Neat image from NOAA.


Sulfur Dioxide Plume from Iceland Volcano
An eruption of a volcano beneath Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull glacier on Wednesday has released a plume of smoke creating hazards for European air travel. The volcanic plume, shown here using sulfur dioxide concentration data from the NASA Aura/OMI satellite sensor, contains smoke, ash, and other components that can cause aircraft jet engines to fail. The OMI sensor can distinguish the differences between cloud, smoke, dust, ozone and other aerosols, and is important in Earth observations for aviation safety.

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/images/low_resolution/393_OMI-SO2-20100415close-logo.jpg

"this is like totally annoying!"...(with best self center clueless brat voice)
Aside from the toxic cloud of sulfur dioxide.

I can only imagine what it is going to be like hear the next time a Cascade volcano erupts and throws everything out of whack in the Lower 48.

Another cool image:

http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/c/c4/Volcano2010417.jpg

Man, I wonder how many carbon credits it would take to negate the effects of this baby?! :LolLolLol

http://metoffice.com/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271698103.png

The MotoGP race at Motegi Japan has been postponed from next weekend to October. Most of the teams couldn't guarantee the ability to get their equipment out of the UK, Spain or Italy in time to guarantee the race weekend. During the F1 broadcast yeasterday they were discussing the problems of heading back from Shanghai, they have been in the southern hemisphere (Melbourne and Kuala Lumpur) and the Far East for about 6 weeks. Most of the teams are based in the UK.

History shows that each time Eyja erupted, Katla also erupted thereafter. It is only a matter of time when Katla finally blow. This is not a joke. We'll be seeing very long and harsh winter that will result having the Mississippi river freeze over with ice in the gulf.

History shows that each time Eyja erupted, Katla also erupted thereafter. It is only a matter of time when Katla finally blow. This is not a joke. We'll be seeing very long and harsh winter that will result having the Mississippi river freeze over with ice in the gulf.

Well, I read that Katla has also erupted following the first eruption and that she is a lot bigger and badder. I don't know about the Mississippi River, though.

I can only imagine what it is going to be like hear the next time a Cascade volcano erupts and throws everything out of whack in the Lower 48.

Another cool image:

http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/c/c4/Volcano2010417.jpg

Not likely. Mount Saint Helens caused few problems. The main issue here has been that the glaciers have been melting and adding fuel to the fire, so to speak, causing massive amounts of ash going into the air.

Not likely. Mount Saint Helens caused few problems. The main issue here has been that the glaciers have been melting and adding fuel to the fire, so to speak, causing massive amounts of ash going into the air.

It depends on which volcano erupts next. Most likely would St. Helens again. If Rainier went next, I would imagine it would be a pretty powerful eruption. Also need to keep in mine that since 1980, air traffic is up significantly today. Of course it will all come down to the winds and the size of the eruption on how much of an impact anything has.

Man, I wonder how many carbon credits it would take to negate the effects of this baby?! :LolLolLol


Actually outside the silica, and the fluoride that can kill plants and animals.
They think it would cause cooler temps.

A LOT of people were predicting a "nuclear" winter after the oil wells in Kuwait were put ablaze. Didn't happen though. :beaten_fi

A LOT of people were predicting a "nuclear" winter after the oil wells in Kuwait were put ablaze. Didn't happen though. :beaten_fi

True.
But being on the ground myself, I would have taken it.

Some amazing photos from the Big Picture can be found here: Iceland's disruptive volcano - The Big Picture - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/icelands_disruptive_volcano.html)

Here's one of my favorites.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/1004/icevolcano_fulle.jpg

More pics (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1268225/Iceland-volcano-Northern-Lights-appear-ash-plume.html)

A LOT of people were predicting a "nuclear" winter after the oil wells in Kuwait were put ablaze. Didn't happen though. :beaten_fi

I don't think oil wells burning can match the potential power of a volcano.

I don't think oil wells burning can match the potential power of a volcano.

Nuclear winter didn't happen after Kuwait but it wasn't one well or a dozen. It was nearly 800.

"It was soon estimated that six million barrels of oil were burning per day circa March 1991 in Kuwait, and the initial assessment of the environmental impact was staggering. Concerns ranged from across a wide variety of environmental disasters. The amount of soot generated was one such cause of concern, as one gram of soot can block out two-thirds of the light falling over an area of eight to ten square meters. Accordingly, scientists calculated that the release of two million barrels of oil per day could generate a plume of smoke and soot which would cover an area of half of the United States. Weather patterns and climactic conditions could have carried such a plume great distances so as to severely hamper agricultural production in remote areas of the world."

Unlike a volcano which can provide great benefits to the growing of crops and other plants, the oil well destruction was an ecological disaster intentionally created by Hussein.

Nuclear winter didn't happen after Kuwait but it wasn't one well or a dozen. It was nearly 800.

"It was soon estimated that six million barrels of oil were burning per day circa March 1991 in Kuwait, and the initial assessment of the environmental impact was staggering. Concerns ranged from across a wide variety of environmental disasters. The amount of soot generated was one such cause of concern, as one gram of soot can block out two-thirds of the light falling over an area of eight to ten square meters. Accordingly, scientists calculated that the release of two million barrels of oil per day could generate a plume of smoke and soot which would cover an area of half of the United States. Weather patterns and climactic conditions could have carried such a plume great distances so as to severely hamper agricultural production in remote areas of the world."

Unlike a volcano which can provide great benefits to the growing of crops and other plants, the oil well destruction was an ecological disaster intentionally created by Hussein.

Not really sure what point your trying to make. We all agree that 800 burning oil wells is bad. Volcanoes are capable of impacting the planet far worse than 800 burning oil wells. Yes, Volcanoes provide benefit to crops and plants, but not before shorting growing seasons for a couple of years.

That being said I'm not sure any volcano in Iceland will significantly impact Earth's temperatures.

From the standpoint of carbon emissions - the volcanic eruption helped:

Iceland volcano causes fall in carbon emissions as eruption grounds aircraft | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions)

Not really sure what point your trying to make. We all agree that 800 burning oil wells is bad. Volcanoes are capable of impacting the planet far worse than 800 burning oil wells. Yes, Volcanoes provide benefit to crops and plants, but not before shorting growing seasons for a couple of years.

That being said I'm not sure any volcano in Iceland will significantly impact Earth's temperatures.

It appeard you were trying to insinuate that there was only one burning well in Kuwait. If I misinterpreted, my bad. If nothing else, this bit shows how much damage Saddam Hussein did to the environment of the Persian Gulf region when he was forced out of Kuwait.

When I was a kid, once in a while a well would blow out somewhere and it was kind of a spectacle until it was capped. Think about the same thing with 800 wells burning millions of barrels of oil a day just because Hussein was such an ***.

It depends on which volcano erupts next. Most likely would St. Helens again. If Rainier went next, I would imagine it would be a pretty powerful eruption. Also need to keep in mine that since 1980, air traffic is up significantly today. Of course it will all come down to the winds and the size of the eruption on how much of an impact anything has.

It's still unlikely to cause the same kind of widespread problems because of the lack of glaciers which are causing this problem in Iceland.

It's still unlikely to cause the same kind of widespread problems because of the lack of glaciers which are causing this problem in Iceland.

Well both Helens and Rainier have glaciers, Rainier more so I think. However, they definitely aren't totally iced over like most of the Icelandic volcanoes.

It's still unlikely to cause the same kind of widespread problems because of the lack of glaciers which are causing this problem in Iceland.

This isnt because of glaciers being close to the volcano...its volcanic ash, not steam.

This isnt because of glaciers being close to the volcano...its volcanic ash, not steam.

You're totally wrong. This has nothing to do with steam. It has to do with the glaciers melting and falling into the volcano causing massive amounts of ash to rise. You evidently weren't paying much attention to the news reports that said exactly that. They said without the glaciers, the amount of ash would have been minimal compared to what it has been.

You people are kidding me! This stuff has been happening since the beginning of time. What's up with the "doom and gloom"? What if the world goes up the stove pipe? Are you gonna tell the "void" I told you so?...

You people are kidding me! This stuff has been happening since the beginning of time. What's up with the "doom and gloom"? What if the world goes up the stove pipe? Are you gonna tell the "void" I told you so?...

Not sure it is really doom and gloom. I personally look at it as a natural cycle of how things work. If a temperature change in the global climate causes ice to melt and start disturbing things below the surface...then it would be a safe bet that it has happened before. The Earth is how many billions of years old? There definitely could have been a species that came before us that overpopulated and impacted global climate in such a way that it caused the globe to go into reboot mode. Not say that is the case, just that nothing should be considered impossible. The climate and function of our blue marble is far more complex than we'll understand anytime soon.

For all we know Yellowstone may have enough and blow tomorrow. Or Valles in New Mexico could decide to reactivate. Things happen, the planet is ever evolving. We are just the current nuisance it has to put up with. :-P

You're totally wrong. This has nothing to do with steam. It has to do with the glaciers melting and falling into the volcano causing massive amounts of ash to rise. You evidently weren't paying much attention to the news reports that said exactly that. They said without the glaciers, the amount of ash would have been minimal compared to what it has been.

No I'm right, you just think there's one answer.

Volcanic ash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_ash)


There are three mechanisms of volcanic ash formation:
Gas release under decompression causing magmatic eruptions;
Thermal contraction from chilling on contact with water causing phreatomagmatic eruptions
Ejection of entrained particles during steam eruptions causing phreatic eruptions. The violent nature of volcanic eruptions involving steam results in the magma and solid rock surrounding the vent being torn into particles of clay to sand size.

If a volcanic eruption occurs beneath glacial ice, cold water from melted ice chills the lava quickly and fragments it into glass, creating small glass particles that get carried into the eruption plume. This can create a glass-rich plume in the upper atmosphere which is particularly hazardous to aircraft

Not sure it is really doom and gloom. I personally look at it as a natural cycle of how things work. If a temperature change in the global climate causes ice to melt and start disturbing things below the surface...then it would be a safe bet that it has happened before. The Earth is how many billions of years old? There definitely could have been a species that came before us that overpopulated and impacted global climate in such a way that it caused the globe to go into reboot mode. Not say that is the case, just that nothing should be considered impossible. The climate and function of our blue marble is far more complex than we'll understand anytime soon.

For all we know Yellowstone may have enough and blow tomorrow. Or Valles in New Mexico could decide to reactivate. Things happen, the planet is ever evolving. We are just the current nuisance it has to put up with. :-P

Pretty well said..But doint leave out the "void".

No I'm right, you just think there's one answer.

Volcanic ash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_ash)


There are three mechanisms of volcanic ash formation:
Gas release under decompression causing magmatic eruptions;
Thermal contraction from chilling on contact with water causing phreatomagmatic eruptions
Ejection of entrained particles during steam eruptions causing phreatic eruptions. The violent nature of volcanic eruptions involving steam results in the magma and solid rock surrounding the vent being torn into particles of clay to sand size.

If a volcanic eruption occurs beneath glacial ice, cold water from melted ice chills the lava quickly and fragments it into glass, creating small glass particles that get carried into the eruption plume. This can create a glass-rich plume in the upper atmosphere which is particularly hazardous to aircraft

Not in this case. As I said, according to all news reports about this volcano, the glaciers were a major cause of the problem as shown in the second part of your post. The lack of major glaciers in Pacific Northwest lessens the possiblity of this happening greatly. Anything is possible in nature but our odds are good of avoiding that kind of activity. Mount St. Helens certainly was not that kind of problem.