Global Warming Twist

Volcanic eruptions can have two effects on global warming, one adds to the effect by Carbon Dioxide emissions, one subtracts from the effect by dust particles in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight. Carbon Dioxide emissions from all the volcanoes in the world account for less than 1% of yearly carbon emissions, so a gigantic volacanic eruption might boost that to 2%, not much impact there. The dust of a large eruption can alter climate, but only for a year or two at the most and only slightly. There's only so much dust an exploding volcanoe (and it would have to explode) can put in the atmosphere. Basically grinding a half a mountain to dust and then spreading the dust over the surface of the planet (in the atmosphere). That dust gets stretched pretty thin, the Earth is a big place.

So to answer your question, yes a volcanoe can have an effect on global warming, but it would be a small and very short effect.

Addendum to my last comment

I hope one day I will figure out when I should use effect and when I should use affect, but I wouldn't bet on it.

If you do let me know. Last time I tried to determine that it seemed like what was defined was so ambiguous as to be indeterminate. I usually go with whichever one "sounds" the best in the context of the surrounding words. Only somewhat less ambiguous is insure vs. ensure.

Where is spelling check on this site? I'm such a lousy speller , I'm so used to having it I find myself using ebonics .Could you guy's affect that, there must be a special effect we could apply .

Well it has to do with the context of how it is used. For example:

Your bad grammar will affect how others perceive you.

Bad grammar, in general, has a negative effect on people's opinion of the writer.

I the first case the verb precedes the word 'affect'. The latter case has an adjective (if memory serves). When you do something to something or someone you affect them in some way. The something that is done is the effect of that action. Does that make sense?

I was always taught that affect is a verb and effect is a noun. That sometimes helps me decide which to use. Regarding global warming; as the temperature rises, the icecaps melt, the ocean levels rise, the exposed land mass decreases, the energy absorbed from the sun decreases, will there be a self limiting effect?

Think about it, global warming will ultimately increase from the energy released by an eruption after the brief cooldown from any shade the atmospheric dust provides settles. Also if you melt the polar ice caps, the ocean will absorb more radiant energy from the sun where reflective ice once existed. We are doomed!

"Also if you melt the polar ice caps, the ocean will absorb more radiant energy from the sun where reflective ice once existed."

How has "reflective ice" had an significant effect on the earth's temperature? Permanent ice forms at the poles because there is so little solar energy received at the poles that the termperature remains low year round. Due to the angle of incidence of solar radiation the energy density is quite low at the poles, whereas it is quite high at the equator, which is consequently warm year round, except at extreme elevations. Therefore, "reflective ice" at the poles cannot have much effect on the earth's average temperature.

That is not to say that global warming cannot cause the ice caps to melt, it can. The largest concern with ice caps melting, besides flooding of coastal areas, is that the colder water pouring into the oceans, particularly the Atlantic, will disrupt normal thermal currents causing severe, although possibly only regional, climactic changes. For example, Europe may no longer be warmed by the Gulf Stream, resulting in much harsher winters and shorter growing seasons.

Will the oceans really "absorb more radient" energy from the sun where reflective ice once existed"? Doubtful.

Does Global Warming exist anyway? Probably.

Are we doomed? Possibly.

Can we do anything about it? Again, possibly. But the "Global Warming" phenomena is so multi-faceted it will take major efforts by all nations of the world and in many industries and cultures to have a major effect. There is a lot of cultural and economic "momentum" pushing us in that direction. We need major technological, political, and financial change to affect the outcome.

On the other hand, a major impact from a Giant Asteroid impacting the other would cause enough decrease in sunlight for enough years to cause extinction of most species on earth, including, and especially, mankind.

Which is a greater threat? One whose consequences are an extremely long time away, but more sure to happen, or one which statistically is not likely to happen, but if it did, would be totally and immediately devastating?

Should we put more resources into Asteroid Detection and Deflection, or Greenhouse Gas Reduction?

Thanks for the responses. I'll try the noun / verb thing, only because it sounds easy to remember.

Okay, I am confused about ice melt and its effect on sea levels. Or put it this way; what affect will melting all ice on Earth have on sea levels?

First, melting artic ice should be a no-change in level since it is already afloat and we all know that ice inside a drinking glass does not change the level of liquid in a glass after it melts. However, the South Pole is a land mass and it does contain surface water in the form of ice. Furthermore, that water is classified as fresh water since its source has been in the form of precipitation and hence, it is salt-free.

Only 3% of the Earth's water is classified as fresh water and two thirds of that is frozen at the poles and mountain tops, etc.

So if all the ice would melt it would only add at most 2% to the total salt-water volume on Earth. However, the seas are supposed to rise hundreds of feet. That seems like more than 2% of the volume of the oceans. I know that parts of the oceans are deep, but a 100 foot rise in elevation of sea level would completely flood much of the planet (clearly much of Ohio would be under) and that seems far fetched to me.

So, what am I missing here?

Great question. I agree that the arctic polar ice cap won't raise the level much. Mostly really it depends on Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets / glaciers. From a website I'll provide at bottum, there is roughly 30 million cubic kilometers of "grounded" ice on the planet. Since ice has a density of .92 and water has a density of 1.0, 30 million cubic kilometers of ice becomes 27.6 cubic km of water when the ice is melted. So now we know the total water to be added. Next we need to figure out the amount of area we will spread it out over to figure out the net rise in sea levels.

So the Earth has a total surface area of 510,066,000 sq km. Oceans account for 335,258,000 sq km of that surface area. So if all the ice melted and 27.6 cubic kilometers of water was spread out over 335 million square kilometers of ocean, the result would be a .08 km rise in sea levels. That's a 262 foot rise in sea levels.

Of course it's not that simple, but it gets us in the ballpark. The water won't be spread out equally, it will tend towards the equator because of the rotation of the Earth. We are also neglecting the unfreezing of tundras, which acually lower sea levels (since ice takes up more volume than water). Still, if it all melts, there will be at least a 200 foot rise in sea levels.

oops, forgot to list my sources:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterw orld.html

http://www.solcomhouse.com/earth.html

Well, it still is a large ball park! As you said, it is not so simple. The rise in sea levels needs to consider the area that would be flooded and the volume to flood that area, so the actual rise would indeed be less. At least I see where the numbers come from, but they are too simple and do not reflect reality for the reasons we both cited.

It is not that simple. Effect is usually a noun, but can be a verb, as in "We will effect a solution". Affect is usually a verb, but can be a noun, mainly as a psychological term, as in "The patients showed perfectly normal reactions and affects".

Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say:

Main Entry: 2effect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to cause to come into being
2 a : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles : ACCOMPLISH b : to put into operation
synonym see PERFORM
usage Effect and affect are often confused because of their similar spelling and pronunciation. The verb 2affect usually has to do with pretense . The more common 3affect denotes having an effect or influence . The verb effect goes beyond mere influence; it refers to actual achievement of a final result . The uncommon noun affect, which has a meaning relating to psychology, is also sometimes mistakenly used for the very common effect. In ordinary use, the noun you will want is effect .

That's good to know. So if it's a noun, I'll use effect, if it's a verb I'll flip a coin, unless it's about psychology, then I'll use affect.

I may just pretend affect doesn't exist and always use effect.

Roger,

Be careful, if you effect that choice, it may affect how people evaluate your work, with one possible effect being the affection you might otherwise feel for them, with a resulting affect in your demeanor and consquent effect on people's attitudes toward you.

(grin)

Lets go back to talking about Global Warming, that seems like an easier issue with less at stake.

I did. See my "Another twist" posting!

The effects would be short-lived, but potentially severe. In fact, it's happened before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Volcanos can also put off sulfur dioxide which, when combined with water vapor, makes a nice heat reflector in the atmosphere to block the sun's rays. Still, it is short lived in geologic terms.

A few years ago scientists, (liberal) politicians, and environmentalists were concerned about a large and increasing "hole in the ozone layer" caused, it seemed, primarily by escaping CFC gases from industries, aerosol cans, and old appliances like referigerators, freezers, and air conditioners. Ozone, we were told, was necessary to protect life on earth (plant and animal) from damaging solar radiation. OK, this was an observable, measurable, easily explainable phenomena. People, industries, and governments responded by using less aerosol and refrigerants with CFC. Has the problem abated? Assumably so, since we do not hear anything about it anymore.

Why hasn't there been the same response to what appears to be another looming crisis, Global Warming? Is it because the problem is too complex? Is it because scientists have a more difficult time making their case? Is it because the probable effects are so far off in the future that we "assume" a solution is forthcoming? Is a solution forthcoming?

These are complex issues, and complicating them are short-term crises, like gas and oil prices, political crises effecting energy production and environmental co-operation, cultural biases and long-standing ethnic prejudices.

Where do we best invest our limited resources as a nation, and as a planet?

Could the answer really be very simple, education? We need to fix the problems in our education system, not just throw money at it. Long-term problems require long-term solutions and major leaps in technology. Where are the decision makers, researchers, and designers of tomorrow? Today's students seem to care more about entertainment, gaming and cheat codes, then on history, politics, and economics or science, technology, and engineering.

Have we, as parents of the next generation created this Monster or do we point the finger of blame at the Government. But then, at least here in the U.S., we say that we have "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People," so aren't we really point our own fingers back at ourselves? Then again, do the Populists, Conspiracy Theorists, and others who say National and World Governments are controlled by a few powerful cliques have a point, and we can blame THEM?

I want answers! I don't have any myself! (grin)

Re: ozone hole - it's still there. It turns out to be directly over the world's largest active volcano, Mt Erebus. It was a crock.