venta: (Default)
[personal profile] venta
So...
1. Choking plumes of ash in the sky, lots of sulphorous gas emitted.
2. Very little aviation in parts of Europe for 24 hours.

Is that a net gain or a net loss for climate change?

Date: 2010-04-16 09:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] venta.livejournal.com
I admit I have absolutely no idea - I just filing them all under "crap in the sky". I wasn't assuming that because the volcanic stuff is naturally occuring it was necessarily non-harmful.

Date: 2010-04-16 09:22 am (UTC)
zotz: (Default)
From: [personal profile] zotz
The tendency is for volcanic eruptions to cool the earth for a while after. They tend to reflect sunlight rather than absorb reemitted heat.

This can cause its own problems, of course.

Date: 2010-04-16 10:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] drdoug.livejournal.com
Indeed - some of the wackier geo-engineering solutions to climate change involve dumping lots of sulphates in the stratosphere (IMO a pretty bad plan) or tickling volcanoes to get them to erupt a lot (IMO a staggeringly bad plan, especially when done with nukes).

Date: 2010-04-16 09:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.com
Mmm, acid rain.

Profile

venta: (Default)
venta

December 2024

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
2223 2425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2025 06:33 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios