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

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread - yeah shame on me.

Assuming that you are being serious here -

You are living proof as to why we should have a basic intelligence test to allow people to vote and as to why the progressive movement has such an easy following.

For your own sake, please study some science and economics.

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?
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
The subtopic addressed in that analogy is "middle ground". You are trying too hard.

Yes we can work together and cooperate as long as you don't attempt to comprimise away my individual liberty to own property. I'll have my V8 and 30" monitor and recycle, you can have your 3 cyl and 14" energy efficient monitor and recycle and we'll get along, ok?
Where did you get this monitor thing from? I'm sitting in front of two 24" flat panels. And who the hell wants an American V8 they're slow shit and can't turn corners... I think you've picked up a strange idea somewhere about some country in Europe, and have extended that cover all European people in all their variety, without ever actually going there.
So what's the problem? Why can't we get along and cooperate?
I thought we _were_ getting on it's you who seem to have a problem with us.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,271
116
106
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread - yeah shame on me.

Assuming that you are being serious here -

You are living proof as to why we should have a basic intelligence test to allow people to vote and as to why the progressive movement has such an easy following.

For your own sake, please study some science and economics.
lol, nice. I love the assumptions being made here.

What are you trying to dispute in my OP?
1. Volcano eruptions alter global temperatures, generally causing them to go down.
2. Halting travel for several days in areas that contain a huge portion of the world economy (England, France, Germany) will ultimately hurt the world economy.
3. Planes consume a lot of fuel, halting a huge portion of the worlds airlines will significantly reduce fuel consumption. Lower fuel consumption = lower CO2 output.

Or are you another one of those "Volcanos put out more CO2 then man ever will" people. Which has already been refuted a couple of times in this thread.

I laugh at you for thinking that I'm progressive.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
No, I laugh because you actually believe in MMGW. Just forget it.

lol, nice. I love the assumptions being made here.

What are you trying to dispute in my OP?
1. Volcano eruptions alter global temperatures, generally causing them to go down.
2. Halting travel for several days in areas that contain a huge portion of the world economy (England, France, Germany) will ultimately hurt the world economy.
3. Planes consume a lot of fuel, halting a huge portion of the worlds airlines will significantly reduce fuel consumption. Lower fuel consumption = lower CO2 output.

Or are you another one of those "Volcanos put out more CO2 then man ever will" people. Which has already been refuted a couple of times in this thread.

I laugh at you for thinking that I'm progressive.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,271
116
106
No, I laugh because you actually believe in MMGW. Just forget it.
Really? That's news to me.

I don't flat out disbelieve it, nor do I flat out believe it. I hold it as a possibility. I wouldn't advocate restrictive policies to stop it, though I'm all in favor of research to reduce CO2 output (to an extent, I'm not a big fan of solar or wind).

Make more assumptions, this is fun.
 

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,262
326
126
IThat 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.
I totally agree, I do the same. I go about my own business and drive what I want as well. My only reason for coming to these forums is to get my morning chuckle. My main gripe is how our government keeps intruding in my life. I'll give you an example of clothes washers. Our 11 year old clothes washer died last week, so we did some shopping. Everything is Energy Star, which is fine except the prices of these machines are outrageous. Because of goverment mandates, the price of these machines are nearly tripple of what they were a few years ago. Sure, they use less electricity and water, but if you look at the initial cost, and the cost of operation, it will take 20 years to break even on the cost of an older style washing machine. With the designed life of 10 years, you waste more money than you save, and waste more energy and materials recycling these expensive devices. I find as much logic in these government mandates as I would find if some agency decided to put emmission control devices on Volcanos, or decide to ban volcanos all together by filling the volcano's caldera with concrete to "cap" them.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Where did you get this monitor thing from? I'm sitting in front of two 24" flat panels. And who the hell wants an American V8 they're slow shit and can't turn corners... I think you've picked up a strange idea somewhere about some country in Europe, and have extended that cover all European people in all their variety, without ever actually going there.


I thought we _were_ getting on it's you who seem to have a problem with us.
Well if that isn't typical...

It always seems to be Europe (at least many places in Europe) that wants everyone else in the world to have smaller houses, smaller weaker cars that get 60+ mpg, etc. Meanwhile they build cars like SLRs and Veyrons over there that get what 6 mpg? Not to mention Ferraris, 500 HP BMWs, twin turbo Mercedes, etc. But us yanks are supposed to do the responsible thing and all drive 50 HP hybrids. Blow me.

Can't stand that every average yank over here has access to a 300+ HP family sedan he/she doesn't "neeeeeeed" ?

And since when is 600 HP slow and 1g not able to turn? (no it's not a Corvette) When is the last time you have been over here, the 70s?

Anyway lets "comprimise". I make due with one monitor, why do you need two? Isn't that like twice the CO2? Planet killer!

My biggest point and gripe here is that the root of the climate change debate is pretty much a wealth distribution envy wolf in sheeps clothing like most huge poltical divides ever are, regardless whether or not actual climate change is real and/or man made.

PS I'm all for safe and green nuclear power, but the same liberals over here don't want working solutions that allow people to keep their stuff, they just want to guilt trip or force successful white people to give up their stuff and aren't open to real and effective solutions.
 
Last edited:

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Well if that isn't typical...
It always seems to be Europe (at least many places in Europe) that wants everyone else in the world to have smaller houses, smaller weaker cars that get 60+ mpg, etc. Meanwhile they build cars like SLRs and Veyrons over there that get what 6 mpg? Not to mention Ferraris, 500 HP BMWs, twin turbo Mercedes, etc. But us yanks are supposed to do the responsible thing and all drive 50 HP hybrids.
Show me something official coming out of Europe which says we want Americans to have smaller houses. I have never heard/read anything about the size of American houses. Who would even think about something like that? I mean even if the EU was in the habit of dictating things to other nations - which it isn't - the US does enough of that - why the size of houses? Surely the size of a house alone has vey little to do with it's carbon footprint if that's what you mean - much more the materials it's built from and type of power station which supplies it power. Where did you get these ideas from?

And since when is 600 HP slow and 1g not able to turn? (no it's not a Corvette) When is the last time you have been over here, the 70s?
Horsepower does not equal speed round a track. You can get forklifts and mobile cranes with 500bhp - are they fast? This is the problem with American cars.

Anyway lets "comprimise". I make due with one monitor, why do you need two? Isn't that like twice the CO2? Planet killer!
Where did I say anything about the environment? Do you think you're speaking to someone else?

PS I'm all for safe and green nuclear power, but the same liberals over here don't want working solutions that allow people to keep their stuff, they just want to guilt trip or force successful white people to give up their stuff and aren't open to real and effective solutions.
What does liberalism have to do with environmentalism? If anything green policy is socialist/authoritarian.

You have some seriously weird ideas - even for this forum. I suggest less internet and more books.

/edit: woah! I missed this first time round:

successful white people
What the hell does skin color have to do with it? Are liberals never white? What color are they? What color are these poeople who are trying to take your 'stuff'?

I think we just got to the root of this guy's attitude!
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Show me something official coming out of Europe which says we want Americans to have smaller houses. I have never heard/read anything about the size of American houses. Who would even think about something like that? I mean even if the EU was in the habit of dictating things to other nations - which it isn't - the US does enough of that - why the size of houses? Surely the size of a house alone has vey little to do with it's carbon footprint if that's what you mean - much more the materials it's built from and type of power station which supplies it power. Where did you get these ideas from?
Its always "gaz guzzling SUVS using too much gas" or "houses bigger than you need that take too much energy to heat and cool" or "big screen TVs that use too much energy", etc. Why should Americans be forced to cut their CO2 emissions more than others? Because we consume more energy. Why? Because we have more cars, bigger houses, etc. If you feel that the USA should have to cut it's output more than others, it is purely a lash out against wealth.

Horsepower does not equal speed round a track. You can get forklifts and mobile cranes with 500bhp - are they fast? This is the problem with American cars.
I like that you ignored "and 1g". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh-4MSDbwFY Is the Ferrari better than a Cobra and every other car elsewhere in Europe? Of course it is. Is this video still sufficient to counter your cookie cutter "American cars can't turn" BS? Absolutely. PS this isn't even a Viper ACR, or Corvette ZR1, or Aero Ultimate, or Ford GT or anything other other sort of unrealistic or exceptional special case super car; just a run of the mill stock 2003 Cobra that can be had in the $20k range. You'd probably make your case comparing an M3 to a base 6 cyl 1982 Mustang wouldn't you? Are you one of those technologically and engineering illiterate who can't stand that the Corvette uses "pushrods and leaf springs"? Things have come a long way since 1982 bud. I also like how you have the balls to talk up high performance European cars when most Europeans (It's probably just leftist Britain I'm thinking of...) for whatever reason want desperately to see Americans driving around in pansy little 3 cyl hybrids, no sure why it's any of their business.

Where did I say anything about the environment? Do you think you're speaking to someone else?
It's implied, being that the main theme this thread has turned into here is cutting CO2 and saving the planet. Actually it never turned into, the original topic was that the volcano was good because it grounded planes and "saved CO2".

What does liberalism have to do with environmentalism? If anything green policy is socialist/authoritarian.
This is not your fault. The current day meaning of "liberal" in the USA has been butchered and is associated with modern day socialist/authoritarian leftist democrats and nanny state proponents and has nothing to do with the classic definition of liberal. Green policy here historically goes something like "if we can't ask people to buy smaller cars, we need to make laws and force them to do it or make it cost prohibitive." Yeah pretty authoritarian, and it's predominantly democrats/modern liberals behind that sort of "if we can't get them to, then force them to" politics.

/edit: woah! I missed this first time round:

What the hell does skin color have to do with it? Are liberals never white? What color are they? What color are these poeople who are trying to take your 'stuff'?

I think we just got to the root of this guy's attitude!
Liberals can be any color, and skin color does not matter IMO, but in the eyes of US liberals, being white straight and American is evil, even if the liberal him/herself is white. I threw out the term "brown people" because it's a popular term these days implying any place that doesn't have english speaking financially well off people (eg: anywhere but USA or Europe). There is a serious guilt complex amongst American liberals, who are ashamed of being white or rich, and rather than practice what they preach, they legislate away everyone elses income "for the common good" and to "save the world" in order to alleviate their own guilt. I see you sliding the race card out of your pocket... but you didn't even address the topic where this came into play: why is India and China allowed essentially infinite pollution while us successful Americans have to reduce our "carbon footprint", if not for the sole purpose of industrial and socioeconomic equalization? If we are really saving the world, shouldn't carbon budgets be imposed equally on everyone if all people are indeed equal regardless of income or skin color? Why do certain groups get exceptions? Liberals are all for suburan Americans to get rid of their SUVs, but it's ok to pollute and burn oil in India and China in order to "catch up" to the US, it's ok for us to support Mexico's citizens, and it's ok to send everything you own to Haiti... but don't you dare own an SUV you excessively lavish greedy American bastard!

The amount of hate and envy towards the US is pretty sick. Some of it may be well deserved, but quite a bit is simply envy and desire for everyone to be "equal". Not going to happen.
 
Last edited:

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
@exdeath

I tried to answer that, I really did, but there were just too many layers of dumb. Maybe when I've had a few beers I'll come back to it. At this point it seems like you're just arguing with yourself about global warming - a topic on which I have expressed no opinion.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
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?
That's not how it works.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
1
0
I think that it's a bad thing. Europeans are under so much pressure - Obama shitting on them, the Greece crisis, EU harmony cracking, etc. The world should be worried about their collective psychological state right now.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,169
5,236
126
I think that it's a bad thing. Europeans are under so much pressure - Obama shitting on them, the Greece crisis, EU harmony cracking, etc. The world should be worried about their collective psychological state right now.
Thats fair enough, most of us have been worrying about yours for years.:awe:
 

MrEgo

Senior member
Jan 17, 2003
874
0
76
Wow, we have a lot of climate experts in this thread. I also see some Economics experts, geologists.. we have all the experts in here!

As a matter of fact, there are experts in just about every thread I read in P&N.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
A Lot.

That's why the earth had huge rain forest reserves to deal with it.. But no Man went and fucked that up. We cut down most of earths natural air scrubbers and we are working on eliminating more and more.

As Professor John states, Probably enough for maybe a years worth of man made CO2. But the problem is, we can't control natural cycles of the planet CO2 production but do we have to Add to it? The volcano's in Hawaii make iceland look like a drop in the bucket unless it continues to erupt for the next million years.
Man contributes less than 3% of the total volume of co2 that is put into the atmosphere each year.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Wow, we have a lot of climate experts in this thread. I also see some Economics experts, geologists.. we have all the experts in here!

As a matter of fact, there are experts in just about every thread I read in P&N.
So, you are an expert on experts?
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,505
2
81
What are you trying to dispute in my OP?
1. Volcano eruptions alter global temperatures, generally causing them to go down.
Volcanic ash cool the planet down for a few years. Volcanoes spew lots of co2 though. Before humans came along, volcanoes were the only things re-inserting co2 into the environment. Without them, the earth would have frozen over like mars long ago.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,271
116
106
Volcanic ash cool the planet down for a few years. Volcanoes spew lots of co2 though. Before humans came along, volcanoes were the only things re-inserting co2 into the environment. Without them, the earth would have frozen over like mars long ago.
Compared to the CO2 Output of humans, it is minuscule (a couple of posts in this thread have addressed that)
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
My question is, if spewing ash into the atmosphere is a simple way to get global temperatures down, then why are we worrying about CO2?
 

Daedalus685

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,386
1
0
My question is, if spewing ash into the atmosphere is a simple way to get global temperatures down, then why are we worrying about CO2?
Umm... because CO2 causes retention of solar energy where as ash prevents it from getting here.. Both are serious problems though more or less opposite of each other. Particulate matter is a large concern for many folks in industry. In fact, many models suggest the only thing keeping warming from running away is the other forms of pollution we happen to be spewing out with it (at least historically, industry has done an alright job of filtering this now a days).
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Umm... because CO2 causes retention of solar energy where as ash prevents it from getting here.. Both are serious problems though more or less opposite of each other. Particulate matter is a large concern for many folks in industry. In fact, many models suggest the only thing keeping warming from running away is the other forms of pollution we happen to be spewing out with it (at least historically, industry has done an alright job of filtering this now a days).
So just pump a bunch of dust into the air and everything will be fine. Spewing ash into the air is natural. Volcanos do it right?
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
That's not how it works.
You're damn right that's not how it works. The "high" price of oil right now has nothing to do with demand, it's all speculation. So decreasing demand even further won't have any impact on price, there's plenty of excess capacity right now.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY