Rigorous winter 2011, volcanic winter?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Rigorous winter 2011, volcanic winter?




by Christophe » 28/12/10, 15:20

Is there a possible link between the harshness of winter and the Icelandic volcano of spring? Remember when airports were also blocked ....

https://www.econologie.com/forums/demain-plu ... t9602.html

There may be no link? That all the dust has already fallen or that its impact is negligible?

According to wiki
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiver_volcanique we have :

1991, Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines [edit]

More recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, another stratovolcano in the Philippines, is chilling global temperatures for 2 at 3, interrupting the global warming trend noted since 1970.


It remains to know the ash volumes and respective emissions of 2 eruptions ... and we will have an answer element ...

ps: read also https://www.econologie.com/forums/gulf-strea ... 10281.html
Last edited by Christophe the 28 / 12 / 10, 15: 46, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 28/12/10, 15:28

Christophe wrote:It remains to know the ash volumes and respective emissions of 2 eruptions ... and we will have an answer element ...


There is already the info for the 1er: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo#I ... at_mondial

Volcanoes in particular discharge megatonnes of sulfur dioxide. It reacts with water to form sulfuric acid aerosols that have spread throughout the stratosphere within one year of eruption. This addition of aerosols into the stratosphere is the largest since the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, with a total estimated at 17 million tons of sulfur dioxide. This is the largest quantity ever recorded by modern instruments [17].


And for the 2ieme: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89rupt ... ll_en_2010

A study carried out on the materials emitted by Eyjafjöll during the 72 first hours of the second eruptive phase show that 140 million cubic meters of tephras were rejected, 10 concerning the material carried by the jökulhlaups and being found in the glacial lake of Gígjökull, 30 concern the fallout in and around the depressions in the glacier while 100 million cubic meters were blown away by the winds in the volcanic plume [5 ]. These volumes of materials released in three days are to be compared to the 4 million cubic meters of tephras emitted during the previous eruption but over more than a year [4]. This volume of 140 million cubic meters of uncompacted tephras corresponding to a volume of 70 to 80 million cubic meters of magma, the flow during the first 72 hours of the eruption is estimated at 300 m3⋅s-1 or 750 tons ⋅s-1 [5].


Uh ... 300 m3 = 750 Tons is 2.5 Tons / m3 ... so we have 140 * 2.5 = 350 Million Tons in 72 h of http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A9phra (volcanic dust)

It's probably not the same composition as the pinatubo but it is 20 times more mass just for 72h!


Tell me that I'm wrong ...

Can we talk about a small volcanic winter?
Last edited by Christophe the 28 / 12 / 10, 15: 54, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Forhorse
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2485
Registration: 27/10/09, 08:19
Location: Perche Ornais
x 359




by Forhorse » 28/12/10, 15:54

In any case we have already had a summer not very hot (no heat this summer) and the prevailing wind since spring is the north wind.
I would not be surprised if this famous volcano had something to see.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 28/12/10, 15:56

Uh, if in Belgium, north of France, in July it was very hot, the heatwave at the beginning of the month.
The month of August, from 10 was completely rotten by cons ...

Some Mediterranean countries are currently experiencing heat waves: would the polar wind sweeping Europe bring tropical winds from Africa?

It is necessary that one estimates more in details the volumes and composition of the ashes of the volcano to be able to advance. If possible with official sources off wiki.

ps: nonetheless, it is a parade against warming, it would suffice to force the eruptions of a few "well chosen and placed" volcanoes ... a method of forcing remains to be found ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 28/12/10, 19:29

Not easy to find info on the subject, but I found this:

Icelandic volcano: towards a few years of cooling of Europe?

Patrick Allard, geologist:

"(...) It is the opposite of the greenhouse effect: it lowers the temperature on the ground and it heats the upper atmosphere. Large volcanic eruptions thwart global warming (...)


and on : http://www.lejdd.fr/International/Europ ... ue-186624/

A climate impact on Europe?

What are the consequences on the climate?


If the eruption continues and if it increases in intensity, which is not excluded, it is possible that the ashes are ejected at higher altitudes, beyond 15 km, in the stratosphere. There, there are strong winds, jet currents, which can disperse the particles in a much larger area. They would stay in the air much longer and the particles could have a long-lasting effect on the temperature. This is the opposite of the greenhouse effect: it lowers the temperature on the ground and it warms the upper atmosphere. Large volcanic eruptions thwart global warming. From this point of view, they are beneficial.

In 1783, a volcanic eruption in Iceland had caused great famines in Europe. Can the current phenomenon create such difficulties?

Indeed, after the fall of the temperatures and the bad harvests due to the eruption of Laki, monstrous famines took place in Iceland, killing 10.000 people. This eruption was very important and lasted eight months. Honestly, we can not exclude that the current eruption becomes very big. It is not impossible that a large reservoir of magma was put in place and that the eruption then lasts a long time. This could have a climatic impact on Europe. It can be an important event beyond the economic consequences of the last two days. We can not know in advance.


The article dates from April 16. The eruption was officially considered finished on ... 27 October 2010 is more than 6 months after the writing of the article. According to wiki! (Thanks the shits to keep us informed):

The Eruption of Eyjafjöll in 2010 is a volcanic eruption that began the 20 March 2010 on the Eyjafjöll, a volcano in southern Iceland and ended the 27 October 2010 [1
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 28/12/10, 19:40

Much more plausible than the history of Gulf Stream. It must have released considerable volumes for six months.

Report of cause and effect already last summer as said above ...

We will apply the polluter pays principle! Iceland at the checkout !!! : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/12/10, 20:05

Christophe wrote:ps: nonetheless, it is a parade against warming, it would suffice to force the eruptions of a few "well chosen and placed" volcanoes ... a method of forcing remains to be found ...


The studies carried out following the eruption of Pinatubo actually concluded that this kind of "measures" could be put in place to counteract the greenhouse effect (geoengineering).

On the other hand, awakened by a volcano, does not seem to me to be a good idea ... but it may not be that impossible, the possibility of "unlocking" seismic faults is already a reality!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 28/12/10, 21:26

Obamot wrote:Iceland at the checkout !!! : Mrgreen:


Too late the banksters have already ruined it ... : Evil:

sen-no-sen, to wake up a volcano, apart from the well-placed nuclear charge (history of not polluting too much in radioelements), well I do not see too much ... should perhaps ask BP ... now that they are "experts" in deep drilling ... : Mrgreen:

I'm sure we could do it if we wanted; the Russians did a good job of nuclear earthworks in the 60 years ... and France is an expert in underground testing ...

As for geoengineering, there was a ridiculous article from S&V that talked about re-spawning sulfur with planes ...: Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

2 more serious articles:

https://www.econologie.com/refroidir-la- ... -3412.html
https://www.econologie.com/la-geoingenie ... -3413.html

I did not find a subject on the forum On the other hand... : Idea:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 28/12/10, 22:03

Then there is nothing easier, it would be enough to raise the content of kerosene suffers no? They would kill two birds with one stone.

So, air travel would become econological? : Mrgreen:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 29/12/10, 14:47

Uh must see but it would surprise me that this is enough!

A table corner calculation:
- Air traffic = 3% of oil consumption, let's say 5%.
- 90 Million barrels a day at 127 kg the barrel ca is 11 million tons
- It is assumed that 1% of the oil mass is converted to sulfur dioxide, which, I think, is far from being the case (see kérosen fuel standards)

We would have: 11 * 0.05 * 0.01 = 0.0055 million tons of sulfur per day over one year: 0.0055 * 365 = 2 million tons of SO2 / year against 17 in a few days for the pinatubo ...

It's not nothing, but probably not enough to have an impact on the climate .... BUT:

A "study" had shown that changes in the T ° for the day of 11/09/01 when all the planes were nailed to the ground: there was 1 ° C difference but I no longer remember in what direction? I had read 2 contradictory versions (1 ° less greenhouse effect = -1 ° C, 2 ° less particles / sulfur = + 1 ° C), remind me more which one was "the" good ... Help.

ps: I found the subject on geoengineering, I knew we had one! https://www.econologie.com/forums/refroidir- ... t2770.html
we continue down on this subject please
Last edited by Christophe the 29 / 12 / 10, 16: 32, 1 edited once.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 123 guests