E. there are plenty of substances which can kill you at a far lower density in your bloodstream than that.) The point to understand is that the atmosphere's nitrogen, (78%) and oxygen (21%) for instance have a comparatively very limited impact of global temperatures in comparable quantities to CO2. This means shifts in the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a substantial impact on global temperature. The argument as presented simply is not legitimate.

By the way, it should be noted that its not just 100 years of man burning fossil fuels, there was an increase from man burning all that coal in particular as the industrial revolution got going before then.
Stop with the facts already. It doesn't fit with the deniers agenda that we're interfering with them making a few extra bucks.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,609
3,735
126
You did these studies yourself without any political bias or predispositions to find what you wanted to find, and you have a hard test to confirm or deny everyone else's "evidence" ?

Go sit back down.

Note that every study on climate is purely observational and speculation of worse case scenarios, and completely intangible for actual scientific methods. Very similar to religion in other words. "We can't prove or disprove god, but lets do what the church says and not take a chance just in case there is a hell".

Climate change is more about swaying public opinion and political power grabs than it is about science. Remember when it was all about holes in the ozone and cars where going to kill us? Then fuel injection all but perfection combustion engines and eliminated that, now all of the sudden CO2 and H2O were upgraded to pollutants in order to keep the hysteria alive.
Fail on Dude.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Fail on Dude.
I was prepared to "fail" before I even started in this thread. You can't reason with fanatics who are predispositioned to believe what they believe. It's like arguing with a christian or muslim that there is no god; you are just wrong, period, no matter what. Hence why I'm just speaking my peace and not even pretending a real argument here.

You can find "facts" to support whatever you want. The problem is that some people believe their facts are more factual than your facts. Or that if 11 people have done studies that support fact A and 10 people have done studies to support fact B, then fact B is obviously wrong.

That coupled with the leftist slant in P&N is why I don't frequent here anymore. I prefer to live in a world that isn't ending every day and just go about my business owning and driving what I please.
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,609
3,735
126
I was prepared to "fail" before I even started in this thread. You can't reason with fanatics who are predispositioned to believe what they believe. It's like arguing with a christian or muslim that there is no god; you are just wrong, period, no matter what. Hence why I'm just speaking my peace and not even pretending a real argument here.

You can find "facts" to support whatever you want. The problem is that some people believe their facts are more factual than your facts. Or that if 11 people have done studies that support fact A and 10 people have done studies to support fact B, then fact B is obviously wrong.

That coupled with the leftist slant in P&N is why I don't frequent here anymore. I prefer to live in a world that isn't ending every day and just go about my business owning and driving what I please.
Indeed
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
You did these studies yourself without any political bias or predispositions to find what you wanted to find, and you have a hard test to confirm or deny everyone else's "evidence" ?

Go sit back down.

Note that every study on climate is purely observational and speculation of worse case scenarios, and completely intangible for actual scientific methods. Very similar to religion in other words. "We can't prove or disprove god, but lets do what the church says and not take a chance just in case there is a hell".

Climate change is more about swaying public opinion and political power grabs than it is about science. Remember when it was all about holes in the ozone
I see, we must ignore science unless we personally perform the experiments?

You're indisputably 100% wrong on your second claim of course. For instance, we can prove the point about the impact of CO2 versus oxygen and nitrogen with a closed system in a laboratory and a thermometer. You're basically disputing easily reproducible science with your previous post.

There have been a wide array of ways climate change due to man made co2 could have been disproved with empirical evidence. For instance, if arctic ice samples had shown Co2 was at higher levels in the past when there were cooler temperatures in general, that would have clearly debunked the theory, at least unless science could then show what exact effects in the past lowered global temperature which are different now.

The ozone hole is a clear example of science identifying the problem and concerted action by man in response mostly solving the issue. Outlawing CFCs and the like means you no longer have the so damaging elements entering the atmosphere, and with the old ones deteriorating into harmless substances over time, you will see the gradual recovery of the ozone layer over time. You not understanding the science doesn't change this

In other words, you have shown yourself to be both ignorant and stupidly unwilling to be informed and learn. I would suggest you stop wasting out time with your posts on this subject on this forum until you take the time to educate yourself so that you have at least a reasonably informed opinion.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
18,540
5,642
136
That coupled with the leftist slant in P&N is why I don't frequent here anymore. I prefer to live in a world that isn't ending every day and just go about my business owning and driving what I please.
Are you on that other internet?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
I'm just glad all that ash is going to Europe and not America. I don't need any more problems.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY