Impact of Eyjafjallajökull eruption on climate

I'm more worried about the impact of that word on my web browser. I think it caused my computer to over heat.

Tom

 

Well between this and the Chinese coal burning, we should be set for another full-blown ice age in about six months. And I was just getting my mind wrapped around a warm Alaska.

 

A lot of that article seemed kind of speculative me.

First, this eruption took place last year. If it were going to have a massive cooling effect, we'd have seen it.

Second, the volcanic eruptions (e.g., Pinatubo) that cooled the globe by half a degree were about two orders of magnitude larger than Eyjafjallajökull.

Third, Iceland has since had a different volcano erupt, Grimsvotn, and that one was 10x the size of Eyjafjallajökull. The only reason this didn't get as much news play was that the winds mostly pushed the ash off to places where it didn't cause a disruption. I think the recent South American one was also larger.

Fourth, attributing the one-year change in C02 uptake to the iron fertilization effects of this volcano seems completely un-physical to me. The ocean area affected by the ash cloud is far too small (take a look at a globe). At the minimum, you'd at least like to see an analysis of ocean photosynthesis to back that up. I couldn't find one that showed vastly increased photosynthesis in that area, but I couldn't find much in the way of useful maps period.

As with the cooling effects of Chinese coal burning, I don't think I'd bet on this hypothesis just yet. I'd like to see a little more in the way of hard data.

 

Well there might be a teachable moment here, but one can never be too sure. The earth's atmosphere (towards the bottom) has a couple of significant layers. The one we live in (and jets fly up towards the top of) is the troposphere. Next above is the stratosphere; mostly famous for ozone.

There is not very much matter exchange between these two layers. Tropo (below) is where most of the water (later to become rain) lives. Any volcanos that puff up that high (and not higher) get their matter rained out in a matter of days. Both Eyjaf-whatsit and the newer one in South America appear to fall in that category. In contrast, your Pinatubo and many others (but not lately) put out enough vertical energy to get their stuff into the stratosphere. Their effects ( mostly, apparently related to sulfate aerosol) can be larger and more long lasting. That was the 1992 thing.

The next big volcano, with enough upward push, could get into the stratosphere and do Pinatubo again. Or, maybe bigger. Depends upon what it throws. These more recent troposphere guys; not so much.

The main thing I take from this thread is that the global oceanic uptake of CO2 appears not to have declined lately. This is excellent news, because the ocean (along with some forests but we're not sure exactly where) are now trapping half the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. That's right, Mo Nature is still sucking up half those emissions. What a deal. And it's all for free.

(um, hope it lasts...)

The second thing I take is that Spidey appears convinced that global cooling is just around the corner. There are places where you can bet on that, and since 'concensus' runs the other way, it could be a big win.

So, if in the previous paragraph "appears" should have been "is", please by all means tell us how much you've put on the line. I'll cheer your winnings! I want you to he right. Honest.

 

No way DAS, I don't have a solid opinion on any of this, it is not my area of expertise. Sorry my posts are often heavy in skepticism and sarcasm on this subject but there is much conflicting opinions out there for the layman.

 

SO basically all we have to do is keep burning as much coal as possible and hope for more volcanic activity. I can see Sarah Palin's new mantra... Burn Baby Burn! lol

 

Good for the atmosphere, perhaps, but not so good for the oceans.

 

Hyo, the net uptake of CO2 by marine phytoplankton, followed by it sinking and getting buried into sediments is one thing. According to oceanographers this flux is about 1/4 of the global fossil fuel C flux.

Another thing is the dissolving of CO2 into sea water. Then it is an ion in solution, and (among other things) it reduces the pH of the water.

These are two different things, although they are very much inter-related. The plankton need the CO2 dissolved before they can consume it. But if the pH is too low, their growth is reduced. I realize that this multi-factor complicated stuff is not what makes a fascinating PC thread, but it seemed to be mixed in your response.

Plankton sinking carbon, as long as ocean pH allows them to continue, is a great thing for us, as CO2 emitters. All the more so because it's free free free!

Which brings us close enough to the iron fertilization thing. Plankton need that also. Many plankton need silica as well, and volcanic ash provides both. So, they are not without their benefits.

The jet streams are right at the top of the troposphere, and still effectively mixing downward. Go any higher and you are in the stratosphere, where persistence times of particles increases rapidly.

Perhaps of interest, the top of the troposphere is much lower at high latitudes, like where these two recent volcanos have popped. Near the equator the troposphere is much taller. And warmer, and more humid, and more conducive to formation of tall tall clouds that perform a lot of the mixing functions.

F8L, in the long view, the earth would be DOOMED without volcanic eruptions. Our atmosphere is continually being eroded (from the top) by solar winds. Without replenishment of volatiles, we 'do a Mars'. If you saw "Total Recall', you know how yucky that would be

All very fascinating for some of us at least. You see that I can scarcely resist the temptation to give the lectures.

 

Indeed. I enjoy reading your posts because you tend to take an unbiased approach.

 

Look, I am in this to understand it better. If following the fossil-C-burning path does not bite, that would be great. Especially because none of the big players are very interested in less burning.

At the risk of derailing this volcano thread, how about if we bet with real money whether the next 10 years will be hotter than the previous 10? Which T record should be used can be discussed. Whether a new 'upwardly mobile" volcano would cancel the play can be discussed. Odds?

Anyone want to play? I expect hotter, but would be very happy to lose USD$100 because it would allow us (y'know, all the people of the earth) to dibble about for a few more years without really facing up to reduced-C economy/lifestyles.

New thread needed, and perhaps Danny doesn't wish us to play such games within his world.

But there it is. I fully expect to still be studying the earth system 10 years hence. 20 years? heck I do not know. But I'd be very happy to take your money after 10. You take mine? Like I said, even better,

 

Well said as usual. Sorry, not the betting type but with the trend in place it is probably a safe bet. How high? I would also say that there will likely be more natural disasters in the future as well and not just atmospheric.
Anyway, got to run and build my shelter.

 

You forgot to mention the broken sun spot cycle as further "proof" of ice age coming.

 

Not sure why you would be happy in this scenario. Seems to me that the eventual total harm is based on total CO2 in the atmosphere, not the temperature rise over the short term.

 

We all have our own definitions of fascinating.

And yes, CO2 in sea water was part of my response. From what I've learned watching educational programs, ocean acidification is a serious issue that threatens coral reefs, among other things. From one perspective, it's wonderful that life is so robust that checks and balances act to maintain equilibrium. From another perspective, human activities are causing planetary changes on the scale of mass extinction events. As you say, let's hope the CO2 absorption lasts.....

 

It the next decade is not warmer than the last, it could mean that the short-term sensitivity to CO2 is less than 3 oC per doubling. Or, it could mean that a larger proportion of heat is being transferred to the oceans. Either would be good news.

On the other hand, observed decadal warming could break the political-will logjam and the low-C energy economy could accelerate. Hey it could, y'know? I operate on the assumption that we are basically not knuckleheads, and that we will eventually recognize a clear and present danger.

Meanwhile I am one of the CO2 watchers, downloading new data as they are presented at the Scripps site. Because the fossil C burn flux is pretty well known, changes in the Scripps data over time point to changes in biological net C uptake at land and sea. As half the C burn is being sequestered (for free!!) this seems worth watching.

 

I like your optimism.

Some people seem quite aware of an immediate threat, while others do whatever they can to deny it. When our economic system is based on ignoring environmental costs, and the status quo is becoming ever more entrenched, I have my doubts that humanity will survive another millennia on this ark of life known as spaceship earth. Time will tell.