Having Just Watched The Film 'Dont Look...
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Global Warming
A lot has been said about man-made climate change, need for renewable energy sources, etc. etc. But scientists are predicting that there could be a volcanic super-eruption at Yellowstone in the USA (and who knows, possibly elsewhere) in the short to medium term. Such events would throw the whole climate out of kilter for years & negate any efforts we might make towards limiting emissions. Should we just not bother?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by davebro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Firstly, the "short to medium term" is so vague as to be meaningless -- it's likely that Yellowstone isn't really due an eruption for centuries. Secondly, regardless of whether it erupts tomorrow or not, we can certainly the things that *are* under our control, ie certainly make sure we're doing our best not to wreck the planet in any of a number of ways.
// "Yellowstone isn't really due an eruption for centuries."//
I thought these things cdnt be predicted ( mount st Helens etc)
(Mount Helens is a mountain that unexpectedly exploded and put a trilliom tons of dust into the atmosphere) - just in case it invokes an volcanic avalanche of hot - foo what dat dens - or if the one-line merchants think there is more that one St Helen - "what dey den?"
I thought these things cdnt be predicted ( mount st Helens etc)
(Mount Helens is a mountain that unexpectedly exploded and put a trilliom tons of dust into the atmosphere) - just in case it invokes an volcanic avalanche of hot - foo what dat dens - or if the one-line merchants think there is more that one St Helen - "what dey den?"
The climate has been changing ever since records began, and will continue to change. The predictions of the world boiling over and suchlike have been extended more times than we can remember. And yes, one volcano could change the climate, potentially. Such is the power of nature (some would say God) versus the power of man.
You're peeing in the wind, webbo (as are the people who believe they can control the climate).
Mankind's contribution to global emissions is two pen'worth of nothing and the UK's contribution is two pen'worth of that.
All this fannying about will come at a massive cost, cause massive inconvenience and disruption and will achieve sod all (or slightly less than that).
Mankind's contribution to global emissions is two pen'worth of nothing and the UK's contribution is two pen'worth of that.
All this fannying about will come at a massive cost, cause massive inconvenience and disruption and will achieve sod all (or slightly less than that).
Dave, yes there is a supercauldron there and the last time it went up the ash covered from near Chicago down to Houston. The good news is that it won't happen for about 350k years!
When Krakatoa went up, there was a huge step backwards in climate warming, all those cards of the Thames etc freezing over. Krakatoa was a medium-large volcano.....
When Krakatoa went up, there was a huge step backwards in climate warming, all those cards of the Thames etc freezing over. Krakatoa was a medium-large volcano.....
We better hope this one doesn't go up again, 18 hundred and frozen to death or the year without summer 1816, the largest volcanic eruption ever recorded in history.
Mount Tombora 1815
https:/
Mount Tombora 1815
https:/
-- answer removed --
You do realise that it's possible for something to be extremely important even if it's only a few percent of the total picture? There is literally no question whatsoever that the Sun, coupled with the existence of an atmosphere at all, are the primary drivers for Earth's climate. But within that there is scope for huge variation from relatively small changes. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the region of 0.04% of the total, but it still makes a significant difference to Climate -- indeed, without any C02 at all, the Earth's average temperature would be somewhere close to freezing point, as opposed to 14 degrees or so. Sure, without the Sun the Earth's temperature would soon plummet to -100°C degree or lower and we'd all die in short order, but that's not going to happen and so isn't the issue. There's a baseline, or a reliable natural variation, and there is a measurable human impact on top of that.
Alternative explanation: people with a better understanding of how science works in general, along with a better grasp on the huge body of literature from the last century that establishes a measurable link between human activity and CO2 levels, and between C02 levels and global average temperatures.
How's that logic for you?
How's that logic for you?
